Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
In 2016, the applicants, a mother and daughter, applied for international protection in Malta. The Refugee Commissioner granted them temporary humanitarian protection, which was renewed annually. However, in 2021, the respondent Agency revoked their temporary status and residency . The applicants contested the Agency’s decision before the International Protection Appeal Tribunal arguing that the circumstances under which they were granted this status had not changed. The International Protection Appeal Tribunal rejected the appeal on the basis of the fact that Article 17A(2) of International Protection Act (Chapter 420 of the Laws of Malta) did not grant the right of appeal in instances where temporary humanitarian protection has been withdrawn.
The applicants' challenged the constitutionality of Article 17A(2) in front of the Civil Court First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction). This provision allows for the revocation, termination, or non-renewal of temporary humanitarian protection status when the conditions under which it was granted no longer exist, or when the beneficiary was or should have been excluded from eligibility for such protection. It also states that no appeal can be made against the Agency's decision to revoke, terminate, or refuse to renew Temporary Humanitarian Protection.
They argued that this provision was violating the fundamental rights protected by Articles 32(a) and 39(2) of the Maltese Constitution. Furthermore, they claimed it is not in line with Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.They also claimed that their rights had been violated because they were not given the opportunity to defend their position before the revocation. The Civil Court dismissed their claim on the basis of the fact that, amongst other procedural points, the Charter does not apply in this instance as temporary protection is granted on the basis of national law and not EU law.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The core issue is whether the lack of an appeal infringes on the above-mentioned constitutional and EU-guaranteed rights.
Outcome of the case:
The Court noted that Article 32(a) does not provide grounds for legal action as Article 46(1) clarifies that remedies for violations pertain only to rights specified in Articles 33 to 45 of the Maltese Constitution, thus excluding from its jurisdiction Article 32. The Court concluded that, while procedural safeguards must be observed, the specific right to appeal claimed was not applicable to the case. The Court further noted that the proceedings in question did not involve the determination of civil rights or obligations or criminal charges, and therefore the right to a fair hearing for such determination was not protected by Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta. The Court also found that Article 47 of the EU Charter did not apply as the proceedings related to asylum applications did not involve direct references or applications of EU law that would necessitate the protection afforded by Article 47. Instead, they were based on national provisions governing the asylum process.
Consequently, the applicant's claim for judicial review of the administrative decision denying their asylum application was dismissed. This decision left the applicant without a legal basis to challenge the national authorities' ruling.
27. Ma għandu jkun hemm ebda dubbju li dan it-Trattat huwa llum parti mil-liġijiet anke jekk il-Kap 319 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta ma jagħmel ebda referenza għalih. Il-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea, għalkemm mhux inkorporati fil-leġislazzjoni domestika speċifika, huwa applikabbli u għandu effett fuq pajjiżna.
28. Jiġi wkoll ippreċiżat li permezz tal-artikolu 3 tal-Kap 460, il-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea torbot lil Malta u hija parti mil-liġi domestika nostrana. Dana ġie affermat mill-Qrati Maltin fisSentenza fl-ismijiet Raymond Caruana vs L-Avukat Ġenerali deċiża fit-28 ta’ Frar 2013 fejn ingħad hekk:
“Illi l-Qorti taqbel mar-rikorrent li l-imsemmija Karta llum tagħmel parti milliġi domestika Maltija u li l-Qrati Maltin iridu iqisu u jħaddnu bħal ma jħaddnu kull liġi oħra fl-ordinament li għandha effett dirett ..... it-tħaddim tad-disposizzjonijiet tal-imsemmija Karta jipprovdi li (1) Id-disposizzjonijiet ta’ din il-Karta huma intiżi għall-istituzzjonijiet, għall-korpi u għall-aġenziji tal-unjoni fir-rispett tal-prinċipju ta’ sussidjarjeta` u għall-Istati Membri wkoll biss meta ikun qed jimplimentaw il-liġi tal-unjoni. Huma għandhom għaldaqstant jirrispettaw id-drittijiet, josservaw il-prinċipji u jippromwovu l-applikazzjoni tagħhom, skont il-kompetenzi rispettivi tagħhom u fir-rispett tal-limiti tal-kompetenzi tal-unjoni kif mogħtija lilha fit-Trattati.” (Emfażi ta’ din il-Qorti).29. Għalhekk minn dan kollu jinsorġi li l-applikazzjoni u tħaddim ta’ ksur ta’ provvediment tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet tal-Unjoni Ewropea jista’ jiġi mistħarreġ biss mill-Qrati tagħna jekk il-ksur jirrigwarda liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea.
...
31. Għalhekk fil-każ in eżami qatt ma jista’ jkun hemm ksur tal-artikolu 47 tal-Karta għaliex għalkemm huwa minnu li bl-invokazzjoni tal-Kap 420 tesisti inċidenza ta’ liġi Ewropeja ...
27. There should be no doubt that this Charter is today part of the law, even though Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta makes no reference to it. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, although not incorporated into specific domestic legislation, is applicable and has an effect on our country.
28. It should also be specified that through Article 3 of Chapter 460, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union binds Malta and is part of our domestic law. This was affirmed by the Maltese Courts in the judgment in the names of Raymond Caruana vs. the Attorney General, decided on February 28, 2013, where it was stated:
‘That the Court agrees with the appellant that the aforementioned Charter today forms part of Maltese domestic law and that the Maltese Courts must consider and uphold it as they do with any other law in the legal order that has direct effect... the implementation of the provisions of the aforementioned Charter provides that (1) the provisions of this Charter are intended for the institutions, bodies, and agencies of the Union in respect of the principle of subsidiarity and for the Member States only when implementing Union law. They must therefore respect rights, observe principles, and promote their application, according to their respective competences and in respect of the limits of the Union's competences as granted to it in the Treaties.’
29. Therefore, from all this, it follows that the application and enforcement of a violation of a provision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union can only be examined by our Courts if the violation concerns Union law.