The main story in this issue regards an issue that should worry us all. And it also regards a treatment of the issue that worries or should worry us even more.

Roughly two weeks ago, the European Commission issued what it calls the Justice Scoreboard, that is an across the board analysis of the justice systems in the EU member states.

The whole document can be accessed on http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice_scoreboard_2015_en.pdf.

Predictably, no one seemed to have noticed it in Malta, not the public, nor the media engaged in its perennial verbal clashes and partisan outburst.

The Scoreboard has grievous things to say about Malta. There are in particular three graphs, one of which is to be found on our front page which shows up Malta as the absolute laggard where it comes to ensuring that justice is ensured to its citizens.

The one we put on our front page today is Figure 4 - Time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases, where it measures time between first instance and day of resolution in days.

Malta results to be the second worst offender in the EU, beaten only by Portugal (whose data for 2013 is absent). In Malta's case, the worst figure regards 2010 at over 800 days, decreases to 700 in 2012 and shoots up once again to just under 800 days in 2013.

Figure 5 shows Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases once again from date of first instance to resolution in days. Here Malta is the absolutely worst offender, with no other country coming near. Again, it was worst in 2010 with over 800 days, decreased to just under 700 in 2012 and rose again to 750 in 2013.

Figure 6 shows Time needed to resolve administrative cases from date of first instance to resolution in days. Here once again Malta is the villain of the community with an unbelievable 2700 days in 2010 down to 1500 in 2012 and up once again to 2000 in 2013.

What we find absolutely unacceptable is then the Department of Information press release 150506 issued on 9 March which speaks about the Scoreboard without the slightest link to the document, and which then informs the largely uninformed public that the measures taken in late 2013 are making the difference in the administration of justice.

No word, of course, on Malta's baleful record, which should shame us all, nor on the huge gap between such record here and what is normal in other EU Member States.

The press release admits that the main problem regards delays in the court proceedings in Malta and mentions some measures that have been taken to perhaps speed up proceedings. But it is all too soft and understated as if palliatives can ever change the system that is ingrained in the Maltese culture.

Readers of this paper, and the business community in general well understand what such delays can do to business enterprise in Malta. In fact, any statistic or survey regarding competitiveness, carried out by various bodies of experts, always and invariably mention delays at court as a black blot on doing business in Malta.

To be fair, there are other statistics, other tables, where Malta does not fare so badly, such as the number of administrative pending cases (Figures 11 and 12) whereas as regards time needed to resolve insolvency Malta is among the worst offenders but not the worst one. And yet Malta is among the top EU member states that use ICT systems to help reduce the length of proceedings and to facilitate access to justice. Malta is also top as regards electronic communication between the court and the parties.

But when the Scoreboard puts Malta up at the top as regards electronic processing of undisputed debt recovery we may be excused if with our knowledge of how things pan out in Malta we let out a huge guffaw.

One final comment: Figure 26 once again shows Malta as having the wooden spoon as regards availability of online information about the judicial system available to the general public with only the very basic information about the justice system being available. And no information about the individual courts, cost of proceedings, information on legal aid, and on how to bring a case to court.

Will it cost the earth to put in serious improvements in this regard? Or are we better served by press releases that gloss over faults and defects and submerge everything and everyone under a deluge of optimism?