This morning, the Court of Appeal set aside the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal’s dismissal without hearing of the petition brought by Catherine and René Desira. The Desiras, who had leased their Żebbuġ property to a tenant, only became aware in 2024 that four penalty invoices—INV 9898 (30 Nov 2017), INV 10333 (23 Jun 2018), INV 10467 (17 Nov 2018) and INV 10977 (17 Sep 2019)—totaling €14 936 had been issued for unauthorized development undertaken between 2017 and 2019 . Until this decision, the Tribunal had never summoned the parties for oral hearings and had disposed of petitions solely on the papers. Although it upheld the legal validity of the fines, the Court of Appeal held that procedural fairness requires the Tribunal to hear evidence wherever disproportionate or oppressive sanctions are asserted.

“Il‑Tribunal kellu jisma’ provi fuq il‑fatti allegati mill‑appellanti fir‑rikors ta’ dan l‑appell u jiddeciedi fid‑diskrezzjoni tiegħu jekk il-provi jilħqux il-grad meħtieġ għall-applikazzjoni tal-artikolu 5…”

[The Tribunal must hear evidence on the facts alleged by the appellant in this petition and decide in its discretion whether the evidence reaches the requisite standard for the application of article 5…]

Clearly, this pronouncement compels the Tribunal, upon invocation of “manifest injustice, oppression or disproportionality” under Legal Notice 552 of 2024, to convene an oral or evidentiary hearing rather than rest its decision on the apparent validity of the penalties alone. The Court’s insistence is readily explained by the particulars of the Desiras’ circumstances: they had evicted the tenant in March 2021, undertaken substantial remediation and regularisation works, and only belatedly received formal notification of the penalties—factors that collectively rendered the cumulative sanction manifestly excessive.

By recognising the petitioner’s right to an oral hearing in any challenge to the severity of environmental fines, the Court has ensured that decisions rest on a comprehensive appraisal of the facts rather than a mere paper review. Any refusal to convene a hearing on proportionality grounds is now vulnerable to reversal on appeal. This constitutes a fundamental departure from past practice, in which petitions were resolved solely on written submissions—much like speed‑camera penalties, where drivers petition for clemency in writing without ever appearing before the Commissioner for Justice. That paper‑only approach is no longer tenable.