The six-month prescriptive period to seek judicial review of an administrative action begins when there is sufficient knowledge about the action, a court has ruled.
Judge Francesco Depasquale, presiding over the First Hall Civil Court, ruled that simply knowing that an administrative decision has been taken is not enough to trigger the prescriptive period.
The case was Karl Falzon and Nadia Falzon vs Lands Authority and Marianna Schembri and the ruling was delivered on 30 September 2026.
The dispute concerned agricultural government land at Raba’ tal-Lewża in Siġġiewi. The court was deciding preliminary pleas concerning claims that the applicants’ judicial review action was filed outside the six-month period prescribed at law.
The Lands Authority had, by letter dated 24 August 2022, recognised Marianna Schembri as holding the land under a qbiela (agricultural lease). Karl and Nadia Falzon subsequently challenged that administrative decision.
The Falzons claimed that the recognition of Schembri constituted an abuse of administrative discretion. They alleged the decision was contrary to law, taken for improper purposes or on irrelevant considerations, and reached without observing principles of natural justice or mandatory procedural requirements. They sought annulment of the authority’s decision and a declaration that Schembri had no valid title to occupy the land.
There was also a separate set of proceedings concerning the authority’s later refusal, dated 10 August 2023, of the Falzons’ own request to recognise them as holders of an agricultural lease. The Lands Authority stressed these were two distinct administrative decisions—recognition of Schembri in 2022, which was the subject of the proceedings, and the 2023 refusal concerning the Falzons, which was being dealt with separately.
The central issue to be decided in the judgement under review was whether the action filed by the Falzons was too late. Article 469A(3) of the Civil Code provides that an action seeking to annul administrative decisions under Article 469A(1)(b) must be instituted within six months from when the interested person “becomes aware or could have become aware, whichever is the earlier” of the administrative act.
The Lands Authority argued that the Falzons knew by at least 25 July 2023 that the land had been recognised in favour of a third party. Indeed, Karl Falzon had previously stated that during a Freedom of Information-related visit they were verbally and informally informed that recognition had been granted to third parties. On that basis, the authority argued that the six-month period had expired well before the proceedings were instituted in April 2024.
Marianna Schembri similarly argued that the action was outside the six-month period. She contended the Falzons certainly knew of the relevant document by 19 October 2023 and so proceedings had been brought too late.
The Falzons’ position focused on an important distinction—knowing that some administrative decision exists is not necessarily the same as knowing the administrative act, which is to be challenged.
Karl Falzon testified that at the meeting of 25 July 2023, the authority merely told them that an unidentified third party had been recognised. When they requested further information, the authority did not disclose it, referring to GDPR. The information they received was redacted.
Falzon maintained that he and his wife only discovered in whose favour the recognition had actually been issued on 19 October 2023, during proceedings before the Administrative Review Tribunal. Before then, according to him, they could not institute proceedings against either the authority concerning that specific recognition or the unidentified beneficiary.
The court accepted that the Falzons knew on 25 July 2023 that someone had been recognised in relation to the land. However, it found that at that point they did not know when the administrative decision had been taken or who had been recognised.
The court therefore distinguished between the mere knowledge that an administrative action of some kind had occurred and the knowledge of the administrative decision that the interested person seeks to challenge.
The court held that on 25 July 2023 the Falzons knew that there had been recognition of an unidentified person. However, it was only on 19 October 2023 that they became aware that by its decision on 24 August 2022, the authority had recognised Marianna Schembri. This date was decisive in the court’s decision, as the action was instituted on 15 Apil 2024. The court calculated this was six months less four days from 19 October 2023. Accordingly, it was filed within the statutory six-month period.
The court therefore rejected the Lands Authority’s eleventh preliminary plea and Marianna Schembri’s first and second preliminary pleas. The court also ordered the proceedings to continue and reserved the issue of costs for the final judgement.
In this case, being told that an unidentified third party had been recognised was insufficient to trigger the six-month prescriptive period.
This article may also be accessed on MaltaToday.
