Veteran lawyer Anna Mallia’s challenge of the appointment of four new judges by the Judicial Appointments Committee three years ago, fell through after a court declared that the applicant had no victim status in the case. 

Mallia had filed proceedings before the First Hall, Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction claiming that the committee had not been validly constituted, had “circumvented” the Constitution and acted beyond its powers. 

Consequently, the committee’s recommendations for the appointment of the four candidates to the bench as judges were to be annulled. 

The first court, presided over by Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca, had delivered a preliminary judgment declaring that the applicant qualified for victim status.

The case was one about an alleged breach of fundamental human rights and the court referred to the European Court of Human Rights case law which gave a wide interpretation to the notion of potential victim status in human rights cases. 

The Judicial Appointments Committee as respondent in the suit, filed an appeal. 

On Friday, judgment was delivered by the Constitutional Court presided over by acting president Joseph R. Micallef together with judges Anthony Ellul and Robert G. Mangion. 

The court observed that Mallia did not have victim status, whether direct or indirect. 

The lawyer had declared that she had opened this case to ensure that other applicants interested in such appointments would go through a lawfully conducted process. 

It was to ensure that the relative provisions of the Constitution were observed. 

Such an interest to ensure that the law is observed was not tantamount to the juridical interest giving rise to victim status in a breach of rights case. 

The fact that Mallia did not apply for the post, further added to her lack of victim status. 

Since she had no personal interest in the case, she could not file her claims on behalf of a category of lawyers who applied for the judicial post, nor on behalf of lawyers in general. 

Mallia’s eligibility for a post in respect of which she chose not to apply rendered her claims “totally remote and simply hypothetical,” and consequently premature, said the judges. 

The aim of Mallia’s case is “purely academic” and thus insufficient to underpin victim status since none of her claims, even if one of them were to be upheld, would be of any use to the applicant or to serve as a basis for further action. 

Additionally, Mallia’s eligibility for the post at the time when this case was filed, could change in future depending on the circumstances.

This means that the applicant could not even claim that she could potentially be a victim in the future. 

When all was considered the court upheld the appeal by the Committee and the State Advocate concluding that Mallia lacked victim status and had not acquired that status throughout the proceedings.

Since she lacked legitimate interest, her claims could not be upheld.