Court dismisses Iva's claim for spots

Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo in the Civil Court yesterday dismissed a writ of summons filed by the Iva Movement against the Broadcasting Authority.

The case was being heard with urgency after the court upheld the movement's request to this effect.

The movement had claimed that the authority's refusal to allow it to broadcast its spots on state television was discriminatory in its regard for the authority had given such facilities to the Malta Labour Party.

The movement was also aggrieved by the authority's ruling that it did not benefit from the same guarantees of balance in broadcasting as the MLP, as the authority claimed that the movement was not a political party.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo noted that the government was negotiating with the EU about the conditions for Malta's membership.

As not everyone in the country agreed that Malta should enter the EU, the issue was therefore controversial, and the government planned on holding a referendum so that the electorate could express its wishes on the matter.

The government had also established the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC) as an independent body (financed from public funds) to provide information about the EU and about the ongoing negotiations.

MIC was broadcasting spots on a number of television stations, including that run by the Public Broadcasting Services Ltd (PBS), about EU membership.

The Malta Labour Party had filed a writ of summons contesting this fact on the grounds that the broadcasting of spots by MIC on PBS was creating an imbalance in broadcasting.

The MLP, which was a political party opposed to EU membership, had requested that it be granted time on PBS free of charge to broadcast its views on this controversial issue.

The Civil Court had upheld the validity of the ruling of the Broadcasting Authority in this regard, and had confirmed the authority's decision that the MLP be allocated time, free of charge, on PBS, in order to broadcast its spots on the alternative to EU membership.

On its part the Nationalist Party had also filed a writ of summons in the Civil Court contesting the authority's refusal to allow it to broadcast its spots free of charge on PBS.

The authority's refusal was overturned by a decision of the Civil Court which had upheld the PN's request.

On its part, the Iva movement had also requested the BA to allow it to broadcast its spots on PBS, but its request had been denied by the authority, which had submitted that it was bound to allocate air time suitably between the political parties.

The movement filed its writ contesting the authority's decision, and requesting a remedy from the Civil Court.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo yesterday pointed out that the Constitution imposed two duties upon the authority, namely that of ensuring impartiality in broadcasting on matters of political controversy or of public current policy, and that of ensuring that broadcasting facilities and time were suitably apportioned between persons of different political parties.

This provision of the law, said the court, granted a privileged position to political parties as opposed to other organisations, but the authority was still bound to maintain due impartiality on issues of public current policy or of controversy among persons or organisations of different beliefs.

The court had therefore to examine whether or not the authority had maintained such impartiality on the issue of the imparting of information about Malta's proposed EU membership.

The Broadcasting Authority had declared that it was fulfilling its duties as it had prepared a schedule of programmes about the controversy on EU membership, and the movement had been invited to participate in these programmes.

The movement had in fact already participated, and was going to participate further in programmes that were going to be aired in the future.

However, the movement did not agree with the authority's decision, on the grounds that participation in this schedule of programmes was different from the broadcasting of spots by the MLP, as these spots portrayed only one aspect of the issue, without contradiction.

Furthermore, the spots had a visual impact that would be lacking from debate programmes.

The court noted that it was only the political parties that were entitled to apportionment of broadcasting time and facilities, and this in terms of the Constitution.

The authority was only bound to ensure impartiality in broadcasts.

Mr Justice Caruana Demajo therefore concluded that he did not agree with the movement that it was entitled to facilities similar to those awarded to the MLP, and he dismissed the movement's writ.

Dr Austin Bencini was counsel to the movement.

Prof. Ian Refalo was counsel to the authority.