Author
According to the Reception Regulations, when a Detention Order of an applicant is not taken, alternatives to detention may be applied for non-vulnerable applicants when the risk of absconding still exists.[1] These alternatives to detention foreseen in the Regulations are the same as the ones listed in the Directive, namely the possibility to report to a police station, to reside at an assigned place, to deposit or surrender documents or to place a one-time guarantee or surety. These measures would not exceed nine months.[2]
Following the transposition of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, concerns were expressed by NGOs that alternatives to detention could be imposed when no ground for detention is found to exist.[3] The wording of the legislation seem to imply that alternatives to detention may apply in all those cases where detention is not resorted to, including those cases where there are no grounds for the detention of the applicant. This goes against the letter and the spirit of the Directive where alternatives to detention should only be applied in those cases where there are grounds for detention.
The imposition of alternatives to detention are also seen as falling within the PIO’s discretion under the Immigration Act, whereby the PIO may impose any condition on any person when granting said person leave to land and/or remain in Malta.[4]
Practice shows most applicants released from detention are imposed alternatives to detention arrangements, even though there might have been no ground to detain them in the first place. They are usually provided with a document in English stating the obligations and the grounds at law for ordering the alternatives to detention. According to this document, the alternatives to detention can be imposed for a maximum period of 9 months. This means that in practice applicants could be detained for the maximum period of 9 months prescribed in the law and then issued with alternatives to detention for 9 more months. It is unclear whether legal challenges on the nature and duration of alternatives to detention actually exist in law or in practice.
NGOs reported that there is no clear pattern on the reason, when and why alternatives to detention are applied. However, it transpires very clearly from practice that alternatives to detention are often seen by the authorities not as actual alternatives, but as a natural continuation of the status post-detention, including where the detention itself has no legal basis.
According to information provided by the PIO, during 2024 alternatives to detention were applied in the cases of 163 persons.[5] To further clarify, a table provided bellow will demonstrate by type of alternative to detention:
| Released with alternative to detention | To report at regular intervals | To reside at a specific address/ Place | To notify the PIO of change of address | To deposit or surrender documents |
| 163 | 95 | 154 | 37 | 6 |
Data on 2025 was not made available as of early May 2026.
[1] Strategy Document, November 2015, 26.
[2] Regulation 6(8), Reception Regulations.
[3] aditus foundation, et al., NGO Input on the Draft Strategy Document: Strategy for the Reception of Asylum-Seekers and Irregular Migrants, November 2015; available at: http://bit.ly/2kX6K4j.
[4] Article 6, Immigration Act.
[5] This figure is not specifically for asylum applicants. The PIO was unable to specify how many of these 163 were asylum applicants.