Slapped transposition of Daphne’s law

Following an extensive parliamentary debate in light of Malta’s transposition of the EU anti-SLAPP directive, it should be clear by now that the transposition does not carry sufficient and adequate measures ensuring that our anti-SLAPP regime provides meaningful and comprehensive protection against abusive litigation in both cross-border and domestic cases.

In fact, it is highly doubtful if Legal Notice 177 of 2024, transposing the directive, applies only to cases filed solely in Malta or also to cases involving other countries. The directive makes it incumbent upon EU member states to refuse to recognise or enforce judgments from third countries that are manifestly unfounded or abusive.

Furthermore, the financial penalties intended to discourage damaging cases appear to be ineffective and far too lenient.

It is useless for the government to keep on boasting that Malta was the first to introduce the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive while keeping it at the bare minimum instead of taking the opportunity to strengthen it further and striving to make the best SLAPP deterrent in the EU.

For example, member state discretion to limit the exercise of jurisdiction while foreign proceedings are ongoing is lamentable in that the provision in its original form was specifically designed to address ongoing proceedings to pre-empt rather than merely remedy harm.

Equally, the restriction of the remedy to cases in which the claimant is not domiciled in the EU is baffling in that it denies the courts of the member states the ability to repond to cases that are most intimately connected with the Union.

The rationale for limiting the jurisdiction of EU courts to cases with fewer connections to the Union is far from clear, whether from a policy or legal perspective. The rule is limited in scope and is capable of being bogged down in unnecessary factual wrangling over the extent to which it can be claimed that a claimant lacks an EU domicile.

What’s more, the Institute of Maltese Journalists (IĠM) expressed its disgust at the way the government has circumvented the anti-SLAPP EU directive.

EU member states must bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by May 7, 2026. The European Commission must then assess the application of the directive by member states by May 7, 2030.

We will then wait and see whether Malta will get a favourable or thumbs-down assessment.

MARK SAID – Msida

Cost of living increase

Government should give increases that reflect price hikes. Photo: Shutterstock.com

With every budget, we get a government cost of living increase to make up for any changes in prices we had in the previous year.

Hardly a month goes by before we start seeing increases in prices, for example, 6c in local bottled water, €2 by internet suppliers, 10-20c in our daily newspapers. What they add up to during the year hardly covers the measly cost of living increase the government gives in the budget.

It is about time the government does its homework properly and give increases that justify these price hikes while taking note of the millions of overspending in projects that, at times, raise doubts where these millions are going.

Michael Vella – Sliema