The former Attorney General of Malta, Anthony Borg Barthet, who is now a judge at the European Court of Justice, has highlighted that Maltese society does not appear to be sufficiently aware of the legal rights it acquired under European Union law.
He felt this was not just the case with Maltese citizens, but also reflected on those in the legal profession, the University of Malta and the judiciary.
In an interview with Times of Malta, he deplored the fact that in many cases EU law was not being invoked. He considered that people should be more proactive and not expect the European Commission to take the action in every circumstance – presumably, Dr Borg Barthet had in mind those cases where the government or an institution was breaking EU law but was not prosecuted as appeared arguably to be the case over spring hunting in Malta.
He particularly emphasised the everyday aspects of life affecting the man in the street, such as consumer law.
He also rightly cited some of the “draconian punishments” handed down by the Maltese courts which were in breach of a fundamental principle of European law that “any punishment handed down by a court must be proportional to the offence committed”.
He argued that if neither the defence lawyer, nor the presiding judge was aware of this principle there was the risk of an unfair sentence being awarded.
The ECJ has 28 judges, one from each member state. Its role is to interpret EU law to make sure that it is applied uniformly in all EU countries. It also settles legal disputes between EU governments and the EU institutions.
Individuals, companies or organisations may also bring cases before the ECJ if they feel that their rights have been infringed by an EU institution. To help the European Court to cope with the large number of cases brought before it and to offer better legal protection, a ‘General Court’ deals with cases brought forward by private individuals, companies and some organisations, as well as cases relating to competition law.
The types of cases most commonly handled by the ECJ range from national courts asking for an interpretation on a point of EU law, to actions taken against governments for not applying EU law, to actions against institutions for failing to make the decisions required of them, and direct actions brought by individuals against EU decisions or actions. The range is wide.
It is therefore all the more surprising that in a country as litigious as Malta lack of awareness of the legal avenues open to Maltese citizens at the ECJ is apparently so prevalent.
What can be done to bridge the awareness gap? First, the process should start with the legal profession and the judiciary. When an ordinary individual has a legal case to settle he should be reliant on the professional advice of his legal representative, and he should expect the judge or magistrate dealing with the case to know the law, including his rights under EU law.
The University law faculty should examine whether teaching of EU law plays a sufficient part in the course.
Secondly, there should be much wider dissemination by the Malta-EU Steering and Action Committee, whose prime job is to provide plain and simple information about the EU institutions, as well as the rights of Maltese as EU citizens. While MEUSAC does good work in keeping Malta abreast of EU developments, Dr Borg Barthet appears to have exposed a gap in information which it should fill.