Malta promises to eliminate its citizenship-by-investment program and expanding a discretionary citizenship scheme for individuals of ‘exceptional merit’, bringing to end a saga that started with a cautious agreement between Malta and the European Commission and culminated in a damning judgement by the Court of Justice of the European Union.
What was the case about?
The European Commission began challenging Malta’s citizenship-by-investment programme, also known as a golden passports scheme, in 2020.
Its argument focused on the claim that Malta sells citizenship of the entire European Union, without establishing whether the investor has, or will develop, links to Malta itself beyond the transactional requirements.
The Court upheld the transactionality argument. The judgement does not impact Malta’s current residency-by-investment scheme, where foreign nationals can buy residency rights but not a passport.
What exactly has changed?
“The amendments strengthen the existing laws related to merit-based citizenship. They are also consistent with Malta Vision 2050, with an emphasis on the need for added value and job creation,” the Home Affairs ministry said in a statement announcing the change.
An accompanying document specified that the amendments will be “removing all references to the Grant of Citizenship for Exceptional Services program, the transaction and even the agents of the programme.”
Licensed agents will still be able to facilitate the purchase of a Maltese golden visa.
Research by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation has shown that the golden visa intermediary ‘market’ is extremely concentrated, and there are cases of revolving door, where high-ranking officials became visa agents.
Minister Byron Camilleri presents the proposed legal changes. Photo credit: DOI
The citizenship amendments provide considerable flexibility, but there remains a lack of clarity regarding the exact criteria and how the new framework will operate.
The new amendments would return Malta to its pre-2013 citizenship regime. Under a 2007 legal amendment, investors could become citizens at a minister’s discretion, without a structured programme, for so-called exceptional services. The 2013 amendment set a price and other structured conditions.
The proposed amendments define exceptional services and exceptional merit as “services rendered and contributions made by scientists, researchers, athletes, sports persons, artists, cultural performers, entrepreneurs, philanthropists and technologists, amongst other persons of interest”.
There are no references to obligatory investment in real estate in the published document. It appears that job creation will be a key indicator. There is also no mention of extending citizenship to family members.
Malta already runs a merit-based citizenship scheme. The government’s FAQ emphasised that existing structures will be used for the upgraded scheme.
Applicants will submit their requests to the Komunità agency, which will then initiate a due diligence process and forward the outcome to the existing evaluation board.
The board, after conducting interviews and deliberations, will issue a recommendation to the Home Affairs Minister, who will make the final decision.
Top EU court condemned the transactional nature of Malta’s citizenship by investment scheme
People who have already acquired citizenship through the previous programme will remain citizens.
Under the citizenship-by-investment scheme, citizenship buyers have proven very difficult to deprive of their purchased passports.
Amphora Media’s investigation in February showed that Pavel Melnikov was the only known citizenship buyer to have lost his Maltese passport at the time. He was found guilty of aggravated tax fraud and aggravated accounting fraud.
Who benefitted from the citizenship by investment scheme?
The scheme was benefiting local intermediaries, such as agents and real estate owners. According to government figures, citizenship sales generated €339 million from property purchases and €158 million from property rentals.
Applicants were eligible for the scheme if they rented a property for €16,000 annually for five years. This is less than the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment in St Julian’s or Sliema.
Renting a small apartment in a popular area was enough for wealthy foreigners to become eligible for Maltese citizenship
When the Court of Justice announced its judgement in April, Prime Minister Robert Abela defended the scheme, claiming it had 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.
Amphora Media’s fact-check has shown 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. It remains to be seen what will happen with the rest of the fund.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Over 5000 people have been pushed back to Libya since 2020
Distress calls have quadrupled from 136 in 2020 to 589 in 2023
Almost 80 boats pushed back to Libya since 2020
Malta’s policy, led by Alex Dalli in Libya, includes ‘specialised training’ in ‘sniping’, ‘storming’, among others, an analysis by Amphora reveals
Pushbacks from Malta’s Search and Rescue (SAR) Zone have tripled since 2020, with over 5,000 people documented to have been pulled back by Libyan actors, new data shining a light on activities shrouded in secrecy for the first time, and seen by Amphora Media, reveals.
The data collected from numerous civil fleets and NGOs such as Alarm Phone and the Civil Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre (CMRCC) Search and Rescue Archive, between 2020 and 2024, collated into a database focused on Malta’s SAR zone by the Malta Migration Archive, sheds light on activities for which the government’s lack of transparency has frequently been criticised.
The data also reveals that over the five years, documented distress calls from boats in Malta’s Search and Rescue Zone carrying migrants at sea have increased significantly: from 136 in 2020 to 589 in 2023 and 554 in 2024.
However, despite this boom, the data shows that rescues by the Armed Forces of Malta (AFM) to the documented distress calls declined dramatically over the same period.
Additionally, the stark incline in pushbacks coincides with a change in Malta’s political arrangements in the region and the tenure of Malta’s Special Envoy to Libya, Alexander Dalli. Dalli, Malta’s former prison director, who was found to run a prison that allegedly degraded inmates and faced allegations of fear-mongering and racism, was given the role of special envoy in December 2021, soon after stepping down from his role as prison chief amid following the third reported inmate suicide that year.
Pushbacks Increase Significantly
Ananalysis of the data by Amphora Media shows that over 5,100 people in a total of 79 boats were recorded as having been intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard while in Malta’s Search and Rescue Zone between 2020 and 2024.
Returning migrants to Libya has been declared illegal by the European Court of Human Rights, due to the lack of safety, violence, danger and severe human rights violations in the country.
The archived data shows that pushbacks, which are described by the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights as actions that ‘involve the summary return of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants by states without the observance of the necessary human rights safeguards’ have been on a steady increase since 2020. With:
7 pushbacks recorded in 2020
12 in 2021
19 in 2022
20 in 2023
23 in 2024
Number of logged pushbacks by year. Source: Malta Migration Archive
A count of the number of people on each boat that was intercepted by the Libyan Coast Guard shows that 5,114 people have been returned to Libya in that timeframe.
While a total of 383 were recorded on the boats in 2020, 1065 were recorded in 2024. 2023 registered the highest number of people, with 1940.
In 2023, four boats were pushed back with an exceptionally high number of people on each: 500 in one, 300 each in two others, and 250 in a fourth.
Number of boats pushed back per year by case, including how many people were on each boat. Source: Malta Migration Archive.
The archive uses the term ‘so-called Libyan Coast Guard’ to question the functionality, legality and legitimacy of “the various bodies and militias in Libya involved in pushbacks, including the EU’s partner, the Libyan Coast Guard associated with the Tripoli Government of National Unity, and the Tariq Ben Zayed Brigade, a militia within Haftar’s Libyan National Army in Eastern Libya.”
In 2023, the UN Fact Finding Mission on Libya noted that ‘high-ranking staff of the Libyan Coast Guard… colluded with traffickers and smugglers, which are reportedly connected to militia groups, in the context of the interception and deprivation of liberty of migrants.’
AFM Rescues Decline
Source: DOI
As the documented pushbacks increased, data collected by the archive also shows that rescues of the boats in distress by the Armed Forces of Malta moved in the opposite direction.
The archive documents:
21 boat rescues in response to distress calls in 2020
8 in 2021
4 in 2022
5 in 2023
2 in 2024
Number of logged distress calls and rescues by the Armed Forces of Malta, by year. Source: Malta Migration Archive
Official figures published by United Nations’ Refugee Agency (UNHCR) corroborate this downward trend. The number of persons arriving to Malta by boat shrinks significantly with every passing year:
2,281 in 2020
832 in 2021
444 in 2022
380 in 2023
238 in 2024
Number of boat arrivals to Malta every year. Source: UNHCR Malta
Abandoned at Sea
Documentation of distress calls tracked by civil fleets and collated by the Malta Migration Archive depicts how, over the years, people have been left adrift in Malta’s SAR zone, ignored by authorities, abandoned by passing ships, or pushed back to Libya.
Under international law—and reinforced by EU legal principles—Malta is obliged to promptly respond to distress calls in its SAR zone.
These duties are codified in conventions such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue, which require states to ensure that assistance is rendered without delay or discrimination to persons in distress at sea.”
For example, on 22nd February 2023, 34 people on a fibreglass boat without life jackets, food, or water called Alarm Phone for help. According to Alarm Phone, Malta took no action. The next day, some people reportedly died on board. Although several merchant ships and a Frontex plane were nearby, it was a boat assumed to belong to the Italian Coast Guard, not Malta’s army, that finally rescued the survivors.
This was not an isolated case. On 9th April 2023, Alarm Phone reported how Malta instructed merchant vessels to not carry out a rescue on a vessel with some 400 people in distress.
After two days drifting, they were reportedly finally rescued by the Italian Coast Guard, Frontex and merchant ships.
On 23rd May of the same year, 500 people, including five children and pregnant women, were reportedly left adrift for over a day. The NGO reported relatives of the people on board claiming that the vessel in distress had been intercepted by a Libyan militia and forcibly dragged back to the port of Benghazi in Libya. Indeed, after their vessel disappeared in Malta’s search and rescue zone the 500 people reappeared in a prison in Benghazi.
Similar patterns occurred in 2020 to 2022, when Sea-Watch and Alarm Phone documented repeated failures to respond to distress calls.
In July 2021, Malta reportedly ordered an oil tanker not to rescue people, even after spotting individuals in the water. Reportedly, three people died. In another, the Libyan Coast Guard carried out an interception in Malta’s zone while Frontex drones circled above, suggesting Frontex’s involvement.
The documentation also shows how when the AFM do intervene, it can take over 18 or even 48 hours after distress alerts.
Special Envoy to Libya
Alexander Dalli (right) with the Libya Spokesman of the Ministry of Interior for Public Affairs Major General Mahmoud Saeed . Source: Undersecretary of the Ministry of Interior for Public Affairs, Facebook.
In 2020, Malta and Libya signed a memorandum of understanding announcing the creation of coordination centres in Valletta and Tripoli to “liaise between the two capitals and offer the necessary support relating to combating illegal immigration in Libya and the Mediterranean region.”
The document also states the intention for Malta to request financial support from the European Commission for providing border control technologies, dismantling human trafficking networks, curtailing organised crime operations, maritime assets, and more, within the search and rescue region in the Mediterranean Basin.
Then, at the end of 2021, despite numerous media and NGO reports on suicides and human rights abuses inside the Corradino prison facility, Dalli, a former Frontex-seconded national expert, resigned from his position as prison director in disgrace and, was soon given the role of Malta’s Special Envoy to Libya focusing on “combatting illegal migration”, where he is obliged to coordinate on matters listed in the 2020 agreement.
In January this year, Malta’s Ombudsman published a damning report corroborating the reports following his “own initiative” probe into the Corradino facility under Dalli’s tenure. In the investigation, interviewees spoke about how Dalli was running a so-called “factory of evil”– described as such by one witness – where numerous instances of violence, human rights abuses and inhumane treatment were found.
Besides the description mentioned in the MOU, Dalli’s role and day-to-day tasks in Libya have not been disclosed.
However, Prime Minister Robert Abela has publicly boasted to reporters about Malta’s decreasing number of boat arrivals. In February, defending Dalli following the Ombudsman’s report, Abela told reporters that Dalli is “performing miracles towards controlling irregular immigration.”
“Malta “is winning the fight against irregular migration,” he said.
Dalli’s ‘Specialised Training’ Sessions in Libya
Alexander Dalli (front right) at a meeting with Libya’s General Administration of Training at the Ministry of Interior. Source: General Administration of Training at the Ministry of Interior of the State of Libya, Facebook.
Despite an information blackout surrounding Dalli’s role, and questions to the Home Affairs Ministry about the role that have gone unanswered, an open source investigation by Amphora Media has found more information about what Malta’s Special Envoy is up to.
An analysis of social media posts by Libya’s Interiors Ministry and the ‘General Administration of Training at the Ministry of Interior of the State of Libya’ show that, in 2022 and 2023, Dalli has been involved in numerous ‘specialised training’ programmes in Libya, including a training on ‘sniping’.
In a Facebook post from August 2023, Dalli is quoted as being present at a meeting with Libyan officials “to discuss the training course programme scheduled to be held in the field of security field work (storming, landing, sniping).
In fact, specialised training programmes are mentioned in at least three separate instances in meetings between Dalli and Libyan officials. In June 2023, Dalli met officials together with Colonel Etienne Scicluna, where the two discussed “specialised courses… in the field of training for the rehabilitation and sharpening of the security and police personnel of the Ministry of Interior and benefiting from the experiences of the Maltese side in this regard.”
In another meeting with the spokesperson of the Libyan Ministry of Interior for Public Affairs, Major General Mahmoud Saeed in October 2022, Dalli discussed how to “put necessary measures to limit the flow” of illegal migration.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Robert Abela has continued to highlight the decrease in the number of migrant vessel arrivals to Malta – describing Malta’s situation as a ‘success’ thanks to ‘government policy’.
The Home Affairs Ministry did not respond to Amphora Media’s questions that arose from the findings mentioned in this article.
Wax paper from your sandwich. Delivery containers. Wet wipes. Frayed, low-quality leggings from a fast-fashion app. Many daily-use items become waste that cannot be recycled. The proposed solution: a waste-to-energy facility at Magħtab.
But is it the most effective way out of the country’s waste crisis? An analysis of available waste treatment solutions shows that all of them have limitations.
Will it absolve Malta of recycling obligations?
Landfilling, which means dumping waste in the ground, is Malta’s most common but costliest waste management method given the country’s space limitations.
Malta is under pressure from the EU to reduce landfilling of waste. The country relies on waste export, so the plan for new facilities also aims to increase the country’s self-sufficiency.
In addition to the energy-generating plant, a thermal treatment facility (which ‘cooks’ waste at high temperatures to undo its hazardous properties) is planned within the same complex, replacing the one currently operating in Marsa. The two facilities are different and serve separate waste streams.
Then-Minister Jose Herrera announced plans for a waste-to-energy facility at a press conference in 2017. Source: DOI
In a 2018 technical report, then-Minister for the Environment Jose Herrera called the government’s commitment to setting up a waste incinerator a “bold” decision.
“This was an environmentally responsible decision and will not affect our ambitious objectives to increase our recycling efforts in order to meet the 2030 recycling targets,” he stated in the foreword. The report noted that UK islands, such as the Isle of Wight and the Isle of Man, had waste-to-energy facilities.
A 2016 study found that exporting waste to other EU countries for processing would cost tens of millions of euros every year.
The incinerator plan faces criticism. For example, in a public consultation, Friends of the Earth and Moviment Graffitti wrote that “building a Waste to Energy Plant was in no way a ‘green’ solution”.
“A lot of people will think of the incinerator as a quick solution. It’s not, it requires a lot of planning, a lot of money,” says Dr Margaret Camilleri Fenech, who researches waste management at the University of Malta.
She warns of the so-called rebound effect – people waste more when they know that mitigation measures are in place.
“I am scared that we’ll shift into that [mindset], but we still have recycling targets to respect, which we’ve never managed to anyway,” she says, adding that Malta will not likely to be able to use the incinerator to dig up old landfilled waste and clean up former landfilling sites, because it is mixed with construction waste.
“We have a high level of construction waste, for example. Obviously, we cannot burn it. And our organic fraction has a lot of food waste. There’s a lot of water content, so obviously you need to dry it up to burn, and we still need to respect the recycling target of the EU,” she says.
Insufficient capacity to prepare waste for recycling
Malta ships its waste to various countries. Figures from Eurostat, the EU statistical agency show that Malta shipped over 14,000 tonnes of paper and cardboard to India, over 1,200 tonnes of plastic to Türkiye, and over 1,200 tonnes of synthetic waste textiles to the United Arab Emirates. Data shows that some of Malta’s waste is already burned for energy, but again, abroad.
The probability of recycling recyclable materials, such as plastic, depends on how clean they are when they arrive at the point of waste separation. A 2021 audit reveals that focusing on plastic is crucial. In Malta’s case, plastic destined for recycling is not clean at all.
The audit found that “Malta lacks the infrastructural capacity to engage in more comprehensive and sustainable waste management” and that, at the time, only around a tenth of all plastic collected was being recycled, while two-thirds were landfilled locally.
It further explained that incineration (burning) with energy recovery would be preferred to landfilling when it comes to dealing with plastics rejected for recycling and plastics that residents and businesses threw into the mixed waste bags – these were not separated and considered for recycling “due to the non-availability of operational capacity”.
New schemes will divert some waste
In 2023, waste separation became an obligation for individuals, companies and the government, subject to penalties.
Differentiated gate fees for disposing of waste at specific sites also discourage the delivery of mixed waste, as this is more expensive. Incentives to bring reusable cups for drinks were supposed to be operational since 2022 but remain rare.
In 2024, Circular Economy Malta, a government agency, introduced a scheme to encourage shops to offer discounts or other benefits to users who bring their own containers.
The agency claims that this initiative has successfully prevented the use of 63,524 single-use containers. However, 54,966 of them (87%) were detergent containers – typically made from sturdy plastic and recyclable. Existing reuse options do not address the issues with filmy and dirty plastic, or mixed materials.
Selected categories of waste entering the Għallis landfill. Source: NSO
According to Friends of the Earth Malta, an environmental NGO, “The [waste management] problem has been exacerbated in recent years by the country’s growing population, the tourism boom, and the “growth at all costs” mantra.”
“The tourism industry produces so much waste, when we look at the figures. Most of the time, we’re looking at how much money the tourism industry is bringing in. Still, we don’t look at how much waste they are producing, at how much water they’re consuming, energy, congestion, and we should balance these things out,” Waste researcher Camilleri Fenech added.
In response to a parliamentary question in January, Environment Minister Miriam Dalli said that the waste-to-energy plant will process 40% of Malta’s non-recyclable waste and provide 4.5% of the country’s energy needs.
Malta’s consumer and tourist economy creates a demand for easy waste solutions. Currently, dumping most waste into landfills and shipping it abroad serves as such, but this practice will be increasingly regulated and expensive. Years of explaining to people and, crucially, companies about how to do the right thing have achieved very limited results. Given Malta’s growing waste generation, the mountain of waste is being treated as one of the most reliable renewable energy sources.
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.
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 ParliamentRead 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.
Austriasays 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.
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.
Project Green is poised for sweeping powers under the latest Planning Authority proposal—powers NGOs warn will be largely unchecked on ODZ land and urban spaces—and an Amphora Media analysis shows that many of its current projects cluster within the electoral districts of Prime Minister Robert Abela and Environment Minister Miriam Dalli.
Minister for the Environment, Energy and Regeneration of the Grand Harbour Miriam Dalli visits ongoing works by Project Green in Birżebbuġa. Photo credit: DOI
According to data compiled from publicly available information, roughly half of all announced Project Green initiatives have occurred in the electoral districts where Abela and Dalli ran in the 2022 general election.
“These projects are distributed across the country, with the active involvement of local councils and NGOs. They are based on public calls, electoral commitments, and the need for interventions. Unlike what your questions imply, it is not the case that certain areas are favoured while others are neglected,” the spokesperson of the Ministry for Environment, Energy and Public Cleanliness wrote in response to Amphora’s questions.
Project Green officially stated that it was working on 118 projects within different localities as of October 2024. However, a complete list is yet to be published. When asked by Amphora Media, Project Green provided a list of 46 projects.
How we calculated the distribution
Using announcements published on Project Green’s website, as well as planning applications and development notification orders submitted to the Planning Authority, Amphora Media calculated how Project Green’s projects are distributed across Malta.
They did not overlap with the list Project Green sent, so we conducted separate analyses for each dataset.
The dataset we have compiled by analysing announcements on Project Green’s website was the largest, as it included announcements of interim steps within the project.
Among the announced works, the localities within the 2nd electoral district benefited most from Project Green works. These localities are where Prime Minister Robert Abela, Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government Alison Zerafa Civelli – Abela’s sister-in-law – and Parliamentary Secretary for Public Cleanliness Glenn Bedingfield contested in the last general election.
It was followed by 5th district, where Environment Minister Miriam Dalli and Robert Abela ran, and the 11th district, where Dalli competed against opposition leader Bernard Grech.
Robert Abela and Miriam Dalli at a Project Green location. Photo credit: DOI
Project Green’s list of works carried out covered all electoral districts except Gozo. Miriam Dalli’s 5th district attracted more than one in six projects, the same as Silvio Schembri’s and Ian Borg’s 6th district. Their 7th district also emerged at the top.
“Project Green’s efforts are executed in close collaboration and full consultation with local councils, schools, and the community at large, respectively. Project selection is a rigorous process, including applications received through various launched schemes, such as the Community Greening Grant and the Greening School Initiative, along with those mentioned in the Electoral Manifesto,” Project Green’s representative replied in response to questions about the distribution of the agency’s projects.
What counts as green?
Project Green, a government agency, was opened in early 2023 to respond to the growing demand for liveable localities. “We want to deliver green spaces that are self-sufficient, sustainable and accessible,” Environment Minister Miriam Dalli said at the agency’s launch.
“The Government has committed to launching the largest-ever investment in green and public open spaces, with various entities involved. Project Green serves as the primary leader in this initiative,” the ministry spokesperson emphasised in response to Amphora’s questions.
More than four in five Maltese want the government to tackle climate change. In a 2024 survey, nearly all Maltese respondents said they suffered from extreme weather events, and two in five wanted tree-lined streets or green spaces to cool urban spaces down. A survey of children and adolescents showed that most wanted more safety from traffic in their localities.
However, as the Project Green agency builds more playgrounds and car parks, it is unclear how its mission differs from other government schemes for similar purposes.
Project Green has placed furniture in a ‘green pocket’ between roads in Qajjenza. Photo credit: DOI
Analysis by Amphora Media shows that Project Green has submitted 19 planning applications – four concern creating car parks, and six include playgrounds or play areas. One of them, in Hamrun, was withdrawn and submitted as a development notification order.
Project Green also submitted 18 development notification orders during that time (one was withdrawn and resubmitted) – one includes car park development and seven contain playground or play area developments.
In total, nearly a fifth of the planning applications and development notices were filed in the 5th electoral district, where Minister Miriam Dalli & Prime Minister Robert Abela contested in 2022. No other electoral district came close.
Regarding localities, Birzebbuga is the largest beneficiary, with three Project Green developments. Attard also got three, but two concentrated on San Anton gardens.
Critics consider that some interventions by Project Green should not be considered green projects, meaning that instead of nature-based solutions, the agency promotes high-maintenance landscaped gardens, which depend on constant contractor input.
Project Green’s plans to plant trees on top of a car park in Bormla. Source: documents submitted to the Planning Authority
On Project Green’s plans to build underground parking topped a garden in Bormla, Alfred E. Baldacchino, former assistant director of what used to be the Malta Environment and Planning Authority, who blogs and writes about environmental policy and planning, said, “This is a pseudo-green project, because trees are going to be planted on the roof of the construction, and that is no natural habitat for trees”. Drawings submitted to the Planning Authority show that trees will have, at most, 1.2 metres of depth of soil for their roots.
“The selection of tree species for the project was carried out by Project Green’s Research & Development Unit, which includes environmental scientists,” a representative of Project Green said in response to this criticism.
Regulating interventions
The Bormla site is one of the 13 developments where Project Green wants to install playgrounds, outdoor fitness equipment or other similar facilities.
Floriana’s Pinetum is another, with plans for “general cleanup of the pinetum, tree pruning, accessibility improvement, public amenities, general lighting, fencing, Nissen Huts restoration and installation of children’s play area”.
Developments like outdoor fitness areas are already financed by the Capital Projects financing scheme under the Ministry for the National Heritage, the Arts and Local Government. A new outdoor fitness area in a public garden under this scheme was recently unveiled in Marsaxlokk. Urban greening projects are also implemented by the waste management entity, WasteServ, among others has also implemented urban greening projects.
Ambjent Malta is one of the agencies investing in green urban spaces. Photo credit: DOI
Various parks, green walls and green areas are covered by a tender, awarded to GEB Landscaping. San Anton gardens, for example, have over the past years been landscaped both by GEB Landscaping and by Project Green.
“The scope of Project Green differs significantly and does not overlap with the efforts of the GEB. It is to be highlighted that, whilst [Ministry for Environment, Energy and Public Cleanliness] is the lead ministry, it is not the only one delivering public open spaces. It is a Government commitment to fulfil this promise,” the ministry spokesperson said in response to the questions about potential overlaps.
A consultation that concluded in March presented a proposed legal amendment that would give Project Green more powers. If adopted, Project Green would implement such measures and approve them when submitted by other entities.
“Under this proposal, Project Green and other entities would be granted unchecked power to build in Outside Development Zones (ODZ) and urban areas through a backdoor mechanism that bypasses established planning policies. This is unacceptable and must be stopped,” a group of ten Maltese NGOs, including Moviment Graffitti and Din l-Art Ħelwa, wrote in a public statement.
“[The proposed change] applies to projects that are not only to be done by Project Green, [but] all public entities, local councils – they are cited in the legal notice, they can do a project without going through the normal planning process that they should be going through usually, if this is under the label of a greening project,” explains Andre Callus, an activist at the NGO Moviment Graffitti, which opposes the changes.
Applicants “would just need the approval of Project Green, no consultation, no possibility for the public to object or appeal,” Callus continued. Project Green’s representative responded, saying, “The amendments to the [Development Notification Order] will foster coordination and cohesion between Project Green and all entities involved.”
Project Green’s landscaped area. Photo credit: DOI
Controversial leadership
Project Green has become primarily associated with public gardens. In 2023-2024, it issued numerous tenders, with its top contractors being garden supply, furniture, drilling and quarrying, and boat maintenance.
It also issued €277,373 worth of direct orders, with the largest recipient being Agriproducts Ltd, trading as Jardinland – and €150,801 worth of calls for quotations.
“The direct order to Agriproducts Ltd was issued as the existing framework was fully utilised. Following market research, their quote was the lowest among the four received. The normal approval process was adhered to,” Project Green’s spokesperson responded to a question why they decided to go with a direct order rather than the usual tendering process.
The agency came to additional spotlight when Joseph Cuschieri became its CEO. In 2020, Cuschieri suspended himself and then resigned from his MFSA post after a Times of Malta report disclosed that he had accepted a luxury holiday in Las Vegas in 2018, sponsored by Yorgen Fenech, who currently awaits trial for the alleged involvement in the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Joseph Cuschieri. Photo credit: DOI
An internal review board, led by former Chief Justice Joseph Azzopardi and lawyer Mark Simiana, determined that Cuschieri had infringed the MFSA’s guidelines on hospitality.
Prime Minister Robert Abela insisted that Cuschieri paid a price for his wrongdoing and had the necessary credentials to head Project Green.
Cuschieri had also courted controversy during his time at the MFSA over an early retirement scheme that omitted the standard obligation for its beneficiaries to retire fully, with some going on to take on other public sector jobs, according to the Shift News.
According to tribunal records, Cuschieri admitted to having spoken with a minister about employing a former MFSA employee who had taken early retirement, raising concerns about informal rehiring practices. The Shift News has revealed that Cuschieri headhunted 19 new managers to Project Green.
According to the budget documents of 2025, Project Green’s expenditure ballooned three times between 2023 and 2024. The agency spent €391,261 on upgrading parks and public gardens in 2023, plus nearly €7 million on urban greening. But by 2024 urban greening expenditure rose to €23.5 million, and €30 million were earmarked for 2025.
Sabrina Zammit and Justin Schembri contributed research.
