A woman who qualified as a barrister in the UK has filed proceedings in court against the authorities for refusing to allow her to use the equivalent Maltese title ‘avukat’ (lawyer).
Sarah Engerer practices as a barrister in Malta as her warrant to practice law is recognised in Malta and throughout the EU, but the Maltese authorities are refusing to allow her to adopt the Maltese equivalent of barrister – avukat.
The mother-of-two said the court case was the last resort as her efforts over the past six years proved futile.
The 38-year-old barrister filed the case in the First Hall of the Civil Court against Justice Minister Owen Bonnici and Attorney General Peter Grech. She is requesting the recognition of her British warrant as valid in Malta and the authorisation to use the equivalent Maltese title to her warrant: ‘avukat’.
She told the court she returned to Malta in 2014 and began working as a barrister after she was given a certificate in line with the legal notice, which provides for the mutual recognition of qualifications of the legal profession across EU member states.
In March 2015, she filed the first application to the President of the Republic to revert to the Maltese title but received no reply except for an acknowledgment stating the request had been forwarded to the Justice Minister.
Last month – four years later – she received a letter from the Attorney General in which she was informed she could not partake in the Maltese legal profession unless she sat for the warrant exam.
She told the court this was not in line with a specific EU directive introduced to facilitate the practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a member state other than that in which the qualification was obtained. Directive 2005/36EC also provides another mechanism allowing for the immediate recognition of foreign qualifications. In the meantime, she had practised law in Malta with a practising Maltese lawyer.
Through her lawyer, Mark Refalo, Ms Engerer insisted that the authorities were breaching her rights, including those governed by the EU’s principle of freedom of movement, her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, as well as her right for an effective remedy.