The pair, who are accountants behind the firm Ennesse,  were arraigned in January 2025 after authorities reportedly discovered a €1.5 million discrepancy in their tax and VAT declarations. 

Around €15 million of their assets – spread across 15 companies – were placed under a freeze order, while a court reportedly declared there was enough prima facie evidence for them to stand trial in February 2025.

Nigel and Mikaela Scerri chose not to comment on the outcome when contacted by Amphora Media.

The Scerris are the latest to make use of a new legal mechanism introduced under Bill 142. These include: Christian Borg, a car dealer with ties to Prime Minister Robert Abela, charged in a  €1.4 million tax evasion and money laundering case; and Aron Mifsud Bonnici, a lawyer and former advisor of Konrad Mizzi, charged in a 1.6 million case and who is separately facing charges in the Vitals Hospitals case.

Under this framework, taxpayers may enter into agreements with the Commissioner for Tax and Customs to regularise tax offences by paying penalties and outstanding dues, thereby avoiding criminal prosecution for the offences covered by the settlement.

The mechanism also applies to certain “connected breaches” and predicate offences, linked to the tax offence, such as money laundering and fraud.

It is being implemented elsewhere. In reply to a series of parliamentary questions by MP Adrian Delia, Finance Minister Clyde Caruana confirmed that the Malta Tax and Customs Administration (MTCA) has received several applications under the new law and is currently processing them. 

The law could also have significant implications for a major tax fraud investigation involving a VAT carousel. 

In 2023, it was reported that Martin Farrugia and Henriette Cassar were accused of defrauding the VAT system, allegedly to the tune of around €62 million.

The investigation, known as Operation Panthera, reportedly covers the period 2012–2019 and encompasses companies linked to the contractor (including NCCF, MAM Construction Ltd, and MWF Construction Ltd), which are said to have under-declared substantial sales and VAT payable.

The pair have pleaded not guilty, and the case is ongoing. Amphora Media has been informed that the police are aware of businesses involved in the scheme, but all have so far evaded prosecution. 

Amphora Media has reached out to the police over the issue.

Five years later, the rhetoric has shifted. Standing before the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly during his second term as Prime Minister in June 2025, Abela claimed:

“When it comes to the absolute majority of the reforms, we took the report and implemented it lock, stock and barrel.”

“[Malta] is an example of best practice when it comes to reforms.”

But does the record back him up?

At the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly in June, Prime Minister Robert Abela made a series of statements on reforms, rule of law, and press freedom.

On Venice Commission recommendations:

• “I am very proud to say that we implemented the Venice Commission report in full, apart from some very minor aspects, where unfortunately our opposition opposed.”
• “By 2021, we finished a whole raft of reforms which had been suggested to us. We had absolutely no issue with the Venice Commission. I think the Venice Commission cites us as an example of best practice when it comes to reforms.”

On the safety of journalists and the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia:

• “We have done an overhaul of our institutional setup following that case. (…)I think many other countries could look at us as an example and consider us as best practice when it comes to the implementation of the best rule of law practices. I think we have learned from that case and implemented robust reforms in practice.”
• “We fully recognise the essential role that journalists play in a healthy democracy. It is part of our broad commitment to ensure that journalists can work freely and safely,” he said.

The Venice Commission is the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters. In 2018, in the wake of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the Venice Commission recommended several reforms in the justice sector, including:

• Dismissals of judges and magistrates should not be made by Parliament;
• The judgments of the Constitutional Court finding legal provisions unconstitutional should have erga omnes force (which means that they should apply beyond an individual case);
• Parliament should be strengthened by tightening rules on conflicts of incompatibility, notably as concerns appointments of MPs to Officially Appointed Bodies;
• An increase in MPs’ salaries, allowing them to focus on parliamentary work.

In 2020, the Venice Commission reminded Parliament to act on decisions where the “Constitutional Court [finds] a legal provision unconstitutional”, and issued several recommendations on the appointments to key enforcement positions.

This, notably, introduces, as an anti-deadlock mechanism, the election of the Chief Justice by the judges of the Supreme Court in the absence of an agreement of two-thirds of the MPs for his or her election, and that the names of the three candidates should be published when the Judicial Appointments Committee transmits them to the President.

In its detailed opinion that same year, it criticised the ‘rushed’ adoption of some suggested legal changes, without proper consultation.

The latest Venice Commission opinion on Malta was issued in 2021 and related to substantial administrative penalties.

A 2024 rule of law report by the European Commission, which takes note of the recommendations by the Venice Commission, said “some further progress in pursuing efforts to improve the efficiency of the justice system”, but stressed that “anti-corruption recommendations issued following the public inquiry into the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia have not been implemented yet.” 

According to the report, there was “no progress on establishing a robust track record of final judgments” in corruption cases.

Malta continues to perform poorly according to the EU’s latest justice scoreboard:

• Despite having more lawyers per capita than most EU countries, Malta fared worst in the EU in terms of lawyers’ independence. 
• Malta was third-worst in terms of the use of digital technology by courts and prosecution services.
• The estimated time to resolve judicial cases in Malta is among the longest.

Neither the Venice Commission opinion nor the Rule of Law report on Malta contains the words “good” or “best practice”.

The idea appears to originate from a Politico ‘Brussels Playbook’ sub-heading, titled ‘Best Practice Malta’, regarding an interview with then-EU commissioner Didier Reynders. Abela had tweeted that sub-heading, and then-justice minister Edward Zammit Lewis referenced it in a Times of Malta op-ed in 2021.

Among the Venice Commission recommendations, the erga omnes principle, or at least an obligation for the parliament to remove unconstitutional laws, remains entirely unimplemented, as we have already reported.

Recent judicial reforms have also courted controversy. Under a new law, Bill 125, ordinary citizens can no longer directly petition a magistrate to initiate a magisterial inquiry and must instead file a police report, waiting six months before approaching the courts.

This, the EU’s rule of law report notes, “has given rise to strong criticism from some stakeholders about its potential impact on the prosecution of high-level offences” that will “effectively close off an important avenue for accountability and justice in Malta”.

Media aspects: Daphne Inquiry Recommendations Remain Unimplemented

Between 2024 and 2025, Malta rose in the RSF media freedom index, but the authors noted:

“In 2021, the conclusions of a public inquiry into investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder listed an exhaustive list of reforms that the government has been reluctant to implement.

The inquiry urged the government to establish a legal framework to protect journalists, guarantee self-regulation of the profession, and reform the Freedom of Information Act to curb the culture of secrecy. It also called for fair distribution of state advertising, among other measures.

It further recommended creating an independent commissioner for journalism and amending the constitution to recognise journalism as a pillar of democracy, alongside the individual’s right to access information from the state.

A bill on the protection of journalists, submitted to the Parliament, is stuck in the first reading. A public consultation on legal changes affecting journalists is ongoing.

The European Commission’s Rule of Law report noted that there was “Some progress on adopting legislative and other safeguards to improve the working environment of journalists, and no progress on access to official documents”.

Abela’s spokesperson did not reply to our request for comment.

Despite some progress recognised by institutions, Venice Commission’s reforms are still implemented selectively. Authorities confirmed to the Rule of Law report that nothing is being done about the universal applicability of constitutional rulings. This is not a minor aspect, as it affects legal certainty for victims and has profound implications for human rights.

The idea that Malta is a rule of law ‘best practice’ comes not from the Venice Commission, but from Politico’s Brussels Playbook – something that Abela acknowledged when this idea first came out in 2020, but not when delivering his address to the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly.

Amphora Media did not find any evidence that “best practice” was said elsewhere, and our requests to the Prime Minister to clarify the claim were ignored.

The commitment to ensuring that journalists can work freely and safely has yet to yield evidence, and concerns about the justice system’s effectiveness on the ground persist.

In light of this evidence, the Prime Minister appears to continue with the selective approach he advocated for as a Labour leadership candidate, rather than the “lock, stock and barrel” approach he currently claims to apply. The claims voiced in the assembly are misleading.

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.

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.

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.

“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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.