This development, if successful, will empower individuals to challenge the validity of any acts that infringe upon this newly recognized environmental right, thereby involving courts with constitutional jurisdiction.
Article 46(1) of the Constitution grants individuals the right to seek redress from the Civil Court, First Hall, if they believe that any provision related to human rights within Articles 33 to 45 of the Constitution has been, is being, or is likely to be violated in relation to their particular circumstances. Additionally, according to paragraph (2) of the same article, the Civil Court, First Hall, possesses original jurisdiction to hear and make decisions on such cases, thereby wielding significant authority to issue appropriate orders and directions. Consequently, decisions made by the First Hall can be appealed to the Constitutional Court in accordance with Article 95(2), which explicitly confers jurisdiction upon the Constitutional Court to hear and adjudicate appeals arising from the decisions of the Civil Court, First Hall, under the mentioned Article 46 of the Constitution.
Now, let’s resume our previous conversation.
If the proposal put forth by the Nationalist Party receives approval, an additional human right will be enshrined alongside Articles 33 and 45 of the Constitution. However, a crucial consideration emerges regarding the interpretation of the phrase “in relation to him” found in Article 46, which incidentally is also replicated in Article 4(2) of Chapter 319 when an applicant initiates a human rights action based on the European Convention.
In the realm of human rights in Malta, the principle of juridical interest is determined by civil law principles and sometimes influenced by notable Italian civil law scholars like Mortara. Indeed, juridical interest, within the context of legal proceedings including those attached to human rights cases, refers to the requirement for individuals or entities to demonstrate a direct and personal stake or connection to a specific legal matter in order to initiate a claim or challenge. Put simply, in human rights actions based on violations of the Constitution or the European Convention, the applicant must demonstrate that their ‘personal’ rights have been or are likely to be violated, establishing a ‘direct link’ between themselves and the alleged infringement.
Considering these complexities, a significant question arises: If the Nationalist Party’s proposal succeeds and the environment is officially recognized as a fundamental human right in the Constitution, how will courts with constitutional jurisdiction interpret the phrase “in relation to him” within the ambit of “environmental violations”? Will they still adopt the standards of civil law doctrines when it comes to the required juridical interest?
