Mr Justice Gino Camilleri ruled that the General Workers Union could broadcast an advert that had previously been stopped by the Broadcasting Authority. In the 11-page judgement, Mr Justice Camilleri noted that the authority had denied the GWU a basic and fundamental right of expression by denying transmission of the advert on local television.

In its plea, the GWU said the Broadcasting Authority had claimed that the advert had political content and that the BA had denied its fundamental right to freedom of expression. Additionally, the union said that such a practice was not acceptable in a democratic society and it asked the court to remove the ban on the advert.

In its reply, the Broadcasting Authority said that it was not true that it had denied the GWU the right of free expression as the union could have agreed on a scheme of political broadcasts instead of the advert that was not politically impartial. The BA asked the court to reject the union’s plea as this would set a precedent since the advert was politically biased.

After considering various documents, witnesses’ testimony and other factors, the court examined the legal points on which the union’s and the authority’s argument was based. The court said that the advert was without doubt political as it made reference to social justice. The court added that it was not practical for an advert to be removed from television by offering a political schedule of broadcasts instead. It added it was significant that no political parties or employers associations had protested against the adverts.

The court also noted that the right to freedom of expression was enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention. Citing case law VGT Verein Gegen Tierfabriken vs Switzerland, decided on 28 June 2001, the court said this case showed that political advertising could be stopped only if it is being broadcast to protect public opinion from the pressures of powerful financial groups and from undue commercial influence; to provide for a certain equality of opportunity between the different forces of society; to ensure the independence of broadcasters in editorial matters from powerful sponsors and to support the press. This case (GWU vs BA) had none of these conditions, the court said.

Concluding, the court said that the authority’s decision had gone against the union’s fundamental rights of freedom of expression, adding that this declaration is an adequate remedy to ensure that this right will not be obstructed by the authority in future.