The European Court ruled today that the granting of permits for firework displays close to people's homes did not breach human rights.

The court's decision was taken following a complaint by the Zammit Maempel family of San Gwann  who pleaded that the granting  of permits for fireworks twice a year  in the vicinity of their home in San Gwann breached their rights and endangered their life and property.

The Zammit Maempels pleaded that they have lived in their house since 1994. It is one of three houses in a remote area of grassland which has not been classified as "inhabited" since fewer than 100 people live in the area.

They said that every time fireworks are let off from that area, their lives, physical health and personal safety are  put at risk. In addition, the debris produced by the fireworks caused considerable damage to their home.

Over the years, the applicants complained to the Commissioner of Police, to no avail. They also turned to the Ombudsman who concluded, in December 1999, that the Commissioner of Police should seek expert advice. A group of experts entrusted with looking into the situation recommended that the fields used for the firework displays should be classified as a restricted area under the applicable regulations.

On another occasion, in 2001, the Ombudsman criticised the issuing of licenses, in particular as regards the applicable distances and type of fireworks. Nonetheless, the Commissioner of Police continued to issue permits for two feasts a year ever since.

In 2005, the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings in the civil court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The court found partly in their favour agreeing that the noise levels caused by the fireworks were too high and that the fireworks had damaged their property and impaired the hearing of at least one of them.
 
Those findings were overturned on appeal. In 2009, the Constitutional Court found that, while the noise and peril from the fireworks had caused the applicants some inconvenience, the relevant regulations had been applied correctly and had struck a fair balance between the applicants' rights and the interest of the community as a whole.
 
The case was then taken to the European Court of Human Rights.

In its unanimous decision, the court said it was undisputed that the noise produced by the fireworks had lasted only for a limited time. Despite that, it had affected – even if only temporarily - the physical and psychological state of the applicants who had been exposed to it. Consequently, their right to respect for their private lives and home had been disturbed sufficiently to make their
complaint admissible.

The Court accepted that firework displays are one of the highlights of village feasts which undeniably generated an amount of income and which, therefore, aided the general economy. Moreover, traditional village feasts could be considered as part of the Maltese cultural and religious heritage.

The Court then noted that the noise levels could have impaired the hearing of at least one of the applicants. At the same time, there had not been a real and immediate risk to the applicants' life or personal integrity.

The letting off of fireworks had also damaged the applicants' property, although the damage had been minimal and reversible.

In addition, the Government had been aware of the dangers of fireworks and had put in place a system whereby people and properties were protected to a certain degree. Thus, the issuing of permits for firework displays, as well as for transportation and uploading of fireworks, had been provided for in specific regulations.

The actual letting off of fireworks had been further monitored by police inspectors and fire-fighters. Insurance covering the activity had also been mandatory.

It was true that experts had made recommendations supporting the applicants'
position. Given that the Commissioner of Police had not followed the experts' advice, the Zammit Maempels could have challenged his/her decisions in ordinary civil court proceedings; therefore, an avenue for seeking redress at national level had been open to them. As they had instead undertaken constitutional redress proceedings, it could not be said that they had not had an opportunity to make their views heard. The fact that the outcome of those proceedings had not been favourable to them was not sufficient to establish that they had not had access to the decision-making process.

Finally, the court said, they had acquired the property while aware of the situation of which they were complaining.

In respect of the complaint alleging discriminatory treatment, the court reiterated that a fair balance had been struck between the applicants' and the community's interests, and that any difference in treatment between the applicants and people living in areas classified as "inhabited" had been objectively justified.

The Court rejected the complaint related to their property, finding that the applicants had not raised the issue before the Maltese courts.