A challenge to the gender balancing mechanism in parliament lodged by ADPD was turned down by a court on Monday after it ruled the challenge contradicted the constitution.
Malta’s Green Party argued the mechanism introduced three years ago to promote gender parity among MPs was discriminatory and violated fundamental rights to free elections and freedom of association.
The corrective mechanism means that if one gender gets less than 40 per cent of the available seats in parliament, the number of MPs is increased up to a maximum of six seats for each side.
But such a mechanism applied only if two parties are elected to parliament, ADPD said, arguing that a female candidate must run on a PL or PN ticket to benefit from the rule – a situation they argued was discriminatory.
Moreover, voters who cast their vote in favour of a candidate running for a third party had their choice completely ignored, the party said.
It argued the mechanism also breached two articles of the constitution.
ADPD challenged the mechanism on the basis of the constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, filing their action against the State Advocate and the Electoral Commission.
The State Advocate raised several pleas including that the charter did not apply to matters which fell within the exclusive competence of Member States, such as general elections.
Those pleas were upheld by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey, who heard the case in the First Hall of the Civil Court.
The European Convention on Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are different legal instruments created by different institutions.
Although every EU Member State was a signatory to the Council of Europe, that did not mean that the two institutions were one and the same, the court ruled.
When making submissions, the applicants had ignored completely the charter, basing their arguments only on the European Convention, it said.
The court had no doubt that the organisation of general elections fell within the exclusive competence of each particular Member State and were not regulated by European law.
Moreover, the Maltese constitution was supreme, the court ruled.
In light of all evidence and considerations, the court turned down the applicants’ claims.