A recent court judgment which ordered a bar owner to pay damages over loud music disturbances is not being viewed as setting a precedent which could impact the future of the entertainment industry, according to the GRTU.

Philip Fenech, vice president of the Chamber of Small and Medium Enterprises (GRTU), which represents entertainment establishments, expressed this view when the Times of Malta sought his reaction on the possible repercussions of the decision.

Without going into details, Mr Fenech noted that there had been similar cases in the past.

“Obviously, such claims cannot be frivolous, as the plaintiff needs to produce solid evidence,” Mr Fenech said.

Read: Bar owners ordered to pay €25,000 compensation for noise disturbance

Mr Fenech, who in the past owned a Paceville club himself, pointed out that there were clear regulations on amplified music. He noted that owners of entertainment establishments were bound to take several mitigating measures like soundproofing ­­– certified by acoustic engineers.

On the other hand, he said the record tourist arrivals of recent years would inevitably have some form of impact on the community in general.

“However, as long as residents are respected and all activities are held within the parameters of the law, there is nothing wrong in this,” he said.

Tony Zahra, president of the Malta Hotels and Restaurants Association acknowledged that the association receives complaints about loud music, but pointed out that this was “one of many” issues which needed to be addressed alongside other matters like security and cleanliness.

Mr Zahra said these issues were symptomatic of what he described as “weak enforcement” in a small country like Malta, where everyone knows each other.

These issues were symptomatic of what he described as “weak enforcement” in a small country like Malta, where everyone knows each other

“This judgment could be a positive development in the sense that it conveys the message that laws are there to be respected by everyone,” he added.

From a civic perspective, the Noise Abatement Society of Malta welcomed the development but noted that it took seven years for the case to be concluded.

“It is very rare for damages to be awarded over noise disturbances, and if it happens, proceedings take for far too long,” NASM secretary John Fenech said.

Mr Fenech noted that existing regulations leave a lot to be desired. Moreover, the NASM official pointed out that there was a fundamental flaw when it comes to enforcement.

“You cannot have a watchdog which is only functional during office hours, as, more often than not, abuses happen at night,” he remarked.

“That means that any reports have to be dealt with by the police, for whom noise pollution seems to be very low on their law and order agenda,” he added.

Mr Fenech said that in the eyes of Maltese law, noise was still considered as a form of nuisance rather than as pollution.

“Another shortcoming is that we have very few noise criteria or benchmarks in our legislation. Hence noise is assessed subjectively – and how loud is loud?” he said.

In this respect, the association has submitted an infringement complaint to the EU Commission.

“We feel that Maltese authorities did not implement EU regulations in full. Furthermore, local legislation regarding vehicle noise levels runs counter to the EU rules,” Mr Fenech said.

“You cannot pick and choose whichever regulations you like and at the same time intro-duce legislation which goes against EU rules.”

What was the case about?

The case revolves around a compensation request that was filed by a Paceville hotel in 2011 against a bar situated in the lower levels of the same building.

According to the plaintiffs, the late-night disturbances caused by the loud music played in the establishment caused many sleepless nights for the hotel guests, resulting in lost business.

In its decision, the court ordered the bar owner to pay €25,000 in damages.

However, it took seven years for the case to be decided, by which time the hotel was no longer in existence, as the block had been demolished and transferred to third parties.