The Malta business registry moved fast to deny the public access to information on who the real owners of companies are, following a decision by the European Court of Justice. What a better country this would be if all government entities were as efficient in accepting requests under the Freedom of Information Act.

The European Court of Justice has just invalidated a European Union directive instructing member states to ensure information on the beneficial ownership of companies and other legal entities is accessible to the public. It found that such public access is not “limited to what is strictly necessary” to justify interference with the right to respect for private and family life and the right to protection of personal data as enunciated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The decision left the Malta business registry with very little option but to comply. But that should not be end of story, for the court ruling leaves the door ajar. Hence, swift action needs to be taken at both EU level and domestically to provide the legal tools necessary to serve as a deterrent to money laundering and terrorist financing, which was the ultimate aim of the invalidated directive.

If sunlight is said to be the best disinfectant, as US Supreme Court judge Louis Brandels, himself an advocate of the right to privacy, used to believe, then windowpanes should not be opaque.

Reacting to the European Court of Justice’s decision, a group of global civil society organisations described the disputed directive as “a major step forward, helping to shine a light on this murky world”.

They expressed fear the decision could have a chilling effect on countries toying with the idea of either formally setting up public registries or granting public access to them. “The ruling,” the 34 African and European NGOs remarked, “will also have a direct impact on the ability of civil society, investigative journalists and even competent authorities in other parts of the world to access EU company ownership information, something which is critical to identifying and recovering stolen assets.”

The Nationalist Party has rightly urged the government to safeguard the rights of the media and civil society organisations to tap information about the so-called ultimate beneficial owners.

An expert in corrupt money flows at Transparency International thinks that “not all appears lost” because, in its decision, the European Court of Justice recognised that civil society and the media have a legitimate interest in accessing such information, given their role in the fight against money laundering.

And a Transparency International senior policy officer proposed that a new directive should include “precise provisions that reconcile public access with privacy and security concerns”.

The European Court of Justice agrees that the aim of the directive in question “constitutes an objective of general interest that is capable of justifying even serious interferences with the fundamental rights enshrined in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter”. However, it feels the legislation should specify when and how the processing of personal data can occur to ensure the interference takes place only when really necessary.

That is now the way forward. However, time is of the essence. A concerted effort ought to be made by like-minded EU member states to set the ball rolling so that fresh legislation is drafted and implemented, preferably before the summer lull.

Rather than continue to adopt an opaque view of transparency, Malta can take the lead or, at least, form part of a group of countries spearheading such an initiative.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.