Maltese law allows private individuals to request the opening of a magisterial inquest. This is an investigation conducted by a magistrate in order to preserve the evidence of an alleged crime.

The law regulating these inquests is in constant flux through legislative amendments, with the latest introduced in April 2025. Today, the law on the matter may be summarised as follows.

• When a Private Citizen May Request an Inquest

A private individual may submit a report, information or complaint to the Executive Police together with a request for an inquest, provided that the alleged offence is punishable by imprisonment of not less than three years and that the subject matter of the offence still subsists. The request must be confirmed on oath and must indicate the identity of the suspected person, the act allegedly committed, the offence or offences allegedly committed, and the connection between the act and the offence, together with any available supporting evidence.

• The Roles of the Executive Police and the Attorney General

After receiving a report, information or complaint accompanied by a private person’s request for the opening of an inquest, the Executive Police shall conduct the necessary investigations and determine whether criminal proceedings should be instituted, whether sufficient grounds for prosecution exist, whether further investigation is required, or whether an inquest ought to be opened.

After carrying out their investigation, the Police must refer the case and investigative acts to the Office of the Attorney General, regardless of whether they believe prosecution should proceed. The Attorney General then decides whether criminal proceedings are to be instituted.

If the Attorney General concludes that prosecution should not be initiated, the Attorney General may order the Police to continue investigating, or notify both the complainant and the suspected person that no prosecution will take place.

In the latter case, the complainant has a right to request the Attorney General to reconsider the decision. Moreover, if within two months, the Attorney General confirms the decision not to prosecute, or no reply is given, the complainant may seek judicial review of that decision under the relevant provisions of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

• The Role of the Criminal Court

If, following the lapse of six months from the filing of the request, no prosecution has taken place, or no decision not to prosecute has been taken or no inquest has actually been opened, the complainant may file an application before the Criminal Court requesting that the Police be ordered to forward the complaint to a Magistrate for the commencement of an inquest.

The Criminal Court must hear the Executive Police, the complainant, the suspected person and any witnesses in camera and, after considering the admissible evidence, may grant further time for investigation, declare the investigation closed, or order the opening of an inquest.

The law provides that an inquest will only be ordered where, on a balance of probabilities, the Court concludes that the alleged offences could have been committed by the suspected person. If an inquest is ordered, the Police must, within three working days, request the Registrar of the Criminal Courts to assign the matter to the duty Magistrate.  

• Nullity and Termination of an Inquest

An inquest conducted without meeting the legal and factual requirements applicable at the time it was opened, may be declared null and without effect.

Within one year from the closure of the inquest and from delivery of a copy of the procés-verbal to the parties, the suspected person may request the Magistrate to determine whether the report, information, or complaint was unfounded, frivolous, vexatious, or abusive. If so, the Magistrate may order the complainant to pay the costs of the inquest, without prejudice to other legal remedies granted to the suspected person.

Such decision is subject to appeal before the Criminal Court within twelve working days from notification to the aggrieved person.

_{The contents of this article are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Neither do they constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship with any reader. Said contents are not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. No responsibility is accepted for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.}

The post Private Citizen’s Request for a Magisterial Inquest appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Sport in Malta is no longer governed solely by internal rules and disciplinary committees. In recent years, Maltese sports law has evolved significantly, placing match-fixing, doping, and governance failures firmly within the reach of national legislation and criminal enforcement. This shift reflects a broader recognition that integrity in sport is a matter of public interest — one that requires legal accountability, not just sporting sanctions.

A.    Match-Fixing and Criminal Liability in Malta

One of the most important developments in Maltese sports law is the Prevention of Corruption in Sport Act (Chapter 593). Introduced in 2018, this law criminalises the manipulation of sporting events and provides modern tools to combat match-fixing in Malta.

Its impact became evident in 2024, when the Maltese courts delivered a landmark judgment resulting in mandatory imprisonment for a football official found guilty of match-fixing. The Court of Appeal confirmed that offences under Chapter 593 cannot be punished by a suspended sentence, underscoring that match-fixing is a serious criminal offence with real custodial consequences.

This ruling sent a strong signal to athletes, officials, and administrators: corruption in sport is no longer tolerated as an internal disciplinary matter but prosecuted under Maltese criminal law.

B.    Anti-Doping Law and Sports Integrity

Alongside criminal enforcement, Malta has strengthened its regulatory framework through the Sports Governance and Integrity Act (Chapter 626). Enacted in 2021, this legislation focuses on good governance, integrity, and anti-doping in Maltese sport.

The Act established the Authority for Integrity in Maltese Sport (AIMS), which works alongside NADOMALTA to conduct anti-doping testing, manage results, and impose sanctions for Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs).

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Prohibited List applies in Malta. A substance or method may be banned if it:: (i) Enhances or has the potential to enhance sporting performance; (ii)Poses a health risk to the athlete; or (iii) Violates the spirit of sport.

AIMS is also required to publish the names of athletes serving doping bans. This ensures that a ban applies across all sports and acts as a deterrent by highlighting the reputational consequences of doping offences.

C.    Governance Obligations for Sports Organisations

Sports law in Malta now extends beyond athletes to include sports organisations themselves. Under Chapter 626, all sports organisations are legally required to register with AIMS. Registration is mandatory and is directly linked to eligibility for public funding through SportMalta, as is registration with the Office of the Commissioner for Voluntary Organisations (OCVO) and the Malta Business Registry (MBR). Organisations that fail to comply risk being in breach of the law and excluded from government funding schemes altogether.

AIMS registration involves key governance and safeguarding requirements such as certification from the Directorate for Quality & Standards in Education (DQSE). To obtain such a certificate, the organisation must submit:

• A valid Police conduct certificate for each adult involved with its minor members;
• A valid first aid certificate, with at least one qualified first-aider present on the premises at all times;
• Confirmation that all adults directly involved comply with the requirements of the Protection of Minors (Registration) Act, and;
• A risk assessment report or an official letter issued by a registered Health & Safety Officer for the site(s) where the sport activity will be held.

These measures promote transparency, accountability, and athlete protection at every level of Maltese sport.

The Future of Sports Law in Malta

Malta’s evolving legal framework demonstrates a clear commitment to fair play and integrity. Match-fixing and doping are treated as serious legal violations, while sports organisations are required to meet governance and compliance standards as a condition of operation and funding. For athletes, officials, and sports bodies alike, understanding and complying with Maltese sports law is no longer optional — it is essential.

_{The contents of this article are intended for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice on any matter. Neither do they constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship with any reader. Said contents are not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. No responsibility is accepted for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this publication.}

The post Sports Law in Malta: Tackling Match-Fixing, Doping and Governance in Modern Sport appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

The post Case C-670/22: Recent clarifications on European Investigation Orders appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Once a criminal offence is committed either the Police or the Attorney General, depending on the nature of the offence committed, has a certain amount of time to issue charges against a particular individual.

If a particular individual is charged in court with a criminal offence of which action is barred by prescription, the court either on the request of the defendant or ex officio will throw out the case and the individual will be acquitted from all the charges brought against him.

However, it is important to point out that once an individual is served with the criminal charges issued against him, the period of prescription in respect of those criminal offences becomes suspended until such time as the definite judgement is delivered.

Article 691 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta (the Criminal Code) provides that the prescription period shall run from the day on when the offence was completed and with regards to attempted offences from the day on which the last act of execution was committed. In the case of continuous offences, the prescription period shall run from the day of the last violation and in regard to continuing offences from the day on which the continuance ceased.

Article 692 of the Maltese Criminal Code further provides that when it comes to criminal offences, the prescription shall not start running if the offender is not known.

Article 688 of Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta (Criminal Code), provides that criminal action is barred by prescription:

1. By the lapse of 20 years for crimes liable to the punishment of imprisonment for a period not less than 20 years;
2. By the lapse of 15 years for crimes liable to imprisonment for a term of less than 20 but not less than 9 years;
3. By the lapse of 10 years for crimes liable to imprisonment for a term of less than 9 but not less than 4 years;
4. By the lapse of 5 years for crimes liable to imprisonment for a term of less than 4 but not less than 1 years;
5. By the lapse of 2 years for crimes liable to imprisonment for a term of less than 1 year OR to a fine (multa) or for those crimes subject to the punishments established for contraventions;
6. By the lapse of 3 months in respect of contraventions or of verbal insults liable to the punishment established for contraventions.

There are also exceptions to the prescription period provided for in article 688 of the Criminal Code. In such cases, the specific prescription period will be provided for by the law regulating that particular offence.

For example in the case of article 338(z) of the Criminal Code regulating the offence of when an individual fails to pay the alimony fixed by court, the law specifically states that for such offence criminal action is barred by the lapse of 6 months.

The post The Prescription of the Criminal Action appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Promises of sale are an essential stage to the conclusion of a contract of sale of immovable property. Many people will not immediately buy a house, for example – they will first enter into a promise of sale (konvenju), following which the final deed is executed and the actual sale takes place. This means that it is crucial for the individual to be aware of the rules governing the validity of promises of sale of immovable property.

For starters, the promise of sale is considered as a stand-alone contract. It must be in writing, and it must be registered with the Tax Departments. It can also be enforced. Indeed, article 1357(2) of the Civil Code makes it amply clear that, while the promise to sell is not equivalent to a sale, if it is accepted it creates “an obligation on the part of the promisor to carry out the sale, or, if the sale can no longer be carried out, to make good the damages to the promisee”. Indeed, it is not unheard of for someone to be sued because he failed to appear on a final promise of sale.

On the other hand, promises of sale can expire. In fact, they will invariably contain a clause determining by when the final sale is to be concluded, following which the promise expires and is no longer binding. If there is no such term, the law provides a three-month period within which the promise of sale is ‘alive’ and enforceable.

The Civil Code appears to regulate the ‘life’ of a promise of sale quite strictly. Article 1357(2) provides that:

“The effect of such promise shall cease on the lapse of the time agreed between the parties for the purpose or, failing any such agreement, on the lapse of three months from the day on which the sale could be carried out, unless the promisee calls upon the promisor, by means of a judicial intimation filed before the expiration of the period applicable as aforesaid, to carry out the same, and unless, in the event that the promisor fails to do so, the demand by sworn application for the carrying out of the promise is filed within thirty days from the expiration of the period aforesaid”.

From this provision it very clearly emerges that the promise of sale will expire if the promisor is not intimated judicially to fulfil his promise and that this intimation must occur before the date of expiry of the promise itself. But this is not enough. If, despite this intimation to honour his promise, the promisor fails to appear on the final deed of sale, the promisee must sue him in court before 30 days pass from the expiry date of the promise.

It would seem that the law imposes a strict framework regulating the validity of promises of sale and that, if the procedures in article 1357(2) are not followed, the promise of sale is dead and unenforceable.

What does this mean? If the promise is due to expire, but the sale still cannot occur due to some reason or other, the parties must agree to extend the promise of sale by a separate written agreement. The wording of the law seems to suggest that failure to do this and allowing the timeframes mentioned in article 1357(2) to pass without taking the required action is fatal to the promise of sale and results in its expiry. This means that a new promise of sale must be entered into, from scratch.

However, court judgments have at times held that the renewal of a promise of sale that technically expired is enough to bring that promise back from the grave – and so a fresh promise of sale is not required. The reason given for this is that in matters of contract law the will of the parties reigns supreme, and this extends to the resuscitation of expired promises of sale.

The post The Promise of Sale: a legal Lazarus appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

While the subject of domestic violence arises on a plurality of occasions thereby extending its outreach to the public, somehow its struggling victims seem to remain at the mercy of their perpetrator out of the mere lack of knowledge of their remedies at law, or their overriding fear to avail of them as is their right.

While domestic violence may arise in a number of familiar settings each referred to as ‘family or domestic units’, including between persons who are or were in an informal relationship or between persons simply having a child in common, a common scenario which shall be the topic of today’s discussion is domestic violence between spouses who consequently reside in the same household – with or without descendants – where the victim is also seeking to obtain personal separation against the spouse qua offender.

As per common practice, any procedure of personal separation notwithstanding the circumstances at play is initiated by filing a letter in the Registry of the Family Court requesting the appointment of a mediator. The said letter must include the details of both parties, the date and place of marriage, and the details of the children, if any.

Assuming that both spouses are residing in the matrimonial home at the time the above-mentioned letter is lodged, a domestic violence victim is entitled to file a court application before the Family Court for the Judge overseeing the mediation to provide a provisional order (legally known as a pendente litem order) to decide whom of the spouses shall reside in the matrimonial home during the pendency of the action for personal separation. This application may also be lodged at a stage where the victim already has, prior to the institution of the application, left the matrimonial home in desperate seek of refuge.

In view of the urgent nature surrounding the application, the latter shall be appointed for hearing within four days, and, besides issuing a decree on who shall be allowed to reside in the matrimonal home, the court shall have discretion – before or after hearing the parties – to issue a protection order or a treatment order, if needed, against the perpetrator according to the provisions of the Criminal Code.

During the pendency of the personal separation proceedings, the victim may also lodge an application seeking a pendente litem order by the presiding Judge regarding who shall be entrusted with the custody of the children. Indeed, the Court may decide to limit or deny the offending party access to the children altogether, if there is sufficient proof that such access would put the children at risk.

The law also contains an ‘umbrella’ provision capable of producing similar, yet graver, effects to the one described above insofar as the custody of minors is concerned. Upon a demand of the victim brought concurrently with sufficient evidence of domestic violence, the other party – in this context being the perpetrator – may be declared unfit by the court to assume the custody of the minor children. This demand may be lodged not only during the cause for separation – with the intention of seeking a pendente litem order – but also following a judgment of separation or divorce. Furthermore, the parent declared unfit by the court to assume the custody of the minor may not do so automatically upon the death of the other parent, but shall seek the court’s authorisation for this purpose, which authorisation may or may not be granted at the Judge’s discretion.

In similar situations which however concern two unmarried parties, where evidence of domestic violence is produced in a suit – not for personal separation – but for access and/or the care and custody of minors, the court also has the discretion to issue a protection order or a treatment order in terms of the Criminal Code to protect the safety of the parties and/or the minors concerned.

Any person subject to acts of verbal, physical, sexual, or psychological domestic violence including insults or threats, assault, sexual harrassment, fear of violence, and others by a spouse or partner, are encouraged to come forward and press charges at the Gender Based & Domestic Violence Unit located in the Police General Headquarters in Floriana. Domestic violence victims may also seek refuge at victim shelters across the island.

The post The Rights of Domestic Violence Victims during Personal Separation appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

The law on disclosure refers to the duty of the investigative authorities to make available all material evidence which it has at its disposal to the defence before trial in order that the suspect, through legal counsel, may make full answer and defence to the charge.

The right to disclosure is quite a recent development to the right to a fair trial. Such right has been developed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a corollary to fair trial guarantees under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the more specific requirement under Article 6(3)(b) that everyone charged with a criminal offence must ‘have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence’.

In the judgment Edwards v United Kingdom, delivered on 16 December 1992, the ECtHR stressed that: ‘… it is a requirement of fairness under article 6(1) that the prosecution authorities disclose to the defence all material evidence for or against the accused …’. In another commonly quoted judgement, namely Rowe and Davis v United Kingdom, delivered on 16 February 2000, the ECtHR re-emphasised the principle that there should be equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence. Although not explicitly expressed in the text of Article 6 of the ECHR, this is regarded as no less strong than those principles which are expressly set out therein. In the context of disclosure, this implies that the prosecution authorities should disclose to the defence all material evidence in their possession for or against the accused.

From a local context, the right of access to the materials of the case, transposed from Directive 2012/13/EU, is provided for under Article 534AF of the Criminal Code. This provision does not provide for the precise moment when such documents should be made available to the supect or to his lawyer. According to the EU Directive itself, such documents must be made available in due time to allow the effective exercise of the right to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention. Each person deprived of his liberty has the immediate right to have his detention reviewed by a judicial authority and logically therefore the materials needed to contest the legality of such detention should be promptly provided to the suspect or his lawyer.

As to what amounts to ‘material evidence’, the Criminal Code does not include a definition and therefore the provision might cause confusion as to what the police should disclose and what they should not. The Directive provides that where a person is arrested or detained at any stage of the criminal proceedings, the investigative authorities must ensure that documents relating to specific cases in the possession of the competent authorities, and which are essential to effectively challenge the lawfulness of the arrest or detention are made available to the arrested person or to their lawyer.

The post The Rule of Disclosure in Criminal Proceedings appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Precautionary acts, also known as precautionary warrants, certainly need no introduction. These measures, purposely designed in order to safeguard one’s position prior to a pronouncement of a definitive judgment on the merits of the case, have become common tools which various litigants opt to resort to and issue against their seemingly defaulting counterpart. Though much has been said about the warrant of prohibitory injunction, not much attention is given to the warrant of impediment.

Just like any other warrant of prohibitory injunction, this precautionary act aims at restraining someone from carrying out an act which is detrimental and prejudicial to the person who issues the warrant. As stipulated by article 877 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta (the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure), such a warrant is issued in order to restrain any person from taking any minor outside of Malta. More often than not, a warrant of impediment is resorted to between spouses or between the parents of a particular child in an attempt to ensure that the minor remains in the country.

A person interested in suing out a warrant of this sort, has to do so by means of an application on a legally prescribed form, which has to be confirmed on oath and contain various requisite details. Such details shall include the name and surname of the minor and any other particulars that may be established by regulations, so as to enable the persons served with the warrant to establish the identity of the minor. As a matter of fact, a photo of the minor is quite often attached to the same application in order to ensure that the minor is properly identified. Moreover, the applicant filing the warrant also ought to state the reasons why he is making such a request to the Court.

For a person to have a warrant of impediment issued successfully, she or he must attain the prerequisites applicable to any other warrant of prohibitory injunction; namely, that the warrant must be issued in order to preserve the rights of the applicant and that prima facie (at face value) such person must appear to possess such right. In such a scenario, these criteria, which must be cumulatively fulfilled, denote that the person seeking the issuance of the warrant has a real fear that the minor will be taken out of the country by another person (whether a spouse, partner, or any other third person) who has no intention of returning the same minor. In fact, the law states that the warrant shall be served on the person or persons having, or who might have, the legal or actual custody of the minor enjoining them not to take, or allow anyone to take, the minor out of Malta, who would then have ten days in order to file a reply thereto.

Does this mean that during this interim period, the person against whom the warrant had been filed can freely travel with the minor? The answer to this question is ‘no’. Following the filing of a warrant of impediment, very often the presiding Judge issues an interim order which accedes the injunction requests for a provisional period – up until the request made in the warrant is decided in a definitive manner. As a matter of fact, after the warrant is filed with the Court Registry, other parties are also served; namely, the Director of Passports and the Commissioner of Police. Such a process is often straightforward when the minor whose travel is being prohibited does not hold a passport. The same does not always apply in the contrary scenario. If, before the service of the warrant on the officer charged with the issue of passports, a passport in respect of the minor had already been included in the passport of another person, such officer shall take the steps necessary to withdraw the said passport in respect of the minor, and of any other passport which includes the name of the minor, and to delete the name of the minor from such passport. However, with Malta being part of the Schengen Agreement, this provision is hard to enforce because there is no need to have a passport in order to travel to States within the Schengen Area.

When the written part of the procedure is deemed concluded, the Court would have already set a date and time in order to hear the parties make their own oral submissions as to why the warrant should be upheld or rejected altogether, following which the Court will pronounce its final decree during the sitting or otherwise in chambers. The court shall decide on its merits within the shortest time possible, but not later than 1 month from the day when the warrant had been filed and confirmed on oath, and the parties have been duly notified. It is important to emphasise that the decree issued by the Court, irrespective of whether it upholds or rejects the request, cannot be appealed from and would be considered as a final decree on the warrant of impediment.

The post The Warrant of Impediment appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Governments do not always play nice. The leading rule is that the Government must always act within the strict parameters of the law: if the law does not say that it can do it, then it cannot do it. Full stop. And even if the law does confer a particular power, it cannot be exercised as the particular official deems fit. There are rules that need to be followed here too. But sometimes a government official will, perhaps unwittingly, break the rules or stray outside his powers. This would render that administrative act illegal.

An illegal administrative act allows an aggrieved individual to file an action for judicial review of administrative action in order to have the act in question declared null and of no effect. There are a number of broad categories of grounds of judicial review that can be availed of, which represent limits on how public authorities can exercise their powers.

First, the public authority must always act within the limits of the law. Each and every little thing it does must be authorised by law. If the government acts outside the law, the act is null because it was performed outside the government’s powers. This is known as the classical doctrine of ultra vires, or substantive ultra vires. Laws conferring powers on public authorities tend to be drafted quite broadly, so this is today rather vestigial, but situations may nevertheless arise particularly where there is a grey line between what falls within the competence of one government entity and what falls within the competence of a different government entity.

The second ground of review is referred to as procedural ultra vires. That is, when the government does not follow a particular procedure that the law lays down for the exercise of a particular power or performance of a particular action. Notably, it covers the so-called rules of natural justice, which permeate every decision taken that impacts the rights of individuals. These are: the duty to hear what the person has to say (audi alteram partem), the duty to not be biased (nemo iudex in causa propria), and the duty to give reasons for a decision.

The third ground covers the manner in which a power is to be exercised. Just because the government has a power to act in a particular way, it does not mean that it can do so indiscriminately. Powers must always be exercised within their proper limits and for the reason for which they are conferred. Failing this, the act will be declared null. Notably, powers must satisfy a test of reasonableness or proportionality. For example, the government cannot take a decision based on irrelevant considerations or improper motives, or be disproportionate in its application of a rule. It is the court’s duty to interpret the law and the particular facts in question to determine whether the test of reasonableness or proportionality has been met.

Of course, any act which is otherwise unlawful can be annulled, since these categories are not all-inclusive and merely a handy way of classifying different forms of unlawful administrative acts.

What effects does an action for judicial review have? The administrative act in question will be declared null and without effect. However, the court cannot itself act instead of the public authority in question. The court must declare the act null, and it is for the public authority to perform the particular act again, this time lawfully and in conformity with the court’s judgment. The court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the public authority – otherwise it would be the court itself that acts outside its powers!

The post Keeping the government in check: Judicial review appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.

Many a time do lawyers find themselves engaged by clients seeking to avail of a civil remedy against a defendant whose residential address, or even whereabouts, are unknown. This is becoming more common in family cases in Malta involving foreign parties who would have departed from Malta after attempting to build a new life away from their home. This scenario calls for the appointment of curators, which notion is envisaged by Article 930 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.

Curators (known as kuraturi deputati in the Maltese language) are tasked at Law with safeguarding the best interests of the person they represent with utmost diligence. Where the defendant’s address is unknown by the person instituting the action, curators are bound to do their best to try to contact the person whom they represent and take all possible measures to identify their place of residence. Should they succeed, they must inform the person of any judicial act and of its contents and to continue looking after their interests with utmost diligence and responsibility. If the person’s address remains unknown despite the curator’s efforts, he is then bound to take all the necessary measures to safeguard the person’s rights.

The Law contemplates other situations besides the one mentioned in the first paragraph, in which the need for curators might arise, for reasons including but not limited to; representing the interest of any minor not legally represented, representing a person with a mental disorder or other condition that renders him incapable of managing his own affairs, as well as any interdicted person. Curators may also be called upon to represent the interests of any person presumed to be dead, where any other person claims to succeed to the rights of such person, as well as the interest of any commercial partnership or any body of persons where any of the persons vested with its representation are absent from Malta.

The demand for the appointment of curators must be lodged by means of an application to be filed simultaneously with the lawsuit (or any act whereby the action is commenced). In other situations, where the necessity to appoint curators arises after the commencement of the lawsuit, the application may be made in writing in the course of the proceedings or even by means of a verbal demand during the hearing of the suit.

In a family context, the need for curators might arise in cases where a parent of foreign nationality (called the “deserting parent”) who would have been residing in Malta together with his/her partner or spouse (called the “deserted parent”) and minor children, abandons the matrimonial home and returns to his/her country of origin, leaving the deserted parent (who is of Maltese nationality or otherwise) to raise their children without disclosing his whereabouts and cutting ties with the family altogether. In cases where the care and custody of the children is vested in both parents jointly, which takes place by way of default under Maltese Law, the deserted parent will require the deserting parent’s signature and consent prior to making certain decisions concerning the minors’ health and education. This situation has also proved to be a nuisance for parents whose minor children are not yet in possession of a passport and who must apply for a new one in order to travel for leisure or even for academic purposes.

Taking the above scenario as an example, the deserted parent must file a lawsuit in the Family Section of the Civil Court to demand the exclusive care and custody of the minors, and in parallel to the lawsuit, file an application for the appointment of curators to represent the deserting parent.

The next step after the Court makes an order for the appointment of curators, is the issuing of the banns (il-bandi) which are posted up at the entrance of the Court building. If the deserting parent, in the scenario mentioned above, has close relatives or friends who reside in Malta, a copy of the banns and the pleading must be served on said relatives or friends, and where no relations are known, these must be published in the Government Gazette and in at least two daily newspapers. This shall be done at the applicant’s expense. Any person interested in accepting the appointment shall have six days within which to do so, which acceptance is subject to the Court’s confirmation of the curator so appearing. If, however, no one lodges an acceptance to the appointment within the time frame stated above, the Court shall appoint as curators an advocate and a legal procurator from the rota established by Law.

Curators have a duty to exercise their best diligence for the benefit of the interests they represent. In the event of misconduct or negligence on their part, or should there arise any reasonable objection to the curators selected from the rota for any reason, the Court may exercise its authority to remove them from the case and appoint others from the rota in their stead.

The post The Role of Curators under Maltese Law appeared first on Arthur Azzopardi & Associates.