A recurring legal issue is the mistaken belief that an appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (EPRT) from a permission granted following a full development application can serve as a tool to revoke that same permit on the basis of alleged false declarations. Maltese planning law makes a clear procedural distinction between, on the one hand, appeals from permit approvals based on planning grounds, and on the other, decisions of the Planning Authority following formal requests to revoke a permit due to fraud or material misrepresentation. These are distinct processes governed by different legal thresholds.
This distinction was recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in Carmel Camilleri et vs Awtorità tal-Ippjanar et (Appell Nru. 16/2025, 15 July 2025), a case concerning the sanctioning of apertures overlooking a passage allegedly belonging to the appellants. The appellants claimed that the permit had been obtained on the basis of deceptive information and that this deception created civil servitudes without consent. Yet the Court was clear: such allegations—however serious—cannot be addressed through a standard appeal from a permit decision.
Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti made the point unequivocally:
“l-appell ma jistax jinqeda bil-proċedura tal-appell quddiem it-Tribunal jew il-Qorti, iżda semmai r-rimedju kien ieħor li jwassal għar-revoka tal-permess skont ma titlob u tippermetti l-istess liġi tal-ippjanar”
[the appeal procedure before the Tribunal or Court cannot be used, but rather the appropriate remedy would be one of revocation of the permit as allowed by planning law].
In other words, where a permit is contested on grounds that it was procured through dishonesty or omission, the law requires that a revocation procedure be initiated before the Planning Authority. Only once the Authority has made a decision refusing that request does the Tribunal acquire jurisdiction to examine whether the permit was vitiated by fraud or material irregularity.
Camilleri serves as an important procedural reminder: when the Tribunal is hearing a third-party appeal from a permit granted following a planning application, its jurisdiction is confined to planning merits—matters such as policy compliance, site layout, height, intensity, and access—not to contested claims of deceit or ownership. Those fall within the realm of civil litigation or Article 80 revocation proceedings.
Put another way, the EPRT’s appeal mechanism is not a free-floating remedy that can be stretched at will to undermine the legal validity of existing permits.
