Introduction to judicial review of administrative action in Malta

Introduction to judicial review of administrative action in Malta An integral and relevant part of administrative law is judicial review of administrative action. Judicial review is the process by which a decision by a government department, authority or agency can be reviewed and eventually overturned by the courts if it is against the law.

The action is available to anyone aggrieved by a government decision or action that concerns them. Section 469A of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta is the operative section giving such power to the courts. However, even in the absence of such a piece of legislation, judicial review can be said to be an inherent power of the courts on the basis of the separation of powers doctrine adopted by any state claiming to be democratic.

Brief background The Maltese doctrine of judicial review of administrative action is similar to the English doctrine of judicial review. This is so because the basis of Maltese administrative law is English common law. Even before there was any codified law on judicial review (1964-1981), our courts still asserted their power to review administrative action based on the English common law principles of judicial review.

In fact, the Maltese judgment Lowell v. Caruana (1972) established that English common law is the basis of Maltese administrative law in lacunae cases. Article 469A establishes: “Unless otherwise provided by law, the courts of justice of civil jurisdiction may know the validity of any administrative act or declare it null, invalid or without effect only in the following cases: (a) when the act administrative act violates the Constitution; (b) when the administrative act is ultra vires for any of the following reasons: ii. when said act emanates from a public authority that is not authorized to carry it out; or ii. when a public act has been breached by the authority the principles of natural justice or the imperative procedural requirements in the execution of the administrative act or in its prior deliberations on it, or iii) when the administrative act constitutes an abuse of the power of the public authority as soon as it is carried out for improper purposes or on the basis of irrelevant considerations, or iv when the administrative act is contrary to the law.’

An administrative act or a government decision or action includes, among other things, the issuance of licenses, authorizations, permits, and orders. Prescriptive period within which to file an action Action against a government or other public authority must be brought in court within six months from the day the government decision or action is made, or the license or document is officially issued. permission, or from the day the aggrieved parties learned of such decision.

Decisions of the Maltese courts on the basis of section 469A In a judicial review action, the court has the power to challenge and declare void an action or decision taken by a governmental authority. However, the court cannot substitute its own decision for that of the governmental authority; when a government department’s decision has been overturned for unconstitutionality, ultra vires, or illegality, the court can only order the government department to reconsider its action and make another decision.

The court cannot in any way order the government department to make a particular decision. Therefore, the Police Commissioner’s refusal to grant a fireworks display permit was struck down by the Court on the grounds that it had based his refusal on a new policy not yet covered by law. (1) A decision of the Planning Authority Appeal Board was annulled on the grounds that it had imposed vague and unclear conditions on the applicant. (2) A decision by the Rector of the University to deny admission to a student was also successful. cancelled. (3) The course to which the applicant had applied was subject to a numerus clausus.

The court noted that the criteria according to which admission to the course would be made had not been enacted into law, as required by the Education Act. Consequently, the contested decision was annulled as not being founded on any legal basis. Damages under Section 469A It is possible to claim damages under an action for judicial review. However, this is very limited.

Maltese doctrine excludes any claim for damages on the basis of pain or psychological distress. Therefore, the only damages that will be awarded are those that the applicant suffered materially (this may include loss of future earnings) as a consequence of the decision made by the government or public authority. Successful challenge of a government decision or action does not automatically entitle the applicant to damages. Unless it is shown that the government’s act was carried out in bad faith or was unreasonable, then the claim for property damages will be successful.

Thus, although the decision of the University Senate to expel a university student in her fourth year of studies was successfully annulled, her claim for material and psychological damages was denied by the court because the applicant was unable to prove that the University Senate had acted accordingly. unreasonable manner or in bad faith(4). Dr. Natasha Buontempo Edu. Certificate, BA, Dip. NP, LL.D Author’s Note: In my next article I will discuss the reasons for judicial review of administrative action separately. The content of this article may be used for scholarly reference only and may not be reproduced without the consent of the author.

(1)Socjeta’ Filarmonika La Stella c. Kummissarju tal-Pulizija, Appeal, 7/19/1997.

(2) Fenech v. Awtorita’ ta’ l-Ippjanar, Appeal, 12/15/1997.

(3) Attar v. Ellul Micallef, Appeal, 4/3/1998.

(4) Buttigieg v. Rettur ta’ l-Universita’ ta’ Malta et. First Chamber of the Civil Court, 12/22/2003.