Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

aditus Visit Website

Visit Website

The report was previously updated in August 2025.

International protection

Asylum procedure

• Key asylum statistics: As in previous years, in 2025 Malta experienced a drop in asylum applications with a total of approx. 545 applications. This is largely due to the continued policy of reducing arrivals by sea through fewer disembarkations on the island. At first instance, the International Protection Agency recognised refugee status to 85 applicants (17%) and granted subsidiary protection to another 75 applicants (15%). Interestingly, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal overturned 10 negative decisions, recognising refugee status (10%) to 10 applicants but did not grant any subsidiary protections (0%). The IPA also granted Temporary Humanitarian Protection to 35 applicants (see Statistics).
• Country of origin decision-making trends: Amongst the top five nationalities submitting applications in Malta, three are countries currently in conflict and largely considered to be unsafe: Syria, Libya and Sudan. Yet also for applicants from these countries, including Ukrainians, the rejection rates are extremely high: 21% for Syrians; 60% for Libyans; 88% for Ukrainians and 67% for Somalis (see Statistics).

• Access to the territory: Throughout 2025, there were several reports of incidents within Malta’s Search and Rescue Zone, but very few people actually disembarked in Malta. Ongoing cooperation with the Libyan Coastguard led to pull-backs from Malta’s area of responsibility, at times with reports of use of violence on NGO vessels and migrants. In the vast majority of situations, the Maltese authorities refused or failed to provide any information clarifying incidents or reports. Moreover, criminalisation of the use of false documentation by asylum-seekers continued in 2025 (see Access to the territory and push backs).
• Quality of asylum assessments: in 2022 in H. v. Malta, the ECtHR criticised assessments carried out between 2020 and 2021. In December 2025, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe requested Malta provide data in order for it to assess the effectiveness of the IPAT review system, also expressing concern at Malta’s Pact implementation plans insofar as the non-suspensive effect of reviews within the accelerated procedure (see Regular procedure).
• Return of beneficiaries of international protection: 2025 saw an increase in the rate of returns of international protection beneficiaries to the MS originally granting protection. Throughout the year, immigration authorities together with the Detention Services, organised road-blocks, house searches and bus searches arresting anyone without a permit to stay in Malta. The vast majority of arrested and removed persons held documentation from other MS, generally Italy or Greece. Arrested people were detained for some days and quickly removed (see Suspension of returns for beneficiaries of protection in another Member State).
• Age assessment: long-time concerns about quality of age assessments procedures and about the Immigration Appeals Board’s expertise remained in 2025 (see Age assessment of unaccompanied children).

Reception conditions

• Access to reception conditions: as in previous years, some applicants struggled to access reception conditions due to not being recognised as applicants by the IPA, such as applicants in a Dublin outgoing procedure pending their departure from Malta, applicants filing a reinstatement application following a revocation or withdrawal of their international protection status in Malta or in another EU MS (see Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions).
• Access to the labour market: Between 2021 and 2024, applicants with a subsequent application deemed inadmissible were not entitled to access the labour market; this policy decision was reversed in early 2025 (see Access to the labour market).
• Access to education: in a landmark decision delivered on 9 September 2025 concerning the children of an applicant granted international protection in Greece, whom the Maltese authorities refused to enrol into State school, Malta’s Civil Court underlined that observance of the right to education is “fundamental to the minor’s present and future development.” It noted that access to education should not be linked to nationality, emphasising the best interests of the child. Whilst the case remains pending, the Court ordered an interim measure requiring the education authorities to allow the two children to attend public education services (see Access to education).

• Reception conditions of vulnerable applicants: despite positive improvements, NGOs continue to report ongoing difficulties for vulnerable people to receive appropriate care and support, mainly due to the automatic detention policy and AWAS and/or the Immigration authorities deeming support in detention centres sufficient for vulnerable applicants (see Special reception needs of vulnerable groups).

Detention of asylum-seekers

• Detention of newly-arrived asylum-seekers: No changes were observed in 2025 in relation to Malta’s automatic detention of persons rescued at sea. Following a speedy prima facie vulnerability screening by the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum-Seekers (AWAS), all persons were detained for ‘medical reasons’. Although this detention on public health grounds was reduced to a couple of days, at times hours, it applied to all persons. Once medically cleared, Detention Orders were issued for all those persons deemed not to be vulnerable by AWAS (see Detention of Asylum Seekers).
• Detention upon lodging asylum applications: Throughout 2025, Malta continued to detain asylum applicants directly from the premises of the International Protection Agency, heightening fears and reluctance to seek international protection. Whilst legal practitioners and NGOs were able to intervene with the PIO and block the detention of some applicants, this was largely dependent on resources, availability of lawyers, knowledge of lodging appointments and relationship with the PIO (see Detention of Asylum Seekers).
• Confiscation of mobile phones: Upon entry into a detention centre, the PIO confiscates applicants’ mobile phones and these are only returned once the person is released from detention. Whilst the PIO cites powers granted to it by criminal law provisions regulating investigations and confiscation of related items, NGOs questioned this legal basis since, in practice, there did not seem to be any real link between confiscation and retention of phones and any investigations (see Conditions in detention facilities).
• Access to information and asylum procedures from detention: UNHCR and NGOs faced serious challenges accessing detained persons throughout 2025. The telephones in detention zones accommodating newly-arrived persons were turned off for days, at times weeks, and detained persons were often moved around within zones to prevent or limit their communication with their legal representatives. NGO efforts are resolving these issues were largely ignored by the Detention Services Agency (see Access to detention facilities).
• Right to an effective remedy: Despite the landmark judgement B. and Others v. Malta, where the ECtHR declared the Immigration Appeals Board to be inadequate to review the legality of detention, Malta has made no effort to revise the regime in line with the Court’s judgment (see Judicial review of the detention order).

Content of international protection

• Access to long-term solutions: Long-term residence continued to gain popularity amongst international protection beneficiaries, with NGOs confirming an increase in the number of beneficiaries seeking support to file applications. Whilst it is generally seen as a more secure status, beneficiaries lamented at the lack of policy clarity on the status of their family members and challenges securing travel documents. NGOs stressed that this situation was created by Malta almost blocking the naturalisation route by increasing to 15 years the minimum required number of years living in Malta to apply. Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are in practice excluded from naturalisation and, coupled with their exclusion from family reunification, are unable to properly settle and enjoy protection in Malta ‘see Long-term residence).
• Family members of protection beneficiaries becoming undocumented: Throughout 2025, family members of protection beneficiaries were rendered undocumented following their eighteenth birthday since they were unable to secure a residence permit in their own name. Malta does not grant derivative status to family members, and the ‘dependant family member’ status is lost once the holder turns eighteen (see Residence permit).
• Elderly refugees: The situation of hundreds of Temporary Protection beneficiaries underlined the lack of legal and policy clarity around entitlements and support services for elderly protection beneficiaries. NGOs reported supporting elderly clients who were denied access to residential and care services, on the basis that these are only for Maltese nationals. Attempts to engage in discussions with the relevant authorities were unsuccessful.

The EU Pact in Malta

• Malta has not published the national action plan for Pact implementation and no related information has been made public. Due to national elections in end of May 2026, no transposing legislation will be adopted by the required deadline. Overall, NGOs understand that Malta is not considering major changes to implement the Pact. No major changes are envisaged for disembarkation, assessment and reception modalities of persons rescued at sea since for several years Malta has been implementing procedures similar to those required under the Pact. In December 2025 a group of Bangladeshi men flew back to Bangladesh within two weeks of their disembarkation. They spent their two weeks in a detention centre cut off from lawyers or NGOs and with little or no information on their rights and remedies. NGOs expressed concern that the Pact’s implementation will further strengthen this approach of isolation. No other information is available regarding implementation.

Temporary protection

The information given hereafter constitute a short summary of the Annex on Temporary Protection in 2025, for further information, see Annex on Temporary Protection.

Temporary protection procedure

• The procedure remained unchanged throughout 2025, although NGO commented observing less flexibility in relation to persons who had been ineligible for TP, travelled back to Ukraine for some time and returned to Malta. Whereas in the past TP was granted to such persons, it seems like these situations are no longer straightforward.

Content of temporary protection

• TP holders continued to enjoy the same level of rights as beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. For many, this was insufficient to meet basic needs with community members stepping in to support each other including for material support. A particularly vulnerable group are elderly persons who are unable to access their national pensions and towards whom Malta is unclear as to pension and other related entitlements.