Residents’ parking schemes may become a permanent fixture in more localities around the islands now that a constitutional court has ruled they are not discriminatory.
This was the bone of contention in a hard-fought, drawn-out legal battle embarked upon by a Swieqi couple in 2002 when they received a ticket for parking their car in a bay reserved for Pietà residents only.
Joseph and Maria Victoria Borg argued that the residents’ parking scheme was illegal, because it gave rise to discrimination between one motorist and another, who both pay the same road licence fee.
But Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima disagreed with their arguments on legal grounds.
The Borgs based their arguments on Article 45 of the Constitution, which lays down that “no person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner by any person acting by virtue of any written law or in the performance of the functions of any public office or any public authority”.
The court referred extensively to a court judgment handed down in 2007 which found that the Pietà council had acted ultra vires (outside its remit) and that the council had to apply traffic regulations which were applicable to one and all and not just to residents of a particular locality.
Judge Lino Farrugia Sacco upheld the Borgs’ case that councils had no legal remit to implement such parking schemes on their own initiative. But Madam Justice Padovani Grima said this decision could not be taken as having set a precedent, because at the time that the parking contravention was issued, the Pietà council had introduced the residential parking scheme without having sought permission from the authorities.
She delved into the human aspect of the parking problem in Malta. The court, she said, understood the frustration experienced by residents, who wanted to find parking spaces available as close as possible to their houses.
The court also understood the arguments put forward by those who regularly visited localities with parking restrictions and found it difficult to find a parking space in those bays allocated to visitors.
However, she said that “this is in no way comparable” to the “daily martyrdom” faced by “poor residents” when they seek to park close to their houses.
Residents’ parking schemes alleviated this problem. They created a balance between visitors and residents.
She gave as an example a Valletta resident who benefited from parking reserved for residents and complained of discrimination when visiting Mdina, which also has restrictions in favour of its residents.
Therefore, she contended, Mr and Mrs Borg could not claim that they were being discriminated against.
The court ruled that the couple’s arguments did not satisfy the criteria for upholding a discrimination claim on the basis of article 45.
This decision by the Constitutional Court could pave the way for more localities to introduce parking schemes to favour their own residents.
It is understood that there are about 17 pending applications at Transport Malta from local councils to create their own residential parking schemes. They have been on hold, awaiting a judgment in this case, sources said.
Transport Malta is currently studying the judgment’s ramifications. However, a spokesman said it was working on a parking policy which looked at the parking problems that exist in every locality “in a holistic manner”.
In 2009, the Sliema council introduced a parking scheme for residents, but Transport Minister Joe Mizzi quickly suspended it in reaction to a strike by teachers who work in Sliema.
Following this decision, Mr Mizzi said that residents’ parking schemes “should be abolished”.
Controlled parking is in force in 19 localities across Malta and Gozo.
matthew.xuereb@timesofmalta.com