COVID was not something we want back, but one good thing for sure emerged: the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal’s (EPRT) rapid shift to electronic processes. The EPRT has long been recognized for its procedural flexibility, operating with the principle that “in the absence of any rules on any matter, the Tribunal may regulate its own procedure.” This flexibility was a deliberate choice by the legislator, enabling the Tribunal to function in a more informal and adaptable manner—essential for handling the complex, technical planning disputes that often don’t fit neatly into the rigid structures of traditional legal procedures.
Even so, one of the significant steps forward for the EPRT, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, was its swift adoption of electronic communication, filing, and hearings. Provisions enabling these processes were first introduced under the current Chapter 551 of the Laws of Malta, granting the Tribunal the ability to use electronic means to facilitate its operations, ensuring that access to justice remains available remotely. Electronic decisions have the same legal weight as those delivered in person, and service by email is deemed effective once sent.
While the EPRT’s approach has been a significant step forward, it remains an exception in Malta’s tribunal system. Most other tribunals, not least the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART), still rely on paper-based filings and in-person hearings, requiring parties to physically visit court registries to submit documents.
To be fair, the EPRT’s ‘electronic’ system is quite basic and may be said to lack proper safeguards such as trusted authentication and secure methods for verifying signatures or participants. Despite this, the EPRT’s adoption of electronic procedures worked well. Communication often takes place via a single email address (info@eprt.org). There is also no formal system in place to verify participants or ensure documents are properly signed during Zoom hearings. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, if the electronic gurus were to say so, the system managed to function effectively, ensuring that justice remained accessible even during a time of unprecedented disruption.
The system must remain as it is, and if anything, be enhanced. Now that things have returned to normal without COVID, it’s important to recognize that timeframes may become even tighter once the law prohibiting work from taking place if a permit is appealed by third parties is enacted. This potential change underscores the need for a more efficient, streamlined system, which envisages an increase in volume of cases while ensuring justice remains accessible within the new constraints.
