The European Court of Justice’s Attorney General has found no issue with the way judges are appointed in Malta, saying that it is useless to deny the role politics plays in legal systems.

This comes after justice activists from Repubblika asked the European Commission to investigate whether Malta’s system of judicial appointments violates EU Law last year.

They warned the current system grants the Prime Minister unfettered discretion to appoint judges and magistrates to the judiciary without any form of judicial review, and such appointments are not subject to any limitations or objective criteria.

In a statement this morning, the ECJ’s Attorney General Gerard Hogan concluded that just because judges are appointed by a member of the executive does not necessarily pose a threat to their impartiality or imply a relationship of subordination.

The Attorney General’s Opinion is not a binding one on the Court of Justice, but he can propose a legal solution to the Court. A final judgement will be given in the coming months as the judges begin to deliberate the case.

In 2016, the government revamped the way members of the judiciary are appointed to the bench, setting up a judiciary appointments committee to scrutinise applicants before making recommendations to the Prime Minister.

However, Repubblika warned that the committee’s recommendations are consultative in nature and that the Prime Minister isn’t legally obliged to accept them.

It also warned the Constitution empowers the Prime Minister to promote magistrates to the rank of judges, to unilaterally appoint the Chief Justice and to appoint retired judges to public office.

Hogan added that the constitutional amendments, which introduced the Judicial Appointments Committee, were a step right direction but are not enough to ensure judicial independence.

“But while these may in themselves be desirable recommendations, the fact that the Maltese system does not fully meet these standards does not in itself suggest that Maltese judges do not, both in theory and in fact, enjoy guarantees of independence sufficient to satisfy the requirements in the Treaty of the European Union.”

The ECJ Attorney General stressed that more institutional reforms are needed to protect judges from external pressures of influence, possible subordination or control from the executive.

The Maltese government praised Hogan’s opinion, saying it justified its argument that Malta’s judicial system is completely independent.

“The opinion shows that the principles of rule of law in Malta are being implemented in practice, contrary to allegations and overseas campaigns that try to depict the country with a dysfunctional democracy,” the state wrote in a statement.

“The Maltese government is committed to continue strengthening the reforms it has implemented to ensure rule of law and good governance prevail,” it said.

NGO Republikka said Hogan’s opinion strayed from previous judgements made by the ECJ, but that their action achieved its purpose since it led to radical reform in the judiciary in summer.

“Repubblika hopes that the final decision handed down by the European court, which is expected in a few months’ time, follows the same steps as previous judgments,” the NGO said.

Tag someone who needs to read this