PBS case against authority dismissed

An action filed by Public Broadcasting Services Ltd against the Broadcasting Authority has been dismissed by Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia in the First Hall of the Civil Court.

PBS, the company responsible for broadcasting on TVM television station, claimed in its writ that the authority had violated the provisions of the Constitution concerning a fair hearing in its dealings with the company.

The court was also requested to declare that the authority had not acted in a correct administrative manner insofar as PBS was concerned.

In its judgment the court pointed out that it resulted that PBS's writ was a mixed action as it requested a judicial review of a decision taken by the authority as well as a constitutional remedy in the sense that the court was asked to declare that the authority had violated PBS's fundamental human right to a fair hearing.

Mr Justice Valenzia added that case law had indicated that the civil courts always had jurisdiction except when such jurisdiction was removed by law.

As a general rule, if the ordinary courts could grant an effective remedy then there was no need for extraordinary procedures to be filed.

In this case the court declared that it would restrict this case to a judicial review of the workings of the authority.

PBS declared that in June 2002 the authority's chief executive had issued a charge against the company on the issue of spots of the Malta Labour Party broadcast on TVM.

PBS was informed that it could contest this charge in a sitting held by the authority later that month.

PBS had replied to the authority informing it that there was already a court case pending on the issue of these spots. It submitted that the matter ought to be left until a court ruling was obtained.

It resulted that PBS had attended the sitting and had presented its defence. After this sitting the case was decided upon by the authority and the court had delivered judgment against PBS.

Mr Justice Valenzia added that when the authority had delivered its decision it was fulfilling its constitutional function.

Furthermore, the court dismissed PBS's allegation that the authority had not offered sufficient guarantees of independence and impartiality in the proceedings.

The company had claimed that the authority had formulated the charge against it, had proceeded against PBS and had decided the charge against PBS.

However, the authority claimed that it had not made any appraisal of guilt of PBS, but had directed its chief executive to proceed in terms of the Broadcasting Act.

Mr Justice Valenzia said that from the evidence produced it did not result that the authority had decided upon the case before giving PBS the opportunity to defend itself.

Thus, the court concluded that the authority had not violated PBS's rights.