A Maltese family who argued that fireworks being set off 200 metres from their residence violated their right to a family life have had their case thrown out by the Europe Court of Human Rights.

The Zammit Maempel family, who live in a converted farmhouse in San Ġwann, argued that fireworks had permanently damaged the hearing of one member, caused damage to their house and posed a health and safety risk to them.

The family’s battle to stop fireworks in their vicinity began in the mid-1990s

But the ECHR found that, while the noise and pollution caused by the fireworks were sufficient to make the family’s claims admissible, the Maltese government had struck a fair balance between the rights of the complainants and broader community interests.

It also noted that the family knew all about the fireworks’ irritant when they bought the property in 1994 because the previous owner had told them of the danger. This, the Court felt, was a “weighty factor” to consider, “irrespective of the fact that they were lawfully entitled to live there”.

The Court upheld the government’s defence of village feasts and fireworks’ cultural importance, saying that “it has no doubt that traditional village feasts can be considered as part of Maltese cultural and religious heritage”.

The family’s battle to stop fireworks being set off in their vicinity began at an unspecified date in the mid-1990s. When complaints to the police were fruitless, the Zammit Maempels took their complaint to the Ombudsman, who, in December 1999, recommended that the Police Commissioner consult a group of experts before granting fireworks permits. Against the experts’ recommendation and in defiance of the Ombudsman, the Police Commissioner continued to issue permits for the letting off of fireworks.

As a result, the family took the issue to court. The Civil Court found in the family’s favour and the government appealed the judgement. The Constitutional Court reversed the judgement, leading to the ECHR proceedings.

There was also vindication for the government’s definition of “inhabited areas” as ones in which at least 100 people lived.

The Zammit Maempel family had argued that the definition was discriminatory because minute hamlets such as theirs did not fall within this definition.

Not so, the ECHR ruled. Agreeing with the Constitutional Court, it found that the distinction between inhabited and uninhabited areas had to keep in mind Malta’s small size and densely populated nature.

Saying that the family’s claims of discrimination were “manifestly ill-founded”, the ECHR ruled that, given Malta’s geographical limitations, the distances being discussed and the government’s efforts to minimise inconvenience, any difference in treatment between those living in inhabited and uninhabited areas “was objectively and reasonably justified”.

This would appear to be the end of the line for the Zammit Maempels’ decade-long crusade with the ECHR Grand Chamber only accepting appeals referrals on the rarest of occasions.