The case was filed as a result of the government’s decision to appoint new members of the judiciary despite the fact that a Venice Commission review of Malta’s judicial system had recommended that the system be improved, a recommendation the government had accepted and pledged to implement. 

Last month, the ECJ ruled that the system of judicial appointments in place at the time did not breach EU law, though it did set a precedent that prohibits any regression in the rule of law across the EU. 

The decision will likely set a precedent for future challenges to government actions that could be deemed to weaken the rule of law, something Repubblika said it was proud of. 

In a note filed before the court this morning, Repubblika noted that the ECJ’s decision had only examined the country’s laws and that it was up to the Maltese courts to examine the manner in which those laws were being implemented. 

“Our case is based on the fact that many appointments since 2013 were regressive in the sense explained by the ECJ,” Repubblika noted. 

It added that the ECJ’s decision gave Repubblika the opportunity to present evidence and make its case regarding that which took place between 2013 and 2019, though it was choosing not to, given that the stated objective, that of having a method of appointments that ensures judicial independence, had been reached.   

Speaking in court this afternoon, Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis derided the civil society group, saying that he had never encountered a situation where a lawyer withdrew a case but still declared they had won.

He said that the case’s outcome was a testament to the reforms implemented by the Labour government since 2013.

Both the government and Repubblika agreed to pay their own costs. 

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti thanked both parties for their good conduct in the case before proceeding to declare the case closed.

What do you make of Repubblika’s decision?