The Graffiti case wants both ‘participation’ and ‘grievance’
Few words in planning appeals generate more debate—and more confusion—than parteċipazzjoni. The law in Article 50(2) of Cap. 551 provides that only those who have participated in the appeal before the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal may go on to appeal its decision to the Court. Indeed Articles 50(1) and (2) state as follows:
- (1) Saving the provisions of article 39, an appeal from decisions of the Tribunal shall lie to the Court of Appeal constituted in terms of article 41(6) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure, on points of law.
(2) The appellant in front of the Tribunal and all other persons who participated in the appeal may appeal from decisions of the Tribunal.
But what does it mean to have “participated”?
Two recent judgments—Patrick Guntrip vs Planning Authority (decided in April 2024) and Moviment Graffitti et vs Planning Authority (decided in June 2025)—have given this term substance. In my view, they strike the right balance. The law should go no further. There is no need for legislative reform. The jurisprudence as it stands provides both flexibility and finality.
In Guntrip, the Court took a practical approach. It accepted that even passive or silent presence during Tribunal proceedings—such as registering interest and following the hearings, even without intervening—amounts to participation in terms of the law. Participation, as the Court noted, does not require an active role. It is enough for the third party to have entered the process and remained within it, even if only by attending without speaking. This reflects a basic fairness: that people should not be excluded from access to justice simply because they chose to observe rather than argue.
The Graffitti judgment cited Guntrip directly and endorsed the idea that participation does not have to be vocal or assertive. But it introduced a thoughtful qualification. Where the Tribunal merely confirms the decision already taken by the Planning Authority—and the third party had not objected to that decision or filed an appeal—they cannot then seek to overturn it at court stage merely because they sat through the hearing. There must be a grievance.
Put another way, if the third party had no complaint with the Authority’s decision, and the Tribunal changed nothing, then their right to appeal cannot survive on the basis of presence alone.
Some may argue that the law should now be amended to define parteċipazzjoni more precisely or to limit abuse. The Graffitti judgment itself hints at this. But my suggestion is that such a move is unnecessary. The principle, as it now stands, is clear and workable.
Graffitti tells us that participation must be always linked to a genuine grievance.
That is enough.
