The Constitutional Court has washed its hands of the complaint submitted by ADPD-The Green Party regarding the constitutional provisions in Articles 52 and 52A of the Constitution.

The Court stated that since the Constitution is silent on the issue of a potential conflict between its own provisions, the Court has no authority to determine the appeal filed by ADPD-The Green Party.

ADPD filed an appeal before the Constitutional Court asking the Court to declare that respect towards human rights is a fundamental right in the Constitution.

In 2024, the First Hall of the Civil Court turned down the case which ADPD filed against the Electoral Commission and the State Advocate in 2022.

The ADPD had opened the case to challenge the electoral law because it argued that despite the fact that it had obtained a national vote equivalent to the national quota, it did not win representation in the 2022 elections.

At a press conference Monday held a few minutes after the judgment was delivered, Carmel Cacopardo, Deputy Chairperson, said that the Court had washed its hands of the matter and had not even addressed the legal arguments that were presented for its consideration. Nowhere, for example, does the judgment make the slightest reference to what is provided in Article 1 of the Constitution, namely that respect for human rights is a fundamental cornerstone of the Constitution itself. One would have expected the Court, in its judgment, to discuss what Article 1 of the Constitution provides and to explain the relevance of the Court's arguments in relation to that article.

Cacopardo also drew attention to the fact that in another case heard by the Constitutional Court in 1996, the Court not only spoke differently, but also declared that part of the Constitution was in conflict with the human rights provisions contained within the same Constitution (Decision dated 22 February 1996, in the names Paul Stoner et al. vs the Honourable Prime Minister et al.).

In the "dry judgment", lacking any real explanation, the Court nowhere explains why it ignored both what is stated in Article 1 of the Constitution and the decision of the same Constitutional Court, differently constituted, in the above-mentioned case, ADPD said.

Sandra Gauci, Chairperson, said that they are disappointed by the decision and that they are in consultation with their legal team to consider what further legal steps can be taken, including taking the case before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.