Proposed reforms in how fines are dished out by regulatory authorities should be implemented through a constitutional amendment, rather than an amendment to the Interpretation Act, the Venice Commission told the Maltese government on Tuesday.
In a reasoned opinion published on Tuesday afternoon, the Council of Europe body said that a reform which deals with fair trial requirements in proceedings which may lead to the imposition of large administrative penalties was best done through the Constitution.
The government had initially intended to amend the Constitution – which would require a two-thirds majority of MPs to vote in favour – but found the Opposition in its way. Amendments to the Interpretation Act – which would have required a simply parliamentary majority – were presented itself, but the proposals were universally panned by politicians, legal experts, and constituted bodies.
The government had subsequently written to the Venice Commission within the Council of Europe for their opinion on the matter.
Justice Minister Edward Zammit Lewis had insisted at the time that the amendments were intended to strengthen major authorities such as the Malta Gaming Authority, the Planning Authority, the Malta Financial Services Authority, and the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit in their fight against corruption and money laundering.
In a statement on Tuesday, Zammit Lewis expressed his satisfaction at the Venice Commission’s opinion.
“The Commission has clearly understood the government’s primary initiative to promote Bill 166 in parliament, that is, the Bill amending the Constitution does not go against the fundamental human rights and ensures that Article 39 of our Constitution - the right to a fair hearing - is in conformity with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights,” he said.
“After the publication of this opinion, I hope that the Opposition reacts in a responsible manner by ensuring that Bill number 166 passes through the House of Representatives with the required majority,” Zammit Lewis said.