RTK103's parent company challenges Broadcasting Authority's fine

Church radio RTK103 is challenging the Broadcasting Authority's fine over presenter Andrew Azzopardi’s refusal to invite far-right Nazi apologist Norman Lowell to his programme.

This emerges from an application before the First Hall of the Civil Court against the Broadcasting Authority and its Chief Executive, Joanna Spiteri, duly sworn by Franco Curmi, the chairman of the board of directors of RTK’s parent company, Beacon Media Group, and editor Kevin Papagiorcopulo - who also serves on its board of directors, as representatives of the company.

The sworn application, which was filed today by lawyers Stefano Filletti and Maurice Meli, asks the court to declare all proceedings and decisions taken by the defendants, arising from Andrew Azzopardi’s on-air declaration to be null. 

In the court filing, the plaintiff company is arguing that the complainant and the alleged victim were not the same person, pointing out that the BA’s chief executive had declared that the fine had been imposed because Azzopardi’s declaration had been felt to be “threatening towards the same Authority,” while the party claiming to have suffered harm was Norman Lowell, and not the BA. 

The lawyers also highlighted the fact that the complaint had not been filed by Lowell, but by Imperium Europa, which Azzopardi had not mentioned in the sanctioned remark. 

Besides this, the notice of charges also specifies that they had been issued against RTK103, which had no juridical personality or legal standing and, moreover, the subsidiary legislation on which the proceedings were supposed to have been based, did not even exist.

In the sworn application filed today, the plaintiffs also argue that by taking the decision to dispense with an investigation into Imperium Europa’s complaint and instead, proceed directly to issue charges, Spiteri had failed to observe the principles of natural justice as well as mandatory procedural requirements, which rendered the administrative action an abuse of the Chief Executive’s powers.  

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the decisions to be null, having been reached abusively, for reasons which were improper and based on irrelevant considerations.

Besides a declaration of nullity, the court is also being asked to declare that the BA and Spiteri had acted in bad faith “and were therefore responsible for past and future damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a direct result of the administrative actions they had taken.”