Firework displays close to people’s homes does not breach human rights

Pyrotechnic enthusiasts may have something to rejoice about today: a San Gwann family's bid to prove that fireworks displays breached their right to private and family life was not accepted by the European Court of Human Rights.

The Zammit Maempel family claimed that issuing of permits for fireworks, which took place twice yearly in the vicinity of their home, endangered their life and property.

The Zammit Maempels live in Vincenz Galea Street, San Gwann in an area where fireworks were set off for the feasts of St Helen and St Anthony. Their house is one of three in a remote area of grassland which has not been classified as "inhabited", given that less than 100 people live in the area.

The Zammit Maempels pleaded that every time fireworks were let off, they were at serious risk of damage to themselves and their property, and they also suffered damages as a result of falling debris.

Every year, the festa fireworks are let off at a distance of 150 metres or more from the applicants' house. Over the years, the applicants complained to the Commissioner of Police, to no avail. They also turned to the Ombudsman who concluded, in December 1999, that the Commissioner of Police should seek expert advice.

A group of experts entrusted with looking into the situation recommended that the fields used for the firework displays should be classified as a restricted area under the applicable regulations.

On another occasion, in 2001, the Ombudsman criticised the issuing of licenses, in particular as regards the applicable distances and type of fireworks. But Commissioner of Police has continued to issue permits for two feasts a year ever since.

In 2005, the applicants brought constitutional redress proceedings in the civil court in its constitutional jurisdiction which found partly in their favour agreeing that the noise levels caused by the fireworks were too high and that the fireworks had damaged the applicants' property and impaired the hearing of at least one of them.

Those findings were overturned on appeal. In 2009, the Constitutional Court found that, while the noise and peril from the fireworks had caused the applicants some inconvenience, the relevant regulations had been applied correctly and had struck a fair balance between the applicants' rights and the interest of the community as a whole.

The European Court said that since the noise produced by the fireworks affected - even if only temporarily - the physical and psychological state of the applicants who had been exposed to it, the respect for their private lives and home had been disturbed sufficiently to make their complaint admissible.

But the Court accepted that firework displays were one of the highlights of a village feast which "undeniably generated an amount of income and aided the general economy. Moreover, traditional village feasts could be considered as part of the Maltese cultural and religious heritage."

The Court also noted that the noise levels could have impaired the hearing of at least one of the applicants. At the same time, there had not been a real and immediate risk to the applicants' life or personal integrity.

The letting off of fireworks had also damaged the applicants' property, although the damage had been minimal and reversible.

On its part, the government said it had put in place a system where the issuing of permits for firework displays, as well as for transportation and uploading of fireworks, had been provided for in specific regulations. The actual letting off of fireworks had been further monitored by police inspectors and firefighters. Insurance covering the activity had also been mandatory.

It had been true that experts had made recommendations supporting the applicants' position, but the Court said that since the Commissioner of Police had not followed the experts' advice, the applicants should have challenged his decision in ordinary civil court proceedings.

The fact that the outcome of those proceedings had not been favourable to them was not sufficient to establish that they had not had access to the decision-making process. Consequently, there had been no violation of their right to family life.