Author
General (scope, time limits)
According to the IPA, in 2024, it received 528 applications for international protection, of which 444 were first applications, 60 subsequent and 24 new applications. Furthermore, 507 cases remained pending at the end of 2024, of which 117 were Syrian nationals, 89 were Ukrainians, 57 were Sudanese and 38 were Colombian. Data on 2025 was not made available at the national level as of early May 2026. Per Eurostat, 1,415 cases were pending before the national determining authority in December 2025, including 280 cases of Syrians, 180 cases of Libyans, 145 cases of Sudanese, and 90 cases of Nigerians.
According to the Procedural Regulations, the IPA shall ensure that the examination procedure is concluded “as soon as possible”, specifying a limit of six months from the lodging of the application. The IPA may extend this time limit for an additional period not exceeding nine months for limited reasons: when complex issues are involved; when a large number of third-country nationals simultaneously apply for international protection; or when the delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with their obligations.[1] The examination procedure must in any case not exceed the maximum time limit of 21 months from the lodging of the application.[2] The Act does not define “complex issues of fact and, or law”.
The Regulations further provide that when a decision cannot be made by the IPA within six months, the applicant concerned shall be informed of the delay and receive information on the time frame within which the decision on their application is to be expected. However, such information does not constitute an obligation for the Agency to take a decision within that time frame.[3]
In practice however, this provision is not applied and applicants and lawyers seeking updates on pending cases normally receive a generic message indicating that the IPA is unfortunately unable to provide a timeframe regarding when a decision will be taken, and the applicant will be notified in due time.
In a report published in July 2021, the National Audit Office confirmed that the IPA lacked the administrative capacity to keep up with the number of applications lodged and that “given the complexities involved and the thoroughness of the asylum procedure, RefCom’s shortage of officials transcended in processing delays – which in cases surpassed legal requirements” highlighting that applicants remain uninformed on the status of their case.[4] On this specific observation, the NAO’s 2023 follow-up report notes that the IPA rejected the Audit’s recommendation to speed up the asylum procedure. According to the report, the IPA stated that the asylum procedure is regulated by law, and that individual circumstances should also be taken into account.[5]
Most decisions in the regular procedure are, in practice, not taken before the lapse of six months. The IPA reported that the average length of the regular asylum procedure in 2024 was as follows (data was not made available for 2025):
- First applications – 99 days;
- New applications – 174 days;
- Subsequent applications – 86 days.
It also reported the following duration for the accelerated procedure:
- First applications – 71 days;
- Subsequent applications – 28 days.
In a 2022 judgement, the ECtHR identified various failures of the Maltese asylum system and found that the IPA deprived the applicant of rigorous individual assessment of his asylum claim, highlighting that “general measures could be called for”.[6]
Interviews and opinions, as well as decisions taken by the IPA, are written in English.
According to legal practitioners, asylum interviews are generally conducted at the IPA premises. If detained, applicants are brought to IPA by Detention Services in handcuffs. Handcuffs are removed prior to commencement of the interviews. Up until the end of 2023, interviews of detained applicants and of applicants who had been detained were held at Safi Barracks. This practice was discontinued in 2024, with applicants being interviewed at IPA premises throughout 2025.
Prioritised examination and fast-track processing
The Procedural Regulations provide that the IPA may decide to prioritise an examination of an application for international protection when the application is likely to be well-founded and when the applicant is vulnerable or is in need of special procedural guarantees, in particular unaccompanied children.[7] According to IPA, this clause does not limit its discretion to the two mentioned scenarios, allowing it to prioritise applications for other reasons.[8]
The IPA confirmed that priority was given to vulnerable applicants or those in need of special procedural guarantees (see Special Procedural Guarantees).
For 2025, the IPA prioritised the claims of five applicants due to their vulnerability. NGOs confirm it is possible to request fast-tracking cases due to vulnerability, yet also flag that such cases – including when the fast-track request is approved – could remain waiting for their interview for several months.
Personal interview
The Procedural Regulations provide for a systematic personal and individual interview of all applicants for international protection but foresee a few restrictive exceptions. The grounds for omitting a personal interview are the same as those contained in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, namely: (a) when the Commissioner is able to make a positive recommendation on the basis of evidence available; or (b) when the applicant is unfit or unable to be interviewed owing to enduring circumstances beyond his control.[9]
In practice, most asylum applicants are interviewed and in 2024 the IPA held 415 interviews, 71 of which were conducted by remote communication means. All those who are issued with a substantive decision are interviewed. However, in 2024, 464 decisions were taken without a personal interview. No data was made available for 2025. Family members are interviewed individually and privately. An interview is generally not carried out in relation to THP when the request for THP is filed by a rejected asylum applicant. Interviews are also not carried out for applicants granted protection in another EU MS.
Although practitioners are aware of internal IPA guidelines regarding specific procedures or applicants, these are not publicly available.
In view of EUAA’s reduction of operations in Malta in 2024, IPA conducts all interviews (since March 2024) and assessments.
Asylum applicants are generally informed by phone by the IPA a couple of days in advance. Lawyers reported that they are rarely notified and must usually rely on their clients to informing them.
In July 2021, the National Audit Office of Malta published the report ‘Performance Audit: Fulfilling obligations in relation to asylum-seekers’, which assessed the efficacy of the asylum process. The report identified inadequacies, including a lack of resources at first instance, and proposed strategic and operational recommendations.[10] The 2023 follow-up report noted that recommendations related to the change from RefCom to the IPA were fully implemented, resulting in a reduction in the number of pending applications. It also flagged as a positive development the fact that the IPA signed its first Collective Agreement relating to personnel, which allowed the Agency to attract and retain the necessary human resources.[11] In 2025 the IPA conducted a recruitment drive in order to strengthen its capacity to deal with the EU Pact implementation.
IPA drafted guidelines on the involvement and conduct of legal representatives (NGOs or private lawyers) during an asylum interview, allowing lawyers to intervene at certain parts of the interview and limiting their presence in cases of disruptive behaviour. According to the new rules, a lawyer can submit supplementary statements within 5 days of the interview.[12]
Whereas NGOs and lawyers noted a marked improvement in the quality of interviews in terms of approach, structure and attitude, they also reported concerns in the decision-making process. A particular example relates to the heavy reliance on ACLED statistics to determine national safety levels, giving consideration to other COI elements. ACLED was relied upon to determine that Libya, Sudan and Ukraine, or at least specific areas within the countries, were safe for applicants to return to.[13]
Furthermore, in S.H. v. Malta in 2022, the ECtHR decision seemed to confirm these remarks, at least regarding assessments carried out between 2020 and 2021. The Court found the assessments to be “disconcerting” and plagued by “rampant incongruence”.[14] While the Court did not refer to the entity which was in charge of the applicant’s assessments, the applicant’s lawyers later reported that the first assessment was carried out by an EUAA caseworker as indicated in the applicant’s file. In March 2024, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a decision in relation to this judgement, requesting Malta to submit information on the redress measures against the shortcomings identified by the Court related to the accelerated procedure and to introduce an appropriate Convention-compliant remedy with automatic suspensive effect.[15] This was followed by a decision in December 2025 wherein the Committee 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.[16]
Interpretation
The presence of an interpreter during the personal interview is required according to national legislation and interpreters are generally made available.[17]
Applicants are allowed to request an interpreter of a specific gender or nationality.[18] Requests to this end must be made either by the applicant themselves, or by their legal adviser before the interview is carried out.
Transcription
English is the main language of asylum interviews. The interview transcript is taken by the caseworker in charge of the interview during the interview itself. Lawyers assisting applicants during their interviews noted that the caseworker oftentimes abruptly stops applicants or interpreters in the middle of a sentence in order to write down their answers.
Whereas in 2023, interviews were generally carried out by EUAA staff who were often non-native English speakers, in 2024 and 2025 all interviews were carried out by IPA staff.
Applicants generally have access to the written transcript of the interview before any decision is taken, provided a request is made to that effect by the applicant or their legal adviser. It is however not possible for the applicant to make any comments at this stage since transcription issues can only be raised at the appeal stage.[19] The Government indicated that, since confirmation of the correctness of the transcript is not currently required by EU and national law, it is not offered as a possibility.
Practitioners often expressed concerns regarding the fact that detained applicants had no safe place to store their interview transcripts, leading to fears that these were read by other detained persons. Some applicants also mentioned that, due to these confidentiality issues, they might refrain from full disclosure during their interviews.
The law provides for the possibility of audio or audio-visual recording of the personal interview and interviews are generally digitally recorded.[20] The applicant is informed of such at the beginning of the interview; however, their consent is not requested as the law does not require it. The IPA will only provide the audio recording for cases at the appeals stage in accordance with the Procedural Regulations.[21] The recording can only be consulted at the IPA’s premises and applicants and their legal representatives cannot get copies of it. The audio recording of the interview will be accepted as evidence by the IPAT if a request is made to that effect.
Interviews can be conducted through video conferencing. According to the IPA, interviews through video conferencing are considered to be essential in situations where there is a lack of interpreters available in order to proceed with the interview of an asylum applicant. The IPA indicated that it does not keep data on the method of interview used and it is therefore unable to provide information on how many were conducted by remote methods in 2024 and 2025.[22]
Asylum applicants receive the assessment report explaining in detail the motivation of the decision along with the decision and the interview notes. Practitioners noted an improvement in the format and structure of the assessment.
Appeal
Appeal before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal
An appeal mechanism of the first instance decision is available before the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT). The appeal is of a quasi-judicial nature and involves the assessment of facts and points of law. It has a suspensive effect.
The IPAT is composed of one chairperson, three Board members and one Tribunal Secretary. At the end of 2025, the Home Affairs Ministry published call for expressions of interest for the provision of legal rapporteur services to the IPAT.[24]
Concerns over the independence and impartiality of the Tribunal
The IPAT falls under the Ministry for Home Affairs and consists of one Chairperson on a full-time basis and two or more members on a part-time basis.[25] Members of the Tribunal are appointed for a period of three years and are eligible for reappointment.[26] All members are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Prime Minister.[27]
Since 2020,[28] the Tribunal was composed of only one chamber appointed until 22 August 2023. There is no publicly available information on the appointment of Tribunal members following this date, although the IPAT was indeed operational throughout 2023, 2024 and 2025.
The Act provides that members must be of known integrity and be qualified “by reason of having had experience of, and shown capacity in, matters deemed appropriate for the purpose”. The Act further provides that one of the members of the Tribunal must be a person who has practised as an advocate in Malta for a period amounting to not less than seven years and that one of the members must be a person representing the disability sector.[29] Little is known on the actual selection process, there is no public call for applications or interested parties, the process is not made public or reviewed by any independent body, and there is no possibility for any member of the public to question an appointment made under the Act. The appointment of a member is only made public through the Government Gazette and the Tribunal’s actual composition is not available on any of the Government’s websites. Tribunal members are appointed by the Prime Minister.
No information is available as to the IPAT’s members’ participation in any training activities organised by EUAA, UNHCR or similar entity.
For years, NGOs assisting applicants at appeal stage have called for a reform of the appeal procedure. Whilst the establishment of a full-time Chairperson was welcome, they criticised the modalities of appointments of the members where the Prime Minister directly appoints members of a tribunal that is supposed to be independent and impartial.
One of the main concerns expressed by NGOs over the years regarding the appeal stage remains the lack of asylum-related training and capacity of the Tribunal’s Members. These concerns were confirmed by the National Audit Office in a report published in 2021 where it was reported that Chairs themselves deemed selection criteria were not in line with the expertise essential to rule on such technical and life-changing matters since there was no onus or requirements for the members to possess any direct educational or legal preparation or experience in asylum matters. The National Audit Office added that “this lack of familiarity shown by the members in legal interpretation of the appellants’ cases resulted in the chairpersons or members from the legal profession within the Chambers to practically decide the outcome of the appellants’ cases on their own, with the rest of the Chamber simply endorsing the decisions.”[30] These concerns remained relevant in 2025.
The audit also noted a critical shortage of administrative and support staff, including interpreters, research assistants and/or officers that could qualitatively assist the Tribunal in its hearings or in researching and drafting decisions.
The NAO’s follow-up report noted that, together with a full-time Chairperson, the Ministry had also appointed a full-time coordinator and two administrative staff.
Stakeholders, including the Chamber of Advocates, have expressed concerns regarding specialised tribunals such as the IPAT.[31] In the feedback to DG Justice on the Malta Country Chapter for the ‘Rule of Law Report’, aditus foundation highlighted the following shortcomings regarding the Board:
- Although the basic principles of natural justice apply to the Tribunal, its members are not part of the judiciary and are not bound by any code of ethics that applies to members of the judiciary. The only requisite for the Tribunal to be validly constituted is that its members are “persons of known integrity who appear to be qualified by reason of having had experience of, and shown capacity in, matters deemed appropriate for the purpose” and that at least one of the members of the Tribunal “shall be a person who has practised as an advocate in Malta for a period or periods amounting, in the aggregate, to not less than seven(7) years”. The appointment of persons who lack any specific qualification and experience on a Board that examine particularly sensitive issues such as the detention of migrants and asylum-seekers might deny individuals the right to an effective remedy.
- Most members of the IPAT are part-time members. This means that they often have full-time jobs, usually in the private sector, and perform their Board functions for a limited number of hours during the week. This can raise serious conflict of interest issues, besides affecting the Board’s efficiency.
- Members of the IPAT are appointed by the Prime Minister. Whilst it is not possible to automatically assume that such an appointment would lead to political interference, it is clear that the system could have an impact on independence and impartiality of the body and could play a part in strengthening the Government’s agenda on migration and asylum, as the Board examine decisions taken by Government bodies.
- Despite the procedural rules laid down in S.L. 420.01, the manner in which the IPAT conducts its proceedings in practice is not publicly available through published guidelines. There are no detailed written rules on the matter. Lawyers commented that timelines are not uniformly stipulated or enforced, and the hearings’ excessive informality due to lack of written procedures leads to inconsistent procedures in relation to oral submissions, witnesses, experts, etc. Lawyers noted that there is a lack of procedural transparency: proceedings are not appropriately recorded, and the minutes of the hearing are poorly done (if done at all). The decisions are not publicly available.
- The IPAT’s decision is final, and no further appeal is possible on substantive issues. Whilst proceedings before such quasi-judicial tribunals are subject to judicial scrutiny, , there is no possibility to bring substantive elements before the Courts of law outside of a separate and independent human rights case alleging, for example, a violation of Article 3 ECHR if the applicant were to be returned.
These concerns were shared by the Venice Commission which considered that specialised tribunals such as the IPAT do not enjoy the same level of independence as that of the ordinary judiciary and reiterated in October 2020 its recommendations in that respect.[32]
In its 2022 Rule of Law Report, the European Commission echoed such concerns and indicated that the Government had committed in the Maltese Recovery and Resilience Plan[33] to carry out a review of the independence of specialised tribunals such as the IPAT in communication with the Venice Commission. This review was to include a study, to be completed by end 2024, as well as legislative amendments to enter into force by 31 March 2026.[34] No progress was made in this regard throughout 2024 and 2025.
The 2023 Rule of Law Report reiterated its 2022 concerns, underlining that IPAT members are appointed by the executive authorities, also flagging the S.H. judgement of the ECtHR. The EU Commission also underlined that IPAT decisions, as those by most similar tribunals, are only subject to review on points of law but not on points of fact.[35]
In their submissions for the 2023 Rule of Law Report, aditus foundation and the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation stated that although aware of the review of the system, they expressed their concerns at the deadline of the implementation – being 2026 – highlighting that in the meantime, the boards are deciding on crucial issues relating to detention, age assessment, refoulement and asylum, which have clear implication on fundamental rights in the implementation of European Union law. They further reported that the independence of the tribunals, specifically of the IPAT was also raised in pending Commission Complaint CHAP(2021)02127 – Systematic breach of EU law in accelerated procedures, breach of Charter (Asylum Unit).[36]
The NGOs also underlined how the IPAT, despite being a Court of last resort, consistently failed to accede to requests for Preliminary Rulings made by practitioners. Although some requests were rejected on the basis of the acte clair principle, the majority of requests remain pending before the IPAT.
These concerns were reiterated in aditus’ submissions for the 2024 and 2025 Rule of Law Reports of the EU Commission.[37]
Procedure to lodge an appeal before the Tribunal
An appeal must be made within 15 days from the notification of the applicant of the IPA decision for appeals lodged within the regular procedure.[38] A recent amendment reduced this deadline to 1 week for appeals lodged against an IPA decision withdrawing refugee status or subsidiary protection (see Withdrawal of Protection).[39]
This is generally understood as referring to an appeal application, being a confirmation in writing that the applicant wishes to appeal a negative decision and whether the applicant wishes to request the appointment of a legal aid lawyer. In cases where the appellant is being represented by an NGO lawyer or a private lawyer, the appeal letter is generally drafted by the lawyer or NGO. NGOs such as aditus and JRS provide template letters to the appellants indicating whether the appellant is represented by a lawyer or wishes to request legal assistance.
The decision of the IPA is issued in English and mentions the deadlines for appeal. The IPA generally also provides a document in several languages briefly mentioning the appeal procedure and its deadlines along with a document providing the address and contact of the Tribunal and relevant organisations. The appeal is to be lodged in person by the appellant at the IPAT premises in Valletta. Appellants are then issued with their identity document, the Asylum-Seeker Document (ASD), which they have to renew at the IPAT every three or six months. The IPAT does not accept late appeals under any circumstances.[40]
Following submission of the appeal application, the IPAT notifies the appellant of the deadline for submission of written pleadings. Where the appellant had requested a legal aid lawyer, the Ministry will appoint a lawyer from the pool of available legal aid lawyers who will then set an appointment with the appellant. The timeline for submitting written pleadings is provided for in Article 7(6) of the Act, set at a maximum of fifteen days following the filing of the appeal application.
Practitioners noted the difficulty of meeting a 2-week deadline to file written submissions, particularly in situations where the appellant is detained or where individual circumstances require the procurement of further documents, such as vulnerability assessments, original documents from countries of origin, etc.
In 2023, the number of appeals lodged against negative first instance decisions was 649: 382 for regular appeals and 267 in the context of the accelerated procedure.[41] 595 cases were decided on appeal. In 2024, the IPAT received 325 appeal applications, excluding Dublin appeals.[42] Data for 2025 was not made available at the national level as of early May 2026. According to Eurostat, 190 appeal decisions were taken in Malta in 2025, but the number of appeals lodged is not available on Eurostat.[43]
There are no established or publicly available rules or procedures for appeals filed by asylum-seekers who are detained or in prison. At the outset, they do not have access to any advice, information or clarification on their IPA decision. They face significant obstacles to appeal and generally rely on NGOs to liaise with the competent authorities. Standard appeal forms are not available to asylum-seekers in the premises where they are detained or imprisoned, the whole process being carried out on an ad hoc basis in complete opacity. Detainees can hardly communicate with the Tribunal themselves since they have limited access to phones and generally rely on their legal representative calling or visiting them to inform them of their rejection. This is particularly serious for applicants channelled in the accelerated procedure in view of the extremely tight timeframes and, overall, their impossibility of appealing or attempting to challenge the legality of IPA’s decision to channel in the accelerated procedure.
Interpreters are not available in the detention centres and not all rejected applicants are able to communicate their intention to appeal to the Detention Services (DS). NGOs visiting the detention centres will take upon themselves to refer the appellant to the IPAT’s registry or the Detention Services (DS). This requires the NGOs to be aware of the appellant, which is not always the case considering their limited access to detention (see Access to Detention). Although the presence of a Welfare Officer within the DS has somewhat improved communication between detained applicants and the asylum procedure, NGOs expressed concerns at having a DS employee having access to applicant’s files and documentation particularly in a context where the Welfare Officer also often plays a role in promoting voluntary return.
Since the appeal must be lodged in person, the appellant must be brought by the DS to the IPAT’s premises within the prescribed deadline.
For asylum-seekers who are in prison, the Correctional Service Agency must be informed instead of DS.
Proceedings before the Tribunal
The Act provides that the IPAT can regulate its own procedure.[44] Specific rules of procedures were adopted in S.L. 420.01, the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (Procedures) Regulations. The Regulations add the obligation for all members to swear an oath that ”they will faithfully and impartially perform the duties of their office or employment, and that they will not divulge any information acquired by them under the Act”.[45]
However, the Regulations remain superficial in nature and do not formalise the decision process of the Tribunal. In 2021, the National Audit Office found that there were no written procedures that guide the Tribunal’s Chambers which reportedly worked differently to determine decisions. The audit found that some Chambers claimed that they met and actually discussed files together and agreed upon a decision while other Chambers distributed cases and then agreed on decisions. The Audit Office found that the latter point showed that such practice meant that not all four members would have viewed the files deeply but relied on each other’s opinions. According to the Audit Office, the current Chair of the Tribunal contended that this is a practice which is used even by the Court of Appeal and the ECHR and that it is legitimate for one member or two to look into the details of the case and report findings to their colleagues.[46] The NAO’s follow-up report, in 2023, welcomed the introduction of Act XL of 2020 amending Section 7 of the Act, yet lawyers noted that these amendments did not resolve the problem relating to the IPAT’s lack of written rules of procedure.
Once the appeal is filed, appellants and their lawyers must present written submissions within no more than 15 days following the registration of the appeal.[47] The IPAT does not accept late submissions.
Upon lodging the appeal, the parties are issued with a Decree providing for clear deadlines for their respective submissions. The IPA must file its submission within 15 days following the expiry of the deadline given to the appellant to file its own submissions. The Decree states that the IPA must present its submissions even if the appellant failed to do so and that if the IPA does not wish to file submissions, it must inform the Tribunal and motivate such a decision.
In practice, the IPA only submits written observations in selected cases, at times after the deadline. The Tribunal will however generally uphold a request to strike out the IPA’s late submissions, if it is made. However, this is without prejudice to the right of the IPA to file oral submissions during any hearing scheduled by the Tribunal. It remains unclear if counter-observations submitted by the appellant are permitted de jure, but this is generally accepted by the IPAT and considered to be the final note of submissions with the possibility for the IPA to reply with its own final note of submissions. Parties are therefore generally allowed to file two notes of submissions each.
Appellants are further allowed to file new evidence beyond the 15 days initially awarded to them provided this new evidence was not available when the submission was made.[48] The fact that appeals remain pending for several years means that new facts are likely to emerge within the proceedings, yet practitioners are unaware of any measures adopted by the IPAT to ensure a decision-making process that is truly full and ex nunc. In practice further submissions on new points of fact are allowed and the IPA is generally given 2 weeks to provide a written reply.
For the appellant, failure to file submissions will automatically lead the IPAT to reject the case on the basis that the appellant “did not indicate on which ground the appeal was made”.[49] While it is possible to file a request to reopen the case, the IPAT generally rejects such requests on the basis that the law does not provide for it. These cases are considered to be rejections “on the merits” by the IPAT. The Government states that, in the absence of specific and uniform provisions or procedural rules governing the reopening of appeals, the IPAT has on certain instances made reference to the general law of procedure relating to new trials following a judgement of Malta’s superior civil courts.[50]
There is no obligation for the IPAT to hold hearings. However, it can decide to hold one on its own initiative or following a request from the appellant.[51] The law foresees the possibility for the Tribunal to authorise the hearing to be public after the request by one of the parties or if the Tribunal so deems fit.[52]
The National Audit Office reported that it was not in a position to establish if and how many times the relevant Chamber would have met with the appellant for an oral hearing. It noted that the current Chair of the IPAT contends that the Board would hold an appeal worthy of a hearing when there was a particular point of law or fact which needed clarification, or where there was a specific request by the appellant for an oral hearing. The Audit Office expressed concerns that that “such difference in procedures raises the question as to whether appellants are being given an equal opportunity to present their case”.[53]
The data provided is limited to cases that were heard from November 2021, with 16 hearings held so far. In 2023, the IPAT ordered 23 appeals under oral hearings and 587 cases were decided with no oral hearings (4%), whilst 15 hearings (all in-person) were held in 2024. For 2024, 439 appeals were adjudicated without a hearing. Data for 2025 was not made available as of early May 2026.
The hearings held by the Tribunal do not follow clear steps or set procedures. They rarely last more than 15 minutes, with a time allocated to the appellant to summarise the case and the relevant arguments, and a time for the IPA’s representative to reply. Despite requiring a full and ex nunc examination, the law also provides that the Tribunal should normally hear only new evidence regarding which it is satisfied that such evidence was previously unknown or could not have been produced earlier.[54]
The hearing is generally held in the presence of the Chairperson and the Secretary, and the written transcript does not make any mention of the oral submissions made by the appellant or the IPA beyond the mention “the appellant made his submissions”.[55] Hearings are always attended by a representative of the IPA.
The UNHCR is entitled by law to attend the hearings held by the Tribunal.[56] It will consider doing so if the appellant requests it and so far, has been attending hearings whenever requested. It also has the possibility to file observations in the appeal.
Time limits and decisions
The Act provides that an appeal must be concluded within three months of the lodging of the appeal and that in cases involving complex issues of fact or law, the time limit may be further extended under exceptional circumstances but cannot exceed a total period of six months.[57]
For 2023, IPAT reports that the average duration of the appeal procedure is of 452 days however practitioners reported having appeals pending for up to 5 years. For cases decided in 2024, the average duration of the appeal procedure was of 465.5 days.[58] Data for 2025 was not made available as of early May 2026.
450 decisions were taken by the IPAT in 2024. Data for 2025 was not made available at the national level as of early May 2026. According to Eurostat, 190 appeal decisions were taken in Malta in 2025, with 10 resulting in refugee status, and 180 rejections.
The past few years have shown a certain improvement in the quality of the decision issued with an increased number of references to EU and national legal norms, country of origin information and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). However, the concerns over the Tribunal’s independence remain. In 2024, the recognition rate before IPAT stood at 8.8% overall when including inadmissibility decisions, or 15.7% when excluding inadmissibility decisions. If looking at Eurostat data, the global recognition rate in appeals in Malta in 2025 stood at 5%.
The Tribunal is under the obligation to carry out a full and ex nunc examination of both facts and points of law,[59] the expression “full and ex nunc” being introduced by amendment XIX of 2022. The Act further specifies that such an examination shall also lie against decisions finding an application to be unfounded, inadmissible. It seems incongruent, and possibly in breach of EU primary law, that the Act also specifies that the previously-described 3-day accelerated procedure – with no access to legal assistance and no possibility of the appellant to present any written or oral submissions – is deemed to constitute an appeal.
The decisions of the Tribunal are not published or publicly available, although they are all transmitted to UNHCR.
Judicial review
Although the International Protection Act stipulates that the IPAT’s decisions are final, it is possible to submit an application before the Civil Courts in order to review decisions that allegedly breach principles of natural justice or that are manifestly contrary to the law. Almost identical to a formal judicial review process under Article 469A of Malta’s Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (COCP), this recourse of action is not formally described as such since the IPAT, being or at least purporting to be a quasi-judicial body – is not an administrative body and therefore not subject to judicial review procedures.
The self-assumed jurisdiction by the Courts, often named ‘residual jurisdiction’ has been reiterated in several cases and is based on clear principles. In fact, in several cases, within asylum but also in other areas, Maltese Courts have rejected the plea presented by the Government that the IPAT’s decisions are final and that therefore the Courts should decline taking cognisance of the case.[60]
The Civil Court’s competence to review the decision of any administrative tribunal to ensure ”firstly that the principles of natural justice are observed and secondly, to ensure that there is not any wrong or incomplete statement of the law” is a longstanding principle established by jurisprudence.[61]
Even where the law stipulates that certain decisions are final and may not be challenged or appealed, Maltese Courts have held that ”not even the legislator had in mind granting such unfettered immunity to the Board as would make it unaccountable for breaches which, in the case of other administrative tribunals, ground an action for judicial review.”[62]
As with the more regular judicial review, this is a regular court procedure assessing whether administrative decisions comply with required procedural rules such as legality, nature of considerations referred to and duty to give reasons. Applicants could be granted legal aid if eligible under the general rules for legal aid in court proceedings. It is not excluded that the relevant provisions of the EU Charter could be relevant for such cases.
Nonetheless, this procedure does not deal with the merits of the asylum claim, but only with the manner in which the concerned authority reached its decision. Moreover, the lack of suspensive effect and the length of the procedure, which can take several years before any decision is reached, tend to discourage lawyers and rejected asylum-seekers to file cases.
Legal assistance
Regulation 10(4) of the Procedural Regulations provides that a legal adviser shall be allowed to assist the applicant in accordance with procedures laid down by the International Protection Agency and, ”where entitled to free legal aid shall be provided to the applicant”.[63] However, Regulation 12(1) provides that an applicant is allowed to consult a legal adviser ”at their own expense” in relation to their application for international protection ”at all stages of the procedure” provided that, in the event of a negative decision at first instance, free legal aid shall be granted under the same conditions applicable to Maltese nationals.[64]
In practice, free legal assistance is limited to the appeal stage and NGOs reported that they are not aware of any legal aid lawyer intervening at the first instance stage. Applicants who request the assistance of a lawyer at first instance are generally referred to the NGOs by the IPA, which usually provides them with a document containing the contact details of the NGOs and the UNHCR.
Legal assistance at the appeal stage is not restricted by any merits test or other considerations such as that the appeal is likely to be unsuccessful. In practice, the appeal forms the applicants fill in and submit to the IPAT contain a request for legal aid, unless an applicant is assisted by a lawyer working with an NGO or a private lawyer. This request is forwarded to the Ministry for Home Affairs which will distribute the cases amongst a pool of asylum legal aid lawyers. One appointment with the applicant is then scheduled. To date, legal aid in Malta for asylum appeals has been financed through the State budget.
Lawyers providing assistance to asylum applicants and migrants before the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) and the International Protection Appeals Tribunal (IPAT) are selected from a pool of lawyers which is different from the one provided for civil and criminal cases, and fall directly under the Ministry for Home Affairs. Legal aid lawyers are generally chosen on the basis of an open call issued by the Ministry for Home Affairs to provide specific migration and asylum related legal services. The contracts of service are awarded after interviews conducted by Ministry officials.
Legal aid lawyers must undertake to represent appellants to the best of their ability and submit an appeal on their behalf to the relevant body at law. They must undertake to examine the grounds of appeal and present, in writing, the appellant’s case before the relevant Board or Tribunal as well as attending hearings to explain case submissions and provide other general assistance to the respondents during their appeal.
The contract is a fee-based service contract where lawyers are paid per completed appeals and upon presentation of an attendance sheet. The fees are paid according to the below:
- Asylum Appeals: 130 euro (inc. VAT) for every case;
- Dublin Appeals: 100 euro (inc. VAT) for every case;
- Age Assessment: 100 euro (inc. VAT) for every case;
- Detention: 50 euro (inc. VAT) per case;
- Removal: 100 euro (inc. VAT) per case;
- Other legal services: 40 euro (inc. VAT) per session.
The 2023 call for applicants to be part of the legal aid pool only referred to “administrative and technical” criteria, yet no indication was given as to any specific knowledge or expertise in national or EU asylum and immigration law. Ongoing training is mentioned as a possibility, with no attached participation requirement.[65]
Legal assistance and counselling provided by the NGOs as part of their ongoing services are funded either through project-funding or through other funding sources and therefore subject to funding limitations which could result in the services being reduced due to prioritisation. NGO lawyers provide legal information and advice both before and after the first instance decision, including an explanation of the decision taken and, in some cases, interview preparation and appeals.
The Procedural Regulations provide that the IPA must allow applicants to bring with them a legal adviser for the interview. They further provide that the legal adviser can only intervene at the end of the interview and that the absence of the legal adviser does not prevent the IPA to carry out the interview. The Regulations empower the IPA to draft further rules covering the presence of legal advisers during the interview.[66] These rules were drafted in 2021 and cover the presence of any third parties at the interview, including UNHCR.[67]
UNHCR is entitled to have access to information on individual applications, be present during personal interviews and submit their views in writing during the first instance and at appeal stage, provided the applicant has consented to it.[68]
According to the new rules, legal advisers are allowed to make comments or ask the applicant questions only at the end of the interview. These will be recorded and included in the interview transcript. The rules provide that third parties (including the UNHCR and legal adviser) may not intervene directly during the questioning of the applicant and if they do so, they will be given a warning to desist from such interventions by the case officer. The guidelines further state that the interview will be suspended if the interventions continue, and that the IPA reserves the right not to authorise the attendance of the legal adviser when the interview is subsequently rescheduled. It must be noted that the guidelines fail to mention that legal advisers are legally entitled to intervene at any point in the interview on matters of procedure; however, this is generally confirmed by case officers at the beginning of the interviews. Finally, the new rules provide for a stringent five-day deadline from the interview to submit a supplementary statement.[69]
NGOs have consistently raised concerns about the lack of or insufficient access to legal assistance and representation during the asylum procedure, especially for those placed in detention and in prison and the ECtHR found against Malta in several cases on this matter.[70]
In December 2022, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 3 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 13 after highlighting the numerous shortcomings of the asylum procedure in Malta. The Court noted that “the applicant had not had the benefit of any legal assistance in the preparation of his asylum application, during his interview and all throughout the process until a few days before the first decision” and did not did not accept the argument of the Government that the applicant had not claimed he had asked for such assistance and had been denied, noting that, “during the processing of his first asylum claim the applicant had been in detention (between September 2019 until December 2020) and the Court has repeatedly expressed its concerns in the Maltese context about concrete access to legal aid for persons in detention”. The Court found that the situation of the applicant was further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic and held that it “had no reason to doubt the applicant’s submission, supported by the CPT report that, due to increased limitations following the outbreak, detained asylum-seekers were even less likely to obtain any form of access to legal aid, or of NGO lawyers, or any other lawyer of choice”.[71]
Furthermore, as described in further detail in the relevant section below, meetings with appellants who are in detention can be particularly problematic for practical and logistical reasons that can be of detriment to both the appellants and the lawyers. For example: interpreters are not always available; only one boardroom is shared with all actors is available for visits at the Safi Detention Centre; lawyers are generally not permitted to take phones or any electronic devices to these meetings; all meetings need prior authorisation from the Detention Services; the meeting request procedure is cumbersome, the Detention Services decides on the day and time of the meetings. (see Access to Detention). Coupled with the extremely strict and tight deadlines within which to file asylum appeals, these logistical hurdles are challenging for lawyers assisting asylum applicants.
The law states that access to information in the applicants’ files may be precluded when disclosure may jeopardise national security, the security of the entities providing the information, and the security of the person to whom the information relates.[72] Moreover, access to the applicants by the legal advisers or lawyers can be subject to limitations necessary for the security, public order or administrative management of the area in which the applicants are kept.[73] In practice, however, these restrictions are rarely, if ever, implemented.
[1] Regulation 6(4), Procedural Regulations.
[2] Regulation 6(6), Procedural Regulations.
[3] Ibid., Regulation 6(7).
[4] National Audit Office, Performance Audit: Fulfilling obligations in relation to asylum-seekers, 7 July 2021, p. 72, available at http://bit.ly/3CT0VeK.
[5] National Audit Office, Follow-up Audits Report 2023, Volume II, November 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3tfbv386.
[6] S.H. v. Malta, 37241/21, 20 December 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3KKz7OH.
[7] Regulation 6(8), Procedural Regulations.
[8] Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality, Feedback on the 2022 AIDA Country Report on Malta, shared with ECRE in January 2024.
[9] Regulation 10, Procedural Regulations.
[10] National Audit Office, Performance Audit: Fulfilling obligations in relation to asylum-seekers, 7 July 2021, available at http://bit.ly/3CT0VeK, 73-83.
[11] National Audit Office, Follow-up Audits Report 2023, Volume II, November 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3tfbv386.
[12] EUAA, Annual Asylum Report (2022), available at: https://bit.ly/3LrbVVE p.140.
[13] “The Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED) collects real-time data on the locations, dates, actors, fatalities and types of all reported political violence and protest events around the world.” See: https://tinyurl.com/5emk8sec.
[14] ECtHR, S.H. v. Malta, 37241/21, 20 December 2022, cited above.
[15] Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Decision CM/Del/Dec(2024)1492/H46-22, 14 March 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/56s5c9p8.
[16] Decision CM/Del/Dec(2025)1545/H46-24, 4 December 2025, at: https://tinyurl.com/4r3yk6ac.
[17] Regulations 4(2)(c) and 5(3), Procedural Regulations.
[18] Regulation 10(10)(d), Procedural Regulations.
[19] Regulation 11(5), Procedural Regulations.
[20] Regulation 11(2), Procedural Regulations.
[21] Regulation 11(9), Procedural Regulations.
[22] Request for Information 315240434264 issued by the International Protection Agency.
[23] Article 5(1), International Protection Act.
[24] At: https://tinyurl.com/4yu227wc.
[25] Article 5, International Protection Act.
[26] Article 5(3), International Protection Act.
[27] Article 5(5), International Protection Act.
[28] Ministry for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality, Feedback on the 2022 AIDA Country Report on Malta, shared with ECRE in January 2024.
[29] Article 5, International Protection Act.
[30] National Audit Office, Performance Audit: Fulfilling obligations in relation to asylum-seekers, 7 July 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3CT0VeK, 73-83.
[31] See European Commission For Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), opinion 993/2020, 8 October 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3Kwh7nS and European Commission, 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, available at: https://bit.ly/3vBtXN9, 4-5.
[32] Venice Commission, CDL-AD(2020)019-e, para. 98; see also CDL-AD (2020)006 paras. 97-98; and CDL-AD (2018)028 paras. 80-83.
[33] Government of Malta, Recovery and Resilience Plan, September 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yw25ehxk, 268.
[34] EC, Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, 13 July 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3XRYS2D, 5-6.
[35] EC, Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, 5 July 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/2rx6mvuu.
[36] Information provided by aditus foundation and Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, January 2023.
[37] aditus foundation, 2025 Rule of Law Submission Malta, January 2025, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3rmu9679.
[38] Article 7(2), International Protection Act and Regulation 5(1) (a), IPAT (Procedure) Regulations.
[39] Articles 10(6) and 22(6), International Protection Act.
[40] Request for Information 315240434264 issued by the International Protection Agency.
[41] Information provided by IPAT following a Freedom of Information request.
[42] Information provided by IPAT, 2025.
[43] Eurostat, ‘Final decisions in appeal or review on applications by type of decision, citizenship, age and sex – annual data’, last updated 24 April 2026, available here.
[44] Article 7(9), International Protection Act.
[45] Regulation 4, IPAT (Procedure) Regulations.
[46] National Audit Office, Performance Audit: Fulfilling obligations in relation to asylum-seekers, 7 July 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3CT0VeK, 73-83.
[47] Article 7(6), International Protection Act.
[48] Article 7(6), International Protection Act.
[49] Information reported by aditus foundation, January 2022.
[50] Information provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Security and Employment on 24 July 2025, see annex to the country report on 2024.
[51] Regulation 5(1)(h) RAB, Procedures Regulations.
[52] Article 7(5), International Protection Act.
[53] National Audit Office, Performance Audit: Fulfilling obligations in relation to asylum-seekers, 7 July 2021, available at: http://bit.ly/3CT0VeK, 77.
[54] Regulation 5(1)(h), IPAT Procedures Regulations.
[55] Information provided by JRS and aditus, January 2022.
[56] Article 7(8), International Protection Act.
[57] Article 7(7), International Protection Act.
[58] Information provided by IPAT, 2025.
[59] Article 7(1A), International Protection Act.
[60] See for instance, Paul Washimba v Refugee Appeals Board, the Attorney General and the Commissioner for Refugees, 65/2008/1, 28 September 2012, available at: https://tinyurl.com/5ymbey5t; Saed Salem Saed v Refugee Appeals Board, the Commissioner of Police as Principal Immigration Officer and the Attorney General, 1/2008/2, 5 April 2013, available at: https://tinyurl.com/33x586cu; Abrehet Beyene Gebremariam v Refugee Appeals Board and the Attorney General, 133/2012, 12 January 2016, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3cez8wsn.
[61] Anthony Cassar pro et noe vs Accountant General, 667/1992/1, 29 May 1998, available at: https://tinyurl.com/mphbx2em; Dr. Anthony Farrugia vs Electoral Commissioner, 18 October 1996.
[62] Saed Salem Saed v Refugee Appeals Board, the Commissioner of Police as Principal Immigration Officer and the Attorney General, 1/2008/2, 5 April 2013.
[63] Regulation 10(4), Procedural Regulations.
[64] Regulation 12(1), Procedural Regulations.
[65] MHAS, ‘Call for Legal Aid Service’, available at: https://tinyurl.com/zbn7vdd7.
[66] Regulation 12(2), Procedural Regulations.
[67] EUAA, Annual Asylum Report, 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3EU7fUn, 194.
[68] Regulation 21, Procedural Regulations.
[69] The guidelines are not publicly available; this information was provided by the IPA upon request on 20 January 2022.
[70] See, Aden Ahmed v. Malta, no. 55352/12, 23 July 2013, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-122894, para 66; Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, 26 November 2015, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-158877, para 65; Abdi Mahamud v. Malta, no. 56796/13, 3 May 2016, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-162424, para 46; Feilazoo v. Malta, no. 6865/19, 11 March 2021, available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-208447, para 58; S.H. v. Malta, no 37241/21, 20 December 2022 available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-221838, para 82, in the immigration context and Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta, nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, 19 December 2017 available at: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-179568, para 6 in the prison context.
[71] ECtHR, S.H. v. Malta, no 37241/21, 20 December 2022, available here, para 82.
[72] Regulation 7(2), Procedural Regulations.
[73] Regulation 7(3), Procedural Regulations.