A man has vowed to continue his battle against residents’ parking schemes which, he insists, are discriminatory, as they favour one motorist over another, depending on where they reside.
Joseph Borg and his wife, Maria Victoria, filed an appeal over the latest Constitutional Court ruling that residents’ parking schemes were not discriminatory.
Mr Borg began his battle more than 14 years ago, soon after being slapped with a contravention for parking his car in a bay reserved for Pietà residents when he was a Swieqi resident.
He 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 to the same authority which cannot discriminate between its contributors.
His arguments were upheld by the First Hall of the Civil Court which ruled that councils had no legal remit to implement such parking schemes on their own initiative. It declared such schemes as discriminatory, deeming them a “preferential measure”.
It found that the Pietà council had acted 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.
The decision was confirmed on appeal but the Constitutional Court 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.
The Constitutional Court, presided over by Madam Justice Jacqueline Padovani Grima, disagreed with the stance of the civil court, saying the Borg’s arguments did not satisfy the criteria for upholding a discrimination claim.
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 as close as possible to their homes. It 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 the remaining bays.
However, she said “this is in no way comparable” to the “daily martyrdom” faced by “poor residents” when they seek to park close to their homes.
But Mr Borg insists that the Appeals Court confirmed the decision of the First Hall of the Civil Court and therefore it cannot be revoked or disturbed in any way. In his appeal, signed by constitutional lawyer Tonio Azzopardi, Mr Borg said the court had reached the wrong conclusion and had not understood the implications of the decision. Moreover, he argued that in its attempt to strike a balance between parking requirements of residents and those from other localities, the court had created “even more imbalance”.
He held that the court had referred, on more than one occasion, to the need of respect for the principle of proportionality but failed to reach any.
“If proportionality is to be applied, a certain amount of reserved parking only for residents in any locality must be done in conjunction with a certain amount reserved solely for visitors,” Mr Borg argued.
He insists that parking on Malta’s streets should be afforded on a first-come-first-served basis, “as equality before the law should always prevail”.
Controlled parking is in force in 19 localities across Malta and Gozo. 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”.