Malta has made some progress in protecting the legal rights of migrants and asylum seekers but has done nothing to fix the lack of transparency surrounding citizenship decisions in the past three years, the Council of Europe's commission against racism has found. 

The European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance's conclusions, based on recommendations it had published in a 2013 country report profiling Malta, are something of a mixed bag for the country. 

The ECRI's original 2013 report had noted several key issues that raised concern, with it highlighting three problems in particular: 

1. The Citizenship Act left much up to authorities' discretion, with no grounds of appeal and no measurable criteria by which to measure an application's suitability. The existing system also granted people who acquired citizenship through naturalisation or registration less favourable treatment. 

2. Migrants, including asylum seekers, were subject to mandatory detention in many cases, with no alternative remedies available.

3. Asylum seekers had no form of legal aid provided to them, nor were there clear procedures in place by which they could access their own case file. 

Three years on, the ECRI has reassessed Malta and found that while Malta has made partial progress on points 2 and 3, it has failed to do anything about the Citizenship Act, other than to introduce the ability to buy citizenship outright. 

The removal of mandatory detention for asylum seekers was a good step forward, the CoE report found. Photo: Darrin Zammit LupiThe removal of mandatory detention for asylum seekers was a good step forward, the CoE report found. Photo: Darrin Zammit Lupi

While Malta had introduced alternatives to detention for asylum seekers, legal remedies for other migrants remained elusive, the commission found. 

Asylum seekers could now appear before the Refugee Appeals Board in person, the ECRI found - a positive step forward. But they continued to struggle to get legal representation, with free legal aid only made available to them at the appeals stage. And while existing procedures appeared to make it possible for them to access their case files in theory, "this does not always happen in practice," the ECRI noted. 

The ECRI therefore concluded that Malta had failed to implement one and partially implemented two of its three priority recommendations. 

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.