Malta receives a whole raft of warnings from the European Commission

The environment, passport sales and taxation of cars are key issues.

 

As international media organisations welcomed action by the European Commission against Hungary for its breach of EU law in forcing Klubradio off the air, Malta is also among the countries facing a list of infringement proceedings relating to environmental issues, the cash-for-passports scheme and migration, as well as taxation on cars.

The Commission’s move against Hungary was welcomed by international media organisations such as the ECPMF and the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ). “The European Commission launches infringement procedure against Hungary following the decision by Fidesz-captured Media Council to reject Klubradio’s application on use of radio spectrum. EFJ welcomes this EU move to protect media freedom,” said General Secretary Ricardo Gutiérrez.

Closer to home, Birdlife Malta welcomed the Commission’s move on finch trapping/ The European Commission sent its final warning to Malta in this regard as it announced that a Reasoned Opinion has been sent to the Maltese government in relation to the infringement procedure initiated against Malta in December on finch trapping under “the false pretence” of a scientific and research study.

“This is the second official warning following an unsatisfactory reply to the first warning (Letter of Formal Notice) issued at the end of last year, and if Malta does not remedy the situation in a month’s time, the country will once again be taken to the European Court of Justice to defend the indefensible,” Birdlife Malta said.

Several other environmental concerns were raised by the Commission, largely related to waste – on end of life vehicles, batteries and accumulators, electrical and electronic equipment, and packaging waste. The landfilling of waste is also an issue of concern. The European Green Deal stresses the importance of Europe remaining on track to meet its environmental objectives.

Perhaps a more controversial issue is the Commission’s move against Malta on the cash-for-passports scheme, as well as migration – it seems the stand adopted by the country where it claims it’s “full up” for asylum seekers but willing to sell citizenship to those who are prepared to inject funds into the country’s coffers did not go unnoticed.

The Commission has decided to take further steps in the infringement procedures against Cyprus and Malta regarding their investor citizenship schemes, also referred to as “golden passport” schemes, as it stressed that the two countries should “stop selling EU citizenship”. The Commission considers that by establishing and operating investor citizenship schemes that offer citizenship in exchange for pre-determined payments and investments, these two Member States fail to fulfil their obligations under the principle of sincere cooperation (Article 4(3) TEU) and the definition of citizenship of the Union as laid down in the Treaties (Article 20 TFEU).

“While Cyprus and Malta remain responsible to decide who may become Cypriot and Maltese, the Court of Justice has made it clear on multiple occasions that rules on the acquisition of the nationality of a Member State must do so having ‘due regard to EU law’,” the Commission stated. Both Member States have two months to take the necessary measures to address the Commission’s concerns.

On migration, the Commission is urging Malta to correctly transpose EU rules on long term residents. Under the Directive, Member States grant long term resident status to non-EU nationals legally and continuously residing within its territory for five years immediately prior to their application. Malta has two months to respond to the arguments put forward by the Commission. In the absence of a satisfactory response, the Commission may decide to send a Reasoned Opinion.

The Commission has also urged Malta to change its legislation on car taxation. The Commission considers that Maltese legislation is not compatible with Article 110 of TFEU prohibiting discrimination against imported products since cars imported from other Member States are taxed more heavily compared to domestic cars.

Under the national provisions currently in force, cars first registered in Malta from 1st January 2009 are subject to a generally higher annual circulation tax than those registered before that date, due to a difference in the way the tax is calculated. The Maltese car taxation system does not take into account the date of first registration of the vehicle, where registration took place in another Member State.

Consequently, the Maltese car taxation system has a discriminatory effect with respect to motor vehicles coming from other Member States. If Malta does not act within the next two months, the Commission may decide to refer the case to the Court of Justice.

                           
                               
guest
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
viv
viv
3 months ago

From Karl to Groucho in a few short years.

“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member”

Godfrey Leone Ganado
Godfrey Leone Ganado
3 months ago

The EU should also rightfully claim the funds generated by Malta and Cyprus on the IIP/Passport scheme, as Malta/Cyprus already accesse European funds raised by other member countries on legitimate own activities.
It is absolutely against the spirit of a ‘club’ to allow a member to collect funds on the sale of the clubs asset, and retain the funds to their benefit, while allowing the liabilities of the asset membership, free access of possible criminals and undesired citizens from suspicious countries, chosen by the selling states under their own or manipulated EU terms and conditions and due diligence criteria, to the club, while shoving off State responsibility. In other words, adopting the principle of ‘rights without duties’. This, in my opinion, amounts to selling misapproproated rights and turns the member state, be it Malta or Cyprus or any abusive state,into a criminal member of the club.

adriang
adriang
3 months ago

In today’s news on another on-line paper there’s an article about an excessive amount of money found on a passenger. Isn’t it strange that Customs dog/s keep finding so much money over and over again? Have the authorities been checking if the carriers of the money are linked to money laundering or drugs, or if they can actually afford so much money? Is the money theirs? Is anyone at all investigating this, and whether it is always on the same flights or from the same country? A quick search found the below:
24/4/21 – €20,000 – Departing to Istambul
17/5/21 – €263,397 – To Sudan through Istambul
21/5/21 – €10,000 – To Istambul
7/6/21 – €331,947 – To Ghana through Istambul
Is someone taking any notice of this?

Related Stories

Government offers Corinthia Group Ghajn Tuffieha site for €10.3 million
After more than two years of negotiations between the
Twisted perspectives
Uniformity of thought is a dangerous thing, which is
Support investigative journalism that speaks truth to power.