Firework enthusiasts in landmark victory at the European Court
The European Court ruled today that the granting of permits for firework displays close to people's homes did not breach human rights.
The court's decision was taken following a complaint by the Zammit Maempel family of San Gwann who pleaded that the granting of permits for fireworks twice a year in the vicinity of their home in San Gwann breached their rights and endangered their life and property.
The Zammit Maempels pleaded that they have lived in their house since 1994. It is one of three houses in a remote area of grassland which has not been classified as "inhabited" since fewer than 100 people live in the area.
They said that every time fireworks are let off from that area, their lives, physical health and personal safety are put at risk. In addition, the debris produced by the fireworks caused considerable damage to their home.
Over the years, the applicants complained to the Commissioner of Police, to no avail. They also turned to the Ombudsman who concluded, in December 1999, that the Commissioner of Police should seek expert advice. A group of experts entrusted with looking into the situation recommended that the fields used for the firework displays should be classified as a restricted area under the applicable regulations.
On another occasion, in 2001, the Ombudsman criticised the issuing of licenses, in particular as regards the applicable distances and type of fireworks. Nonetheless, the Commissioner of Police continued to issue permits for two feasts a year ever since.
In 2005, the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings in the civil court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The court found partly in their favour agreeing that the noise levels caused by the fireworks were too high and that the fireworks had damaged their property and impaired the hearing of at least one of them.
Those findings were overturned on appeal. In 2009, the Constitutional Court found that, while the noise and peril from the fireworks had caused the applicants some inconvenience, the relevant regulations had been applied correctly and had struck a fair balance between the applicants' rights and the interest of the community as a whole.
The case was then taken to the European Court of Human Rights.
In its unanimous decision, the court said it was undisputed that the noise produced by the fireworks had lasted only for a limited time. Despite that, it had affected – even if only temporarily - the physical and psychological state of the applicants who had been exposed to it. Consequently, their right to respect for their private lives and home had been disturbed sufficiently to make their
complaint admissible.
The Court accepted that firework displays are one of the highlights of village feasts which undeniably generated an amount of income and which, therefore, aided the general economy. Moreover, traditional village feasts could be considered as part of the Maltese cultural and religious heritage.
The Court then noted that the noise levels could have impaired the hearing of at least one of the applicants. At the same time, there had not been a real and immediate risk to the applicants' life or personal integrity.
The letting off of fireworks had also damaged the applicants' property, although the damage had been minimal and reversible.
In addition, the Government had been aware of the dangers of fireworks and had put in place a system whereby people and properties were protected to a certain degree. Thus, the issuing of permits for firework displays, as well as for transportation and uploading of fireworks, had been provided for in specific regulations.
The actual letting off of fireworks had been further monitored by police inspectors and fire-fighters. Insurance covering the activity had also been mandatory.
It was true that experts had made recommendations supporting the applicants'
position. Given that the Commissioner of Police had not followed the experts' advice, the Zammit Maempels could have challenged his/her decisions in ordinary civil court proceedings; therefore, an avenue for seeking redress at national level had been open to them. As they had instead undertaken constitutional redress proceedings, it could not be said that they had not had an opportunity to make their views heard. The fact that the outcome of those proceedings had not been favourable to them was not sufficient to establish that they had not had access to the decision-making process.
Finally, the court said, they had acquired the property while aware of the situation of which they were complaining.
In respect of the complaint alleging discriminatory treatment, the court reiterated that a fair balance had been struck between the applicants' and the community's interests, and that any difference in treatment between the applicants and people living in areas classified as "inhabited" had been objectively justified.
The Court rejected the complaint related to their property, finding that the applicants had not raised the issue before the Maltese courts.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
33 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Mario J Spiteri
Nov 24th 2011, 23:21
Well & good for those who shall express a gratitude to the volunteers that give us an impressive show every year and also durig festivals in Malta & Gozo & even abroad! Thank you very much to the decision made by the European Court. God bless you all & take care.
Mario J Spiteri
Nov 24th 2011, 23:20
Well & good for those who shall express a gratitude to the volunteers that give us an impressive show every year and also durig festivals in Malta & Gozo & even abroad! Thank you very much to the decision made by the European Court. God bless you all & take care.
Mark Anthony Fenech
Nov 24th 2011, 19:18
A very sad day...
John Azzopoardi
Nov 24th 2011, 15:37
Fireworks are beautiful and part of our culture. Leave them alone . Just put safety measures in place and let them reign
Keith Cauchi
Nov 24th 2011, 08:48
@ Carmel Muscat: Jiddispjaċini inwaqqagħlek l-argument imma nibda bija stess, jaħarqu n-nar ħdejja u iktar minn darba f'sena peress li ngawdu mill-festi tal-Kottonera, Ħaż-Żabbar, il-Fgura u r-Raħal Ġdid - Imma qatt ma nsib xejn kontrihom, anzi nieħu gost għax fihom spettaklu fl-aħħar mill-aħħar. Jien napprezza l-fatt li trid ħafna ħila, kuraġġ, paċenzja u ħafna flus biex taħdimhom u konxju li hu l-waqt tal-manufattura li hu l-iktar perikoluż. Il-mument fejn dak ix-xogħol jikkulmina fil-ħruq u l-ispettaklu sabiħ, hemmhekk joħroġ il-frott tax-xogħol kollu.
Il-logħob tan-nar ormaj sar irregolat bl-aħrax u m'hemmx f'xiex wieħed jitfixkel: m'għadux iktar lok li ngħidu li għadna fejn konna qabel l-inċident tan-Naxxar. Inċidenti sfortunatament iseħħu, hu x'inhu, wieħed irid iżomm f'moħħu li jkun qed jimmanifattura oġġett li m'huwiex stabbli waqt it-taħlit. Imma wara li jintlaħaq ir-riżultat mixtieq, huwa prodott li m'huwiex ta' periklu serju f'kundizzjonijiet normali, iġifieri, sakemm ma jsirx tbagħbis u sakemm il-murtal ma jgħaddix minn skossi qawwijin għalxejn, m'hemmx imniex wieħed iħabbel rasu.
Ta' l-aħħar, aħna l-Maltin ma nirbħux kompetizzjonijiet fil-festivals tan-nar lokali u barranin ta' xejn!
Mr Mario Zammit
Nov 24th 2011, 08:43
Well done to the European Court. This is not only a victory for Fireworks enthusisats but to the whole Maltese traditions and culture:-)
Brian Camilleri
Nov 24th 2011, 08:26
I'm still waiting for that day when the autorities will abolish all fireworks - amen
Mr Mario Zammit
Nov 24th 2011, 10:46
What hobbies/Interests you have Mr Brian Camilleri....?
Sandro Pace
Nov 23rd 2011, 23:52
The first sentence is misleading I think. One should define how close is close, and that the circumstances concern a rural area, not a dense urban area, the damage minimal and easily contained, and in no time there was any real danger to life or limb. One should also note that this does not concern manufacturing or storage. Lest one should interpret everything the wrong way or start taking literal liberties in the name of culture.
After the Naxxar incident, this activity was rightly tightened, however such sentences, though perhaps reasonable in the circumstances may start sending the wrong signals or be thought of a blessing to take risks with peoples' property or life again. Authorities are urged to keep up the guard.
Fireworks displays are nice and enjoyable, but only with the necessary safeguards to life, limb and property, at every stage. Which are sacrosanct, and goes well beyond culture or other economical benefits. Only that way they can be enjoyed by all, and are morally and economically worth it.
carmel muscat
Nov 23rd 2011, 19:36
in nar jogobni imma ha najdilkom ahjar tkunu sincirra u tajdu li likiku in nar jinharaq hdejkom hadt ma jamel kumenti favur in nar ax kif jadt il qawl malti hadt ma irid lil pulizzija wara daru u ejja inkunu sincirri
Charles Sammut
Nov 23rd 2011, 19:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S52p2AMISFk
As you can see this is quite 'normal' in other EU countries. This accident only killed 0.0000016% of the Dutch population and demolished a few hundred homes. Part of the culture and tradition so it must be right and justified in the interest of the other 999999984% of the population.
Mr Mario Zammit
Nov 24th 2011, 08:40
Xghadnu xjaqsam Sur Charles Sammut. Here you re talking about illegal storage of Fireworks in inhabitat areas.
The court is talking about leting off of Fireworks from rural areas. Know what your talking about before you speak.
V Mercieca
Nov 23rd 2011, 19:15
I sympathise with the Zammit Maempel’s. I too live close to where fireworks are let off.
Like the Zammit Maempel’s I also moved into my house about the same time in 1993. I remember that in the first year a neighbour suffered structural damage in his house because of the vibrations of the explosions.
It is a pity that whoever advised the Zammit Maempel’s missed first applying to the local courts before going to the European Court.
Gordon Grech
Nov 23rd 2011, 19:12
Well done to all those who worked on this issue in order to safeguard part of the Maltese Culture.
Joseph Mifsud
Nov 23rd 2011, 18:58
Those who are against fireworks in Malta are not against fireworks as such but against Maltese culture.
Luke Lanzon
Nov 23rd 2011, 23:11
not really I have nothing against Maltese culture except fireworks (too noisy) and 1 other thing, but I accept the fact that people in Malta and tourists that come here like fireworks, so just let it be.
Peter McKing
Nov 24th 2011, 06:13
That's not true, Joseph, and you know this. Thinking before writing publicly, please! There are thousands of people who love the Maltese culture but dislike especially the noise of fireworks. So, please, don't jugde in such an arrogant and intolerant way.
Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Nov 23rd 2011, 18:04
Prosit lid-delettanti tan-nar Maltin u Għawdxin.
Ma jistax ikun li kullħad jibni fejn irid, u jkunu jafu x'inhuma s-sitwazzjonijiet f'dak il-post, u wara li jakwistaw dak li jriedu, jippruvaw jostakolaw u jwaqfu irħula u bliet Maltin u Għawdxin mill-jiċċelebraw il-festi tradizzjonali bħal-dejjem.
Naħseb tort ta' dan kollu hija l-MEPA li ħarġet ħafna permessi b'diversi skużi, bħal irziezet għal-fniek, stalel għaz-zwiemel u oħrajn u wara saru vilel jew postijiet ta' abitazzjoni jew villeġjatura!
Fejn kien għalikom l-Ambjent meta ħriġtu dawn il-permessi Sinjuri tal-MEPA.
Mela ifirħu delettanti tal-festi u tan-nar, għax illum għamiltu rebħa kbira biex jkomplu jikbru u jissaħħu l-festi Maltin u Għawdxin!
Schembri Ray
Nov 23rd 2011, 21:50
Prosit Nen. Naħsiba bħalek għaliex in-nar ilu żmien twil u qatt ma saret ħsara, pero abbużi jsiru għaliex ċertu aseġarazzjoniet fil-ħsejjes naħseb li ma tantx iġibu simpatija.
Stephen Grech
Nov 23rd 2011, 17:01
Ikkoreguni jekk sejjer zball imma sa fejn naf jien il-familja Zammit Maempel kienet qieghda tilminta kontra il-hruq tan-nar fill-festi ta Sant'Elena u Sant Antnin f'Birkirkara meta ghal-festa ta Sant Antnin jidhirli li in-nar ta' l-ajru ilu li inqata snin ilu. Jista xi hadd jikkonfermali dan ?
Kif qal tajjeb hafna Riccardo Borg l-ewwel immorru fejn hemm in-nar imbghad biex nigbru haqq il-flus ghall-propjeta li hallasna ghaliha nippretendu li inwaqqfu in-nar.
riccardo borg
Nov 23rd 2011, 16:16
With all due respect to the Zammit Maempet Family, as the EUROPE Court stated - the family knew about the twice yearly firepworks display in the area. The family must have taken that 'minus' in the deal for the property in their favour.
They cannot expect people who were there before them to make space so that the family could make a killing if one day it decides to sell.
Well, you have two good opportunities to take the family on holiday on those two fireworks occasions for as long as they last. You would miss the noise for one thing. Well, you can't have a cake and eat it, I'm sorry for you.
J Gauci
Nov 23rd 2011, 18:06
I take it you've seen the house in question and have concluded that it was built after the nearby factory began operations. Has it crossed your mind that it may be a very old farmhouse that has been there for decades to say the least. How you associate Mr. Zammit Maempel right to protect his family and property with buying a property to "make a killing if one day it decides to sell" is laughable. Just because something was tolerated by the previous tenants does not make it correct...just in case you missed a part the court acknowledged that damage to the property is being caused and there are health risks. Even if the obligatory insurance covered the damage caused it is still not acceptable. Now if the insurance covered the holidays you're suggesting maybe there's room to move forward.
J. Debono
Nov 23rd 2011, 20:03
@ J. Gauci
If you followed the story, they built or bought the house AFTER the time where fireworks were burnt there, and they knew about it. So they should have complained BEFORE they bought the house not after.
J Gauci
Nov 23rd 2011, 22:54
@J.Debono
If you followed by post it states that the house may have been built BEFORE! I never stated that it was not bought AFTER. But you're right the fact that they bought it after justifies the ongoing damage.
Henry S. Pace
Nov 23rd 2011, 15:36
' The Court accepted that firework displays are one of the highlights of village feasts which undeniably generated an amount of income and which, therefore, aided the general economy. '
May I ask the Authorities (The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the Commissioner of VAT) if Fireworks Factories are registered with these Entities.? Do they issue Vat Receipts ?
carmel callus
Nov 23rd 2011, 16:36
Iddahhaqx sur Pace. The Court referred to fireworks displays which attract people and not fireworks factories.
G. Portelli
Nov 23rd 2011, 17:32
They do not work to earn money from the fireworks they manufacture.
ADRIAN GRECH
Nov 24th 2011, 08:16
They are a non profit organization.
Richard Galea
Nov 23rd 2011, 15:05
Bravi ta' Europa!!! Malta being the outpost of the European southern flank need to have it citizens accustomed to continuous bombing......Just in case like last war.
M. Degiorgio
Nov 23rd 2011, 15:32
ma naghmlux ghageb ghid... "continuous bombing", "war"...... mela qed tahseb qeghdin l-Egittu?!
M. Bezzina
Nov 23rd 2011, 16:23
or Libya!!
Tony Caruana
Nov 23rd 2011, 14:51
GOOD , Now they should move to a flat on the front.
Mr C Busuttil
Nov 23rd 2011, 15:29
ma tantx jaqbel jaghmlu hekk ghax anke hemm ikun hemm il-loghob tan-nar !!!!!!!!!!!
Prosit il Qorti sentenza li taghmel giustizzja lit-tradizzjonijiet u l-kultura taghna