Category: Fact-Check

FATTI: Is Malta “full-up”?
“Malta is full-up.”

You’ve heard it before: at the dinner table, on the street, or from politicians across the spectrum.

It’s a bipartisan refrain, invoked by figures from both of Malta’s major parties, each wielding it to serve different agendas, be it economic strategy, asylum policy, public service pressures, infrastructure strain, or concerns over public safety.

The latest to join the chorus is Nationalist Party (PN) MP Ivan Castillo, who wrote on Facebook:

“Everyone knows it, although few have the courage to say it. (…) Malta is full-up. (…) Overpopulation is the main problem. ”

But does perception match reality? Our latest FATTI explores the narrative.

Castillo, who called for using more AI and automation instead of foreign workers, is not the first or last politician to claim that Malta is “full-up”.

In 2020, both Prime Minister Robert Abela and then-PN Leader and current leadership candidate Adrian Delia employed the “full up” narrative.

“Let’s have a common policy on regular immigration. Its central theme must be that our country is full up. […] This message must come, not just from the government, but from the government, the opposition, and civil society… our country is full up. Our country cannot handle more immigration,” Abela said at the time, about the arrival of asylum seekers.

“The position regarding the arrivals of boat immigrants, that is, irregular immigrants, must remain one that Malta is full up,” he said another time.

This year, in a consultation document on labour migration, Abela admitted that before the framework was developed, the labour migration market had been “unregulated”.

Prime Minister Robert Abela

Delia, meanwhile, said: “We are full, we have no space, our open centres are packed, overcrowded. […] This situation was brought about by this government. “Why? Because for six years it has been importing people with open doors: ‘come, come, come, we need people’.”

Alex Borg, who is competing with Delia to become the next PN leader, recently said in a televised debate, “We do have a problem with the number [of foreigners], because the current government does not invest in infrastructure”, implying that people would not be complaining about population growth if infrastructure were adequate.

Malta is the most densely populated EU country, leaving the runner-up, the Netherlands, far behind.

Various indicators indicate an increasing demand for new resources and infrastructure in Malta, driven by population growth.

The latest census (2021) showed that the population had grown by more than 100,000 over the past decade, while the foreign population had increased fivefold since 2011 and now surpassed 20%.

Between 2022 and 2023 alone, Malta‘s population increased by 4%, or 21,564 new residents.

Do asylum seekers and refugees play a role?

This year, almost 0.2% of asylum seekers arriving in Europe via Mediterranean routes ended up in Malta.

In 2023, the UNHCR reported that 11,412 refugees resided in Malta, alongside 2,005 asylum seekers, compared to a Maltese citizen population of almost 405,000 and a foreign population of around 148,000.

This means that people with pending asylum cases or granted protection are around 9% of foreigners in Malta.

If we add the 738 rejected asylum seekers still living in Malta (data until March 2023), the migrants arriving via the asylum route are around 10% of the foreigners in Malta.

Asylum seekers, refugees, TCNs – what’s the difference?

Third-country nationals (TCNs) are non-EU nationals who do not have free movement rights in the EU – this includes Brits but not Norwegians, because Norway is a member of the European Economic Area, where free movement of workers applies.

Asylum seekers are non-EU nationals who have asked for protection and their cases are being processed;

Refugees are those who were forced to flee their country and cannot return.

The claims that Malta was under disproportionate pressure from asylum seekers may have rung true in between 2011 and 2013, when Malta was No. 1 in the EU in terms of asylum seekers per population.

After years of hovering around four asylum seekers per 1,000 inhabitants, the number increased to 8.14 in 2019, making Malta the second-highest in the EU after Cyprus.

By 2023, Malta was no longer among the top 10 EU countries in terms of asylum applications per capita. Other small countries, notably Cyprus, Luxembourg and Estonia, processed more asylum claims per 1,000 inhabitants than Malta.

Under 200 lived in government-maintained open centres in 2024 – down from 1,621 in 2019. Only 701 applications for asylum were lodged, while there are 1,497 pending cases.

Labour migrants come through different channels.

In an interview with The Malta Independent in 2018, Clyde Caruana, then chairman of JobsPlus, stated that JobsPlus was pursuing the employment of third-country nationals to sustain Malta’s economic growth and its pension system.

“If the economy continues to grow, we will have to import foreigners, no questions asked. If we don’t, the economy will grow at a smaller rate,” he said.

When the pandemic began and many non-EU workers reportedly repatriated, then-Finance Minister Edward Scicluna told the press:

“When the private sector began to grow and could not find local workers, then naturally they began searching in Europe for workers,” he was quoted as saying to the Malta Independent.

By 2021, the Malta Chamber of Commerce called on the government to reform taxation in a way that “attracts, not detracts, foreigners from working in Malta” and to launch “an international marketing campaign showcasing Malta as a career destination”.

Specific key sectors attract foreign (EU and non-EU workers) to Malta.

The latest Eurostat data show that there were 34,000 workers from other EU countries and 97,000 workers from non-EU countries.

According to the latest report by the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), there were 7,554 non-Maltese workers in online activities licensed by MGA and 422 in casinos in 2024 – nearly three-quarters of all workers in both cases.

Almost 10,000 non-EU workers were employed in the hospitality and ancillary sectors in 2022.

Other factors, including traffic and tourism, also contribute to the pressure on infrastructure and services, with the government’s plan to bring in up to 4.5 million tourists in 2035 already raising concerns.

In 2023:
- Tourists spent 20 million nights, at points bringing an average of nearly 56 thousand additional users of infrastructure and services on any given day.
- 6,863 EU citizens and 33,120 third-country nationals moved to Malta, while 5,952 EU citizens and 13,560 third-country nationals moved out, increasing to 911 EU and 19,560 non-EU citizens.
- There were more vehicles than Maltese citizens (although fewer than total residents) on the islands – nearly 439 thousand vehicles in total.
In 2023, for every thousand Maltese citizens shared space and infrastructure with:
- 101 tourists,
- 267 resident foreign citizens,
- among them, 21 refugees,
- Only four asylum seekers.
Inbound tourists in 2024 amounted to 3,563,618, while total nights surpassed 22.9 million – a 19.5% increase compared to 2023.

Malta being “full-up” will always be a matter of perception. However, the causes behind Malta’s overpopulation issues are clear – and have little to do with men, women and children seeking asylum in the country.

Malta’s high population density may contribute to the feeling that the country is ‘full-up’ and its resources are stretched.

However, it is not sharing the limited space and resources with refugees and asylum seekers that creates a strain: a Maltese resident shares them with four times as many tourists and 11 times as many immigrants who came to Malta for other reasons.

Instead, it is a longstanding policy to import legal foreign labour and supercharge the tourism sector and the national econom,y which is significantly contributing to the population growth in the country.

Malta was seeing increases in asylum applications in 2018-2019 and, for a time, topped the EU list of countries with a high rate of asylum seekers. Five years later, none of the urgency (understandable at the time) is justified.

Today, the claim that Malta is full-up with refugees and asylum seekers is false – and it’s the narratives surrounding economic growth built on population growth, whether that’s employment or tourism, that need to be challenged.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
30 July 2025
FATTI: Is Malta Leading The Way On Climate Change Action And Adaptation?

Climate change, adaptation and resilience are key government priorities—or at least, that’s what Malta’s politicians claim. But even the National Audit Office, in a damning June report, found that measures to address it lacked clear ownership, timeframes, monitoring, and evaluation.

Still, that hasn’t stopped Malta’s politicians—whether in government or opposition—from making bold claims about their ability or intent to tackle the climate crisis, with Malta’s parliament even unanimously declaring a climate emergency in 2019.

But have the words translated to long-term, sustained action? Our latest FATTI looks at the details.

In a recent press release, the Climate Action Authority (CAA), launched in October 2024, said that “Malta [was] at the forefront of planning for climate change adaptation”.

The authority claimed that it was “the first of its kind in the European Union” and was working on an important plan, without providing any further details.

“In the coming weeks, meetings are also scheduled with social partners and civil society to create a realistic, inclusive, and feasible plan,” the statement continued before concluding:

“Malta is sending a clear message: climate resilience is a national priority.”

The Climate Action Authority (CAA) was launched with the promise of implementing a legal framework that would evaluate local policies related to climate-friendliness.

That year, the Climate Action Act was also adopted. It outlines the functions of the CAA, including the requirement “to ensure that all policy and legislation directly affecting climate change is reviewed in consultation with the Authority. The CAA can independently impose administrative penalties but not pass laws itself.

However, strategies and plans to address the climate crisis are not a new development. Malta adopted its first Climate Change Adaptation Strategy in 2012, while the Climate Act was introduced in 2015 and later reformed in 2024 to establish the CAA.

Minister Miriam Dalli. Photo credit: DOI

Malta, meanwhile, has agreed to the EU’s Green Deal. However, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana has said that he is sceptical of the ability of member states, including Malta, to reach said targets.

In its first report on climate policies, including CAA, the National Audit Office noted that “infrastructural and greening projects with adaptation-related benefits were generally not being supplemented with climate proofing assessments”.

The Climate Action Act requires that within each ministry, the permanent secretary acts as a climate action coordinator and submits inputs to the CAA. However, this law does not establish emissions reduction targets.

The CAA has been assigned to implement the EU’s Emissions Trading System, which allocates emissions allowances to polluting companies, allowing them to trade on the carbon market, including through auctions.

Its performance according to the Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) is low. Malta is ranked 34th out of 63 countries, while the implementation of climate policies is considered “poor”.

The government’s own Research Innovation Unit agrees: “Malta’s slow progress can be attributed to a combination of economic factors, fragmented climate governance, and the underutilisation of the Research Innovation Unit (RIU)”. The unit’s expert insights have remained underused by the central government.

Climate Action Authority’s CEO Abigail Cutajar. Photo credit: DOI

Meanwhile, the “ambitious” and “pioneering” solar and offshore wind plans described by Minister Miriam Dalli and the Energy and Water Agency remain at the planning stage. A tender has been issued and is still open.

“While the government is congratulating itself on setting up a novel Climate Action Authority, we continue seeing inaction on climate change. A cross-sectoral authority on climate change is an excellent idea – but only if it has real power and the political will backing it, and has the mandate to assess and advise on proposed projects on the basis of their climate impacts,” Friends of the Earth Malta, an environmental organisation, wrote in a statement.

In the 2025 budget speech, the finance minister also promised “Carbon-free economy by 2050”, which is impossible as production and life itself create carbon emissions, so most policymakers use the term ‘carbon neutral’ instead to mean that the carbon emitted is balanced with the carbon absorbed.

Miriam Dalli’s recent visit to CAA. Photo credit: DOI

Malta has made some progress in reducing emissions, largely due to the switch from fuel oil to liquified natural gas for energy generation and the construction of an electricity interconnector.

Still, between mid-2023 and mid-2024, Malta recorded the fastest-growing emissions in the EU. Growth has since slowed and is now below the EU average, but emissions are still rising.

Meanwhile, despite a temporary dip during the pandemic, transport emissions are growing substantially and are on track to overtake energy generation emissions.

The government has decided to replace the expansion of an electric bus fleet with providing more grants for individuals and companies to purchase electric vehicles. CAA did not reply to questions about whether it was consulted about this.

Malta Public Transport Buses

Waste also contributes significantly, and households continue to burn diesel and gas for heating and cooling.

Despite this, Malta remains somewhat unambitious in its climate commitments. While the EU has committed to a 40% emissions reduction by 2030 under the Effort Sharing Regulation, Malta negotiated a commitment to only 19%. The government considers even that too ambitious and wants to avoid it.

The RIU, the government’s research arm, says that “Malta’s current approach misses the potential of a bottom-up strategy, where local councils and specialised units like the RIU are empowered to act. Local councils, when provided with the right resources, could implement inter-alia: pedestrianisation initiatives, low-emission zones, and urban greening projects—addressing key issues like overdevelopment and car dependence.”

Malta has also committed to achieving only 10% share of renewable energy by 2020, but the expected renewable energy share in 2030 is below EU target. Malta’s share is the third-lowest in the EU, lagging behind Cyprus among others.

Malta’s latest strategy outlines measures like EV grants, more charging stations, shore-to-ship power, and free public transport.

However, it tracks investments and user numbers without measuring reductions in fossil-fuel use or car dependency. Experts told the CCPI that these initiatives often add to, rather than replace, fossil-fuelled trips.

Questions about how CAA spends the Climate Action Fund were ignored. Neither Transport ministry’s spokesperson nor permanent secretary Bjorn Callus did not reply to Amphora’s questions about any inputs exchanged with CAA on transport policy.

Contrary to political statements, Malta is a laggard, not a leader, in the climate transition, with unambitious goals and a lack of vision for transformation.

Amphora Media has not found any evidence that establishing the Climate Action Authority has introduced more ambition or more accountability in climate policymaking.

There is no proof that establishing a government entity or drafting more plans counts as “punching above its weight”, as its CEO claimed, or being at the “forefront”.

An analysis of policies in key areas confirms the National Audit Office’s insights that ownership, timeframes, monitoring and evaluation are lacking.

In other words, wishlists are abundant, but nobody takes on the task of assigning tasks and determining how their success will be measured.

Due to EU commitments and thanks to its funding, Malta is taking some moderate, unambitious steps towards reducing its impact on the climate, and there is no evidence that climate is treated as an emergency when it comes to concrete action.

In this context, political claims that Malta prioritises climate mitigation or leads the way are false.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

15 July 2025
FATTI: Is Malta Using Bill 55 to Shield Gambling Firms From EU Courts?
The European Commission is challenging Malta’s Bill 55 after two years of tensions between gambling companies and courts in EU states, such as Austria — a move that Malta’s government and Malta Gaming Authority are resisting.

A 2023 amendment to Malta’s Gaming Act through Bill 55 mandates Maltese courts reject court judgements from other countries that undermine “the legality of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta”.

On 18th June, the European Commission announced that it was opening infringement proceedings against Malta “for failing to comply with its obligations under the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements (Regulation (EU) 1215/2012) in the area of gambling” – referred to locally as ‘gaming’.

Malta’s government and its regulator, the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), dispute the Commission’s stance. Government argues that Bill 55 “does not establish new or separate grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement”, with the MGA elaborating that the refusal to recognise court judgements is not a blanket ban.

Is Malta protecting its industry, or applying a creative interpretation of EU law? Let’s look at the facts.

According to the MGA, the legal amendment “does not impose a blanket ban on enforcing European judgements against Maltese-licensed gaming companies, nor does it shield them from legal action in other EU courts”

This is a position that MGA expressed in 2023, when the bill was adopted, saying that the amendment “enshrining into law the country’s existing public policy that protects the status of the Maltese gaming licence from unfounded challenges” and that “the law does not preclude any action whatsoever from being taken against a licensee”.

Bill 55 was tabled by Economy Minister Silvio Schembri “to codify in law the longstanding public policy of Malta encouraging the establishment of gaming operators in Malta”.

The bill amended the Gaming Act to state that “the Court shall refuse recognition and/or enforcement in Malta of any foreign judgement and/or decision given upon an action” that “conflicts with or undermines the legality of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta”.

Gambling laws are not harmonised in the EU, and there is no obligation for authorities to recognise gambling licences from another EU country. There is case law that repeatedly recognises the rights of EU countries to restrict the cross-border market of gaming services, but restrictions (such as more stringent criteria for a national licence) must be proven to be proportionate.

According to the government of Austria, “cross-border supply of gambling activities is not allowed”.

“Gambling activities, e.g. via electronic media (Internet) offered internationally, are also subject to the national gambling monopoly and may not be advertised or executed within Austria. Interventions into the monopoly are punishable by civil law or administrative penalty regulations of the gambling law”.

The EU Regulation 1215/2012 stipulates that court judgements are to be enforced, except when refused on specified grounds, one of which is public order.

The public order is understood as “rules that Member States deem of special importance” – something not clearly defined and subject to debate. Abroad, such debates have occurred, for example, on the recognition of marriage between cousins, surrogacy, or expropriation.

Malta itself has different regulations for land-based casinos, for example. They must have a government concession to apply for an MGA licence and are inspected daily. Only four companies had a licence to run land-based casinos, according to a 2024 report by MGA 2024.

According to Investigate Europe, authorities in Austria, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands are dealing with “a deluge of consumer complaints about illegal gambling”. The crux of the matter: Malta-based firms operate websites without licenses in some countries they target.

This is how it works:
- Another country’s law requires that gambling companies obtain a national licence to operate.
- If a company targets such a country’s gamblers without a required licence, its contracts with gamblers are null and void under the law.
- Gamblers who lost money sue and win in national courts.
- To reclaim money from gambling companies headquartered in Malta, they need Maltese courts to recognise the foreign court judgement.
- That should be automatic in the EU, with limited exceptions. Bill 55 enshrines such an exception.
“Maltese courts apply Bill 55, and they reject enforcement of judgements based on it. There’s no reason why I should invest money, pay a Maltese lawyer, pay Maltese court fees, to bring a judgement to Malta where I 100% know that it will not work,” says Benedikt Quarch, co-founder and managing director of a company called RightNow. He represents German and Austrian claimants.

Amphora Media analysed Maltese court cases since the adoption of Bill 55. We found 81 first-instance judgements involving gambling companies and 32 appeals that cited the relevant legislation.

Not all of these were court judgements about refunding gambling losses. The court issued interim judgements on many procedural requests, responding to challenges brought by either side – the gambler or the company – including garnishee orders and requests for recusal.

This is how the cases ended:
- Interim judgements:
  - Gamblers won only 3,
  - Companies won 62.
- Cases where a final judgement was issued:
  - Gamblers won 7,
  - Companies won 9.
- Appeals:
  - Gamblers won 5,
  - Companies won 27.
Claimants have seen some success in Maltese courts despite Bill 55. In one case, a gambler won because the losses occurred before the law came into effect. Courts have also ordered refunds of losses with interest and, in another instance, upheld an Austrian enforcement order while refusing to release a company’s frozen funds. However, it temporarily suspended the actual transfer of money.

On the other hand, the court decided in favour of gambling companies in even more cases. In some cases, courts found that a gambler had “abused the process” by repeatedly filing identical applications and refused to recognise and enforce an Austrian judgement because it conflicted with Malta’s public policy and gaming laws.

Quarch argues that currently, there are relatively few cases in Maltese courts because gamblers and their lawyers do not expect a favourable outcome. “Everybody understands that the only reason why you can’t get the money at the moment is Malta and Maltese legislation,” he says.

“As soon as the European Court of Justice declares Bill 55 void, we can bring thousands of cases to Malta. So, Maltese courts can look forward to the day on which Bill 55 will be struck down, because on this day, there will be thousands of cases in the Maltese court system,” — lawyer Benedikt Quarch

Nearly half of the cases were about suspending a garnishee order and many stopped at that. “It’s not up to the Maltese to define when their courts may not implement a decision from another member state,” Miguel Poiares Maduro, a former advocate-general at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and now an academic, told Investigate Europe earlier this year.

The Malta Gaming Authority’s statement that the amendment “does not impose a blanket ban” is somewhat true. There have been instances where gamblers have managed to enforce foreign judgements against Maltese-licensed gambling companies.

However, companies won the majority of cases, despite the fact that there is no single market for gambling services in the EU (countries are free to regulate it as they wish) and it is not clear how some gamblers’ claims went against Malta’s public order more than others. Malta is also opposing another country’s stricter approach to online gambling when its own framework for land-based gambling is dependent on government policy and concessions.

In the absence of legal certainty, one of the lawyers representing gambling company clients says that many cases have not even reached Maltese courts because they are waiting for the European Court of Justice’s decision.

Where countries like Austria protect their public order by introducing more stringent regulations, Malta claims to protect its public order by allowing gambling operators to avoid responsibility for failing to comply with the laws in Austria.

Where one country limits online gambling from abroad and another country legislates that such limits are not enforceable, there is a clash between two legal systems that is best tackled at the EU level.

Analysis of the judgements shows that a fifth of the wins were because the losses were experienced before Bill 55.

The rejection rate of other EU countries’ judgements in this area is high. Given that gamblers occasionally win cases despite Bill 55, it is not a blanket ban. But legal certainty over enforcement of foreign judgements is lacking.

The answer whether Bill 55 “systematically”, in the Commission’s words, shields gambling companies is somewhat true.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
3 July 2025
FATTI: Is Malta Really ‘Proactive’ on Human Rights Rulings?

As key justice reforms remain stalled, government ministers have lauded Malta’s “proactive” stance on implementing European Court of Human Rights judgements.

During a meeting with ECtHR officials, Foreign Minister Ian Borg claimed the rulings are “crucial” in shaping ongoing reforms. Justice Minister Jonathan Attard echoed this in a press release, praising Malta’s progress and compliance.

But is the country truly taking the Court’s guidance to heart? This edition of FATTI investigates whether Malta is walking the talk on human rights.

In the meeting with ECtHR officials, Foreign Minister Ian Borg said that the “judgements have been crucial in guiding our ongoing reforms as we remain committed to continuously updating our legislation to ensure their full implementation”.

“We see the implementation of ECtHR judgments not as a burden, but as a partnership—a shared responsibility to uphold the rule of law and promote dignity for all,” Minister Attard emphasised in his press release.

“Malta’s steadfast commitment to judicial independence and improving access to justice – areas in which Malta continues to benefit from constructive engagement with the Venice Commission [the Council of Europe’s advisory body] and GRECO [Council of Europe’s anti-corruption platform],” he added.

What is the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)?

The ECtHR is responsible for applying the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and its judgements are binding on the case parties. The Committee of Ministers, another Council of Europe institution, supervises how countries execute the judgments, but is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws.”

The Council of Europe is separate from the EU, but the ECHR (the European Convention of Human Rights) has significantly influenced EU law.

Individuals can initiate a case in ECtHR if they feel their rights under the ECHR have been violated by a signatory state – and only after they have exhausted avenues for justice in domestic institutions, which in Malta’s case includes the Constitutional Court.

In a 2021 case regarding ongoing detention, the ECtHR ruled that constitutional redress proceedings are not an effective remedy for such complaints.

Ian Borg. Source: DOI

“What the Strasbourg Court has said repeatedly is that the whole system Malta has in place, intended to safeguard our rights, doesn’t work,” says Neil Falzon, director of aditus foundation, whose lawyers represent some claimants at the Strasbourg-based ECtHR.

“Speaking about people who are illegally deprived of their liberty, locally, there is no remedy that they can access – no remedy at all,” he added.

An analysis of judgments reveals that filed cases peaked in the period from 2010 to 2013, with visible patterns.

Cases decided, per year. Data downloaded from hudoc.echr.coe.int

Cases involving rent laws – protected long-term rents that historically imposed low fees on owners – have been present since Malta’s EU accession, and the last one was filed as late as 2021.

Numerous cases were filed about the degrading treatment of detainees. Some of them involved, but were not exclusive to, asylum seeker detention. Every year, numerous cases involving the judicial process, rent laws, and other areas are being decided, suggesting a persistent need to address issues in these areas.

Distribution of cases since 2004. Data from hudoc.echr.coe.int

There was also a substantial number of cases related to the judicial process, including court bias and the length of proceedings. Many complaints that have been repeated over the years are similar, suggesting that substantial reforms have not been implemented.

Since joining the EU, Malta has lost 90 cases. Rent laws accounted for a quarter of them. Detention came second, with almost a fifth of lost cases. The justice process came third, followed by the expropriation of land.

Below is a deeper dive into the most prevalent issues that led to lost ECtHR cases.

Jonathan Attard. Source: DOI

Cases in property laws

Before 2009, many Maltese rental agreements were governed by rules from the post-war period, heavily favouring tenants. These rules allowed tenants to stay in properties for life at unchanged or heavily restricted rents, often far below market value.

Evictions were nearly impossible, and rent increases did not come close to market rates, leading to significant financial losses for property owners.

In 2009 and 2010, the first reforms were introduced to start addressing the imbalance. However, these were not enough to resolve widespread disputes. Other cases followed until further amendments in 2021 introduced mechanisms for landlords to request market-aligned rent and, in some cases, reclaim the property.

Expropriation of private land was another frequent theme in property-related cases before the ECtHR . Compensation was often delayed and did not reflect market values, leaving landowners with little recourse. In many cases, people were informed of the expropriation through the government gazette.

Following pressure from national and international courts, Malta reformed its expropriation laws in 2017, mandating transparent procedures, timely and fair market-based compensation, and the right to challenge claims, ensuring expropriation is a last resort and reinforcing respect for private property rights.

European Court of Human Rights

Cases in detention and asylum

Malta lost five cases relating to the treatment of asylum claims and many more because of their treatment in detention.

According to an aditus foundation report, when asylum seekers began arriving in greater numbers in 2002, Malta imposed immediate, indefinite, and mandatory detention—often lasting for years with no legal time limit.

Detention conditions improved when Malta joined the EU, but remained automatic. In 2015, Malta adopted a new reception policy, which introduced legal limits to detention, after losing three cases in the ECtHR.

Jonathan Attard spoke of “a shared responsibility to uphold the rule of law and promote dignity for all”. Source: DOI

When the number of arrivals increased in 2018, automatic detention was instituted on public health grounds. In practice, this has been applied beyond legal limits and without clear communication.

In October 2021, former Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović visited a detention centre in Malta and “was struck by the deplorable situation”. NGOs have criticised unreasonable obstacles to monitoring detention conditions.

Detention service van. Photo credit: aditus foundation

One case, A.D v Malta, focused on this issue.

“At the time of A.D. and even before, everybody was detained under the public health legislation – adults, children, men, women, everybody was automatically detained for a couple of months. The ECtHR very clearly said that’s wrong,” lawyer Neil Falzon of the aditus foundation told Amphora Media. He represented A.D.

“The public health regime is now down to a couple of days, and people are given a detention order right away. At least now, the legal basis is one established in law.”

However, he notes that there was a negative development as well, because instead of detaining asylum applicants under public health rules on an ad hoc basis, Malta reverted to detaining all asylum applicants.

“We have to go again to the ECtHR and use the arguments we had used in [2010 and 2013]”, he said.

Separately, a reform of the accelerated asylum procedure remains unimplemented, despite Malta losing a related case in 2022.

Meanwhile, in 2013, an ECtHR application also stalled and blocked Joseph Muscat’s plans to push back to a group of asylum seekers to Libya.

Judicial reforms

Several cases end unfavourably for Malta because of deficiencies in its judicial system.

Ian Borg says that “we remain committed to continuously updating our legislation”. Source: DOI

At the end of 2024, Malta was among the 15 countries considered not in sufficient compliance with GRECO’s 5th Round recommendations. Meanwhile, the Venice Commission’s recommendation to create consistency in the application of constitutional rulings has yet to be implemented.

This has been flagged by the European Commission in its latest rule of law report:

“Uncertainty persists as to the erga omnes effect of judgements of the Constitutional Court, as it is up to Parliament to repeal or amend laws found unconstitutional”, which means that “judgments of the Constitutional Court lack universal applicability, allowing unconstitutional laws to remain valid until Parliament repeals them”.

The report noted “Parliament’s inconsistency in adhering to Constitutional Court rulings” and that “authorities confirmed that no steps have been taken to address this issue”.

As of mid-2024, Malta had 14 leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights pending implementation—a decrease from 15 at the start of the year, but the same number as mid-2023.

More than half (57%) of the leading judgments from the past 10 years remained pending in 2024, up from 45% in 2023.

The length of implementation has also increased. “The oldest leading judgment, pending implementation for 16 years, concerns disproportionate restrictions to property rights,” the report found, and there were “6 cases in total awaiting confirmation of payments”.

Lost human rights cases could be avoided at several stages, firstly by updating laws and establishing domestic redress mechanisms. But these essential reforms have been slow and materialised only after numerous cases.

Furthermore, opportunities to reach a friendly settlement with claimants and avoid losing a case are also not exhausted.

Expropriation and rental laws, which together have generated the largest number of lost cases, have been reformed – but only in 2017 and 2021, respectively.

Evidence of degrading detention conditions year after year shows that substantial reform has been lacking, despite detention conditions leading to a large number of lost cases for Malta.

The European Commission’s rule of law report notes that progress in judicial reforms is insufficient, which is likely to continue generating lost cases in the justice domain.

Given the sluggishness of reforms in key areas generating lost cases at the ECtHR, the minister’s statement is misleading.

Reforms have taken place somewhat reluctantly, given the number of cases, while Malta’s parliament continues to hold power over whether rulings can be translated to actual legislation.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

26 June 2025
FATTI: Are Manoel Island delays beyond MIDI’s control?

The concession granted to MIDI plc to develop Manoel Island is currently under the spotlight after activists collected over 29,000 signatures calling on the government to reclaim the island for the public.

Activists argue that MIDI, the developer, is bound by contractual obligations to ‘substantially’ complete the project by 2023, which it has failed to fulfil. MIDI has pushed back, insisting that the project is taking so long due to ‘unforeseen’ architectural finds on site, appeal processes, and “slow motion” planning.

Malta’s Prime Minister Robert Abela says the government’s hands are tied, and the developer would be eligible for hefty compensation if the concession was cancelled.

Opposition leader Bernard Grech believes the government must honour its obligations – but the interview did not cover developers’ obligations”. In recent days, several Nationalist Party MPs have come out in favour of scrapping the deal. Even the Labour Party’s president admitted to having signed the petition.

So did MIDI do everything it could to fulfil its contractual obligations?

In 2024, the Times of Malta fact-checked claims about whether the concession contract allows the government to reclaim Manoel Island if the developer fails to substantially complete the works.

In response, MIDI wrote that “The delays encountered are clearly documented and include the delays associated with the archaeological finds which necessitated the complete redesign of the masterplan, delays associated the approval of development permits and most recently the delay associated with the requirement to prepare a Heritage Impact Assessment, which is still ongoing.”

Speaking to MaltaToday, MIDI CEO Mark Portelli admitted that the 2023 deadline stipulated in the concession contract was breached. Still, he argued that the deed includes automatic provisions for extending that deadline, and those provisions cover building permits, archaeological finds, “any delays beyond the control of MIDI”.

He also specified that negotiations with the government are ongoing regarding the deadline extension based on the archaeological findings.

Neither MIDI nor the government replied to our questions about the content and timeline of these negotiations.

Portelli considers that the company lost 10 years due to archaeological excavations on the two sites included in the concession. He expects 10 years to be added to the completion deadline.

“The Group has encountered several unforeseen delays related to the issuance of development permits and archaeological finds at both Manoel Island and Tigné Point. These issues, which were not foreseen at the time the emphyteutical deed was granted in 2000, entitles the Group to an extension of the completion date for the development works as per the provisions of the Deed,” MIDI’s chairman wrote in the company’s annual report.

Signed in 2000, the concession agreement contains clauses that establish a 2023 deadline to ‘substantially’ complete the development, and fines in the event this is not done.

Fines also apply if the developer fails to complete the restoration of heritage buildings, such as the Lazzaretto, by specified deadlines and commence works to prevent further deterioration of the heritage sites within six months, with completion expected within two years. The Lazzaretto restoration is still a work in progress: MIDI’s website still refers to it in the future tense.

The contract also requires the developer to apply for all necessary permits and authorisations within 12 months. Data on the Planning Authority’s website shows that the first application on Manoel Island since the concession agreement was for the restoration of Fort Manoel in 2001.

Failures to observe obligations are subject to fines. Meanwhile, if completion delays persist for three years, the government can rescind the concession.

There is a clause stating that “neither party shall be liable for delay in performing or failure to perform obligations if the delay or failure results from any event or circumstance outside its control.”

However, it points to a schedule that lists such events and circumstances specifically, and the list includes wars, floods, riots, and trade disputes, but not permitting processes, legal action or red tape.

MIDI’s argument has been that the deadlines do not apply since the company qualifies for an extension. “The clock is on hold,” Portelli said in 2025. In an earlier interview, he said archaeological digs began in 2019 and will last nearly five years.

A letter from Mamo TCV, a law firm representing MIDI, submitted to the Planning Authority states that “even a (hypothetical) breach of the condition [completion deadline] […] would not lead to ipso jure [by law] termination, but one which is at the discretion of the grantor [government]”.

It can be argued that archaeological finds are not as unforeseen as MIDI claims them to be. Attachments to the concession agreement include a report which mentions “many cemeteries on the island”.

Schedules attached to the contract allow the developer to address the discovery of archaeological remains by choosing to either rescind the concession over the affected areas, integrate the remains into the development if feasible, or—if the rest of the site becomes unsuitable—relinquish the entire concession. In such cases, the developer is entitled to a proportional refund and compensation for unusable improvements. A report by the Planning Authority shows that MIDI chose to integrate the cemeteries and convert them into a garden.

The fact that Manoel Island contains cemeteries has long been known. A 1987 publication by Paul Cassar stated that “There were six cemeteries, at different periods of time, associated with the lazzaretto”.

Planning Authority documents associated with MIDI’s 2017 development application clearly show that Superintendence for Cultural Heritage already flagged the likelihood of archaeological finds, as well as impact on Valletta’s UNESCO status.

Article 13 of the concession contract says that “the time limits” can be extended by any “such period” or “periods starting three months” from the date a required application is submitted, until the date that application is granted. This provision applies on condition that the developer duly filed all required applications and provided all the information required for them.

Some of the procedural delays were caused by the court questioning supporting documentation. An environmental impact assessment was challenged in court due to an alleged conflict of interest; however, in 2023, the court ruled that the assessment was acceptable. Nevertheless, the Superintendence for Cultural Heritage was not satisfied with the photomontages and archaeological evaluations.

The Environment & Resources Authority also noted that a nature permit would be required. This shows that competent authorities repeatedly had to remind the developer of the standards required for this type of application.

The question whether the delays are justifiable is ambiguous: if the government considered that delays up to 2023 were unjustified, it could have imposed fines, but in response to questions by the Times of Malta in 2024, MIDI did not admit to paying any fines and the government’s spokesperson did not answer the question. Neither MIDI nor the government replied to our questions directly.

Neither the government nor MIDI clarified the stage the discussion on the delays is in. MIDI’s 2024 annual report mentions discussions with the government – something its CEO Mark Portelli also confirmed in his 2025 interview.

The concession agreement contains several clauses that allow the government to ‘rescind’ (in full or in part) or ‘dissolve’ the concession contract. Regarding missed deadlines, there is currently no clarity from the government on its interpretation of whether project implementation delays are justified. Had the government imposed fines in 2023, it would be a clear signal. From MIDI’s responses to the media and the lack of mention of penalties in its annual report, it appears that no fines were imposed.

Since 2017, it was flagged to MIDI that cemeteries on site will require archaeological examinations, as cemeteries on the site have been mentioned in multiple sources. The impact of views and vistas of Valletta has also been flagged in late December in the planning application process. MIDI had the option to exclude sensitive areas from the concession, but did not use it.

As pointed out by MIDI’s lawyers, the interpretation of how the deadlines should be honoured is up to the government. From the limited communication on the issue from the government, it appears that, as a contracting side, it has accepted the delays and did not challenge or fine MIDI.
Pending the government’s communication on its interpretation of the acceptability of the delays, the matter remains ambiguous.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.

3 June 2025
FATTI: EU Is Singling Out Malta For Its Golden Passport Scheme
One overarching narrative has emerged in Malta’s battle to preserve its citizenship-by-investment programme: the EU and its institutions are unfairly singling the country out over its golden-passport scheme.

This narrative is two-pronged:
- Other countries are running similar golden passport schemes,
- The EU Commission had initially approved the scheme before u-turning under the influence of the Nationalist Party.
Is this accurate?

The idea that other EU countries run similar golden passport schemes, yet only Malta faces criticism, is longstanding.

It is a narrative used by Malta’s Prime Minister Robert Abela and his predecessor, Prime Minister Joseph Muscat.

The Nationalist Party’s stance is less clear, with the party’s manifesto calling for the scheme to be amended, and not scrapped.

The idea that Malta has been unfairly singled out has been regularly repeated following the court ruling, namely by MEP Alex Agius Saliba in an address to the European Parliament, and MP Alex Muscat in a recording of ‘Il-Kazin’.

“I’m also astonished that Austria—a Member State with a scheme identical to Malta’s—has been left entirely out of the discussion. I am amazed at how Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, which all have residence-by-investment schemes, can continue operating similar schemes, yet when it comes to Malta, it’s as if, because there is someone who to fans, all the windows get shut,” Agius Saliba said.

Alex Agius Saliba. Photo credit: Alexis HAULOT/ European Parliament

“We will abide by the Court’s decision so that we can keep a scheme that continues to generate wealth, because Malta is in no way inferior to any other Member State,” he added.

Read the original quote in Maltese

“Niskanta wkoll kif l-Awstrija, Stat Membru li għandu skema identika għal dik Maltija, tħalla kompletament barra mid-diskussjoni. Niskanta kif Ċipru, il-Greċja, l-Italja, il-Latvja, il-Lussemburgu, il-Portugall u Spanja li lkoll għandhom skemi ta’ residenza b’investiment jistgħu jmexxu skemi simili, iżda fil-konfront ta’ Malta għax hemm min irewwaħ, jinqalgħu l-irwiefen kollha.

Se nimxu mad-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti sabiex ikollna skema li tkompli tħalli l-ġid, għaliex Malta m’għandha xejn inqas minn Stati Membri oħra.”

It has even extended to operators. Henley & Partners, a leading service provider for passport buyers, claimed that the “ruling, targeting the smallest EU Member State, sets a worrying precedent for the undemocratic extension of EU competences beyond its treaty-based limits.”

“It would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the case were against France or Germany,” it added.

Another key claim in the current narrative is that the EU Commission approved the citizenship-by-investment programme after Malta implemented the necessary amendments, only to u-turn later following pressure by the Nationalist Party.

Both Abela and Joseph Muscat have fanned the flames of these claims. Abela has said that the PN staged a “systematic attack” and “then Simon Busuttil, David Casa, Roberta Metsola, who went out to celebrate that same day of the sentence”.

Meanwhile, Muscat told his social audience to “give a round of applause to Roberta Metsola and the PN who have worked against our country since the first minute”.

In the European Parliament, MEP Thomas Bajada described the golden passports scheme as a “programme that the EU Commission had approved, and we amended it where it was needed.”

Thomas Bajada. Photo credit: Alain ROLLAND/ European Parliament

Read the original quote in Maltese.

“Programm illi ġie approvat mill-Kummissjoni u emendajna fejn kien meħtieġ. U llum qed niddiskutu allegazzjoni dwar nies li jużaw dan il-programm biex jiżgiċċaw sanzjonijiet fuq ir-Russja, li azzjoni dwarhom bdiet tittieħed.”

Neither MEP replied to our request for comment to clarify the claims.

Did the Commission approve the golden passports scheme?

On 29th January 2014, two weeks after a damning resolution by the European Parliament, the EU Commission and the Maltese government reached an agreement over the golden passports scheme, which required that no citizenship or “certificate of naturalisation” would be issued unless:

“The applicant provides proof that he/she has resided in Malta for at least 12 months immediately preceding the day of issuing the certificate of naturalisation.”

The reached agreement was taken as an endorsement.

In 2021, the Passport Papers investigation exposed that officials often waived the requirement for a physical presence.

Applicants submitted receipts for consumables or newspaper subscriptions, and the average time spent in Malta, according to calculations by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, was 16 days.

The Commission’s use of “effective residence status” in its press release about the agreement suggests that the Commission was not aware of this creative interpretation of residency.

It referenced the investigation in the ECJ case, noting:

“The actual physical presence in Malta is required on two occasions only: to provide biometric data in order to obtain a residence permit and to swear the oath of allegiance”, and that the “legal residence” (rental or property purchase) does not constitute a “genuine link”.

The Commission’s spokesperson did not reply to a request for comment.

Was Malta singled out? Do other EU member states have similar programmes?

In 2019, the EU Commission published a comprehensive report on the risks of investor citizenship, focusing on Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta, which were running such schemes at the time.

The Commission’s report also noted that some countries run discretionary citizenship pathways, which are “used on a limited basis”.

In 2020, formal notices and comments were sent to Malta, Cyprus and Bulgaria. Cyprus repealed the scheme that year, while Bulgaria halted its programme in 2022.

The Commission referred Malta to the European Court of Justice in 2022, stating that passports are granted “in the absence of a genuine link with the naturalising country, such as long-term residence.”

As of 2024, most countries in the EU had residency visas for investors, known as golden visas, which differ from citizenship by investment, or golden passports, which offer a passport, citizenship and nationality.

Austria says it does not have a citizenship-by-investment scheme.

Austria does offer exemptions for investors, but these are discretionary. While there is no minimum investment amount, applicants must make a substantial, active contribution to the Austrian economy, creating jobs and implementing projects.

Industry sources estimate that it could cost up to €10 million. A Commission fact-finding study found that all applicants for citizenship were required to pass a language and civic knowledge test and prove “uninterrupted registered residence”.

Among residency schemes, only six on the EU’s list focus on passive investment in real estate. Portugal has removed the real estate pathway, and its golden visa concentrates now on job creation or cultural contributions.

In the case of Portugal, a country often cited in defence of the scheme, an applicant for the residency-by-investment can only become a citizen if they’ve been a resident for at least five years (with sufficient proof of residency), and must also provide certification proving fluency in Portuguese. This is the standard process for naturalisation.

Malta, like Portugal, has a residency by investment programme. This was not subject to the court decision.

The Commission has been pressured to do more against citizenship by investment by the majority of the European Parliament, which has repeatedly called on the Commission to ban citizenship by investment and impose stricter regulations on residency by investment.

The claim that the European Commission’s criticism regarding the absence of a genuine link focuses on Malta while ignoring comparable schemes elsewhere is false.

Since 2019, the European Commission has criticised citizenship by investment schemes in Bulgaria, Cyprus and Malta.

By 2022, at the point of the EU court referral, no other EU country was running a similar scheme.

Austria’s investor citizenship pathway is different from a structured scheme, requiring significant investment in the country that extends to job creation.

Residency by investment (so-called golden visas) should not be confused with citizenship by investment (so-called golden passports).They are entirely different schemes that provide entirely different privileges.

The court ruling does not impact Malta’s current residency-by-investment scheme.

The EU Commission and European Parliament have made that distinction, with the latter calling for a ban on golden passports and stricter regulation of golden visas.

The claim that the European Commission had approved the scheme in Malta before u-turning is misleading.

When the European Commission reached an agreement on the scheme in 2014, Malta failed to live up to the agreement. Simply buying or renting property, offering scant evidence of spending, and scarcely setting foot on the island did not amount to a genuine link or proof of residency. Once those facts came to light, the Commission began its legal challenge against Malta.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
20 May 2025
FATTI: €1.4 Billion From Malta’s Golden Passport Sales Was “Invested In The People”
By Daiva Repečkaitė and Julian Bonnici

The European Court of Justice has condemned Malta’s citizenship-by-investment scheme. Still, Malta’s government and Prime Minister Robert Abela have staunchly defended the scheme, citing a €1.4 billion revenue supposedly created to benefit Maltese people.

But is that correct? An analysis of published data shows that the actual investment in people is far smaller.

The claim

In a Facebook post, the Prime Minister claimed the scheme generated “almost a billion and a half euros that we have invested in people”, helping them “in their hour of need” during moments like the pandemic.

A government press release cited the €1.4 billion figure, listing several projects:
- More than €60 million to social housing projects, “providing hundreds of social housing apartments”.
- An €8.5 million investment in St Michael Hospice, a state-of-the-art palliative care project.
- €5 million invested in the Puttinu Cares apartments in London.
- A €10 million investment in health centres,
- “Millions” in equipment at St Vincent De Paul and the cardiology department at Mater Dei Hospital.
- €5 million invested in athletes participating in the Games of the Small States of Europe
- Over €13 million allocated to the construction of a car racing track.
- A €9 million agreement with the Malta Football Association for a new technical centre
The facts

The revenues generated from the programme are channelled into two key streams:

1. The National Development and Social Fund (NDSF) – 70%

The NDSF runs a direct investment portfolio for local economic, cultural or social strategic investments.

Such investments ranged from purchasing Lombard Bank shares to buying art at international auctions to the social projects mentioned above.

It also includes a discretionary portfolio, a BOV-managed fund targeting global investments, like bonds and securities.

2. The Consolidated Fund – 30%

The main government bank account, where all public revenues are deposited and expenditures are made, receives around 30% of the money generated.

It should be noted that the statement says that the percentage sent to the Consolidated Fund increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, no official figure could be found for the amount spent from the citizenship scheme revenues during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A breakdown of the distribution of revenues from golden passports – Source: NSDF Report 2022

According to the latest financial statements, the NDSF received €619 million in revenues between its inception and 2022.

€130 million, or about one-fifth, was allocated to projects of social importance.

Prime Minister Robert Abela provided a breakdown of the distribution of the NDSF’s social projects in July 2024, following a parliamentary question from MP Mark Anthony Sammut.

The government did not respond to requests to provide the latest official figures.

Figures provided by Prime Minister Robert Abela to Parliament in July 2024

The data confirms that as of July 2024, less than 10% of the reported €1.4 billion generated from the scheme went into social projects, and that just €41,847,629, or one-third of the amount promised, had been paid out.

Notably, just under €7.7 million of the total €60 million promised to social housing had been used by July 2024 – some 13% of the amount pledged.

In 2019, the NDSF and the Housing Authority pledged to develop 550 housing units. The latest financial statements suggest that works were at the permitting stage, awaiting tenders.

Since then, we have found seven tenders for the construction of housing blocks issued by the Housing Authority and published on the government’s public procurement website. The Ministry for Social and Affordable Housing did not reply to our request for an update.

The data provided by Prime Minister Abela in July 2024 shows some schemes for which no disbursements have been provided. These include:
- The New Hope scheme, which offers a loan for individuals who face difficulties in taking up life insurance.
- Richmond Foundation: KIDS for Development Programme
- CT Scan/MRI St Vincent De Paul Hospital
- SportMalta ‐ Malta Olympic Committee High Performance Strategy
The funds committed to Puttinu Cares were fully disbursed. However, this figure over the years pales before regular donations from the general public at a single charity event, reportedly over €3 million in 2024 and 2025 each.

Successful applicants of the golden passport scheme also donate to charitable causes, which extend to football clubs, band clubs, university departments, the Malta Film Commission, and many others, one of which is managed by citizenship scheme agents themselves.

According to a 2023 report by the regulator, since the beginning of the programme €6,112,648 were received across 1,061 donations.

The claim also included €339 million from property purchases and €158 million from property rentals, which is also not direct investment in people.

Participation in the property market is not direct investment in people, as a 2023 KPMG report showed that growth in the construction and real estate sector did not trickle down to workers’ income.

The government’s spokesperson did not respond to our questions and requests for a breakdown of more updated figures.

The verdict: Misleading – but not entirely false

The claim about the citizenship-by-investment scheme’s contribution to society’s needs is overestimated, and the claim that €1.4 billion was invested “in the people” is misleading.

From the €1.4 billion figure, over 90% of the funds generated do not go directly to social projects – instead, they are either placed in financial instruments, which generate interest, debt securities and other assets – or not utilised at all

Only €131 million – less than a tenth of the €1.4 billion figure – has been committed to social projects, and only a third has been disbursed.

So while the scheme certainly generated €1.4 billion in revenue, it is inaccurate to say that the billion figure is ‘directly’ invested in the people.

This project is supported by the European Media and Information Fund. The sole responsibility for any content supported by the European Media and Information Fund lies with the authors and it may not necessarily reflect the positions of the EMIF and the Fund Partners, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation and the European University Institute.
14 May 2025