Author
Review of asylum detention under the Reception Regulations
The Reception Regulations provide for an ex officio review of the lawfulness of the detention to be automatically conducted by the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) after seven working days from the issuance of the Detention Order, which may be extended by another seven working days.[1] If the applicant is still detained, a new review would be conducted after periods of two months thereafter. If the IAB rules the detention is unlawful, the applicant should be released immediately. Free legal assistance is provided for the first review.
The Immigration Act provides that the Board shall consist of ”a lawyer who shall preside, a person versed in immigration matters and another person, each of whom shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Minister. Provided that the Minister may by regulations prescribe that the Board shall consist of more than one division each composed of a Chairman and two other members as aforesaid”.[2]
While the review of detention is usually carried out after the first seven days, NGOs report that hearings with the IAB are extremely short, lasting between 5 and 15 minutes and that the several detainees are often seen at the same time. The Board has no written or published procedural rules, particularly on oral or written submissions. This means applicants are rarely heard.
The Board rarely questions detention legality in terms of the Directive’s and Regulations’’ requirements. Decisions generally take the form of unsigned hearing transcripts, standardised and rarely motivated by any principle or law. Some decisions run contrary to well established jurisprudence, including national case law from the Court of Magistrates and the Constitutional Court.
In 2024, the IAB informed legal practitioners that, for some reason unknown to practitioners, it does not conduct the mandatory detention reviews of detained persons who are currently in the age assessment procedure. This practice as confirmed throughout 2025 as practitioners confirmed having several cases of detainees pending age assessments for whom no detention reviews were carried out.
The decisions of the Board are not published. Some decisions are available online on the EUAA case law database, the International Commissions of Jurist CADRE database and aditus foundation’s website.[3]
Lawyers reported that the reviews that are required by the Regulations to be carried out two months after the first one are generally not automatically done and will happen if requested by a lawyer. This is in part due to the fact that free legal aid is only provided for the first review. This results in asylum applicants often being detained without appropriate judicial oversight.
Parallel to this automatic review, the new Reception Regulations provide for the possibility to challenge the Detention Order before the IAB within three working days from the Detention Order.[4] In practice, it is nearly impossible to challenge the Detention Order itself as asylum applicants do not have the capacity to submit such an appeal on such short notice as there is not enough time to seek the assistance of a lawyer (see Access to Detention).
Persons detained under the Immigration Act, being held at the airport pending a return flight, and persons detained under public health considerations do not have access to the IAB, but only – at least in theory – the habeas corpus procedure described below.
Lack of independence and impartiality of the Immigration Appeals Board
The image of the Board and its ability to act and appear as an independent entity has been seriously undermined by various independent commentators who pointed out that all members of the Board are directly connected to the executive[5] and cumulatively sit on a dozen other specialised tribunals, including the Chair who sits on at least others.[6] All members who are lawyers are also practising as private lawyers in diverse civil and criminal matters. These concerns were clearly confirmed in the landmark judgement J.B. and Others vs. Malta. [7]
Stakeholders, including the Chamber of Advocates, expressed concerns regarding specialised tribunals such as the Board.[8] In their 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 Board, the Board members are not members of the judiciary and are not bound by any code of ethics, differently from members of the judiciary. The only requisite for the Board to be validly constituted is for the Chairperson to be a lawyer and one member to be a “person versed in immigration matters”. 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 deprive individuals of the right to an effective remedy.
- Members of the Board are part-time members. This means that they often have regular day jobs, usually in the private sector, and perform their Board functions for some hours during the week. This can raise serious conflict of interest issues, besides affecting the efficiency of the Board.
- Members of the Board are appointed by the Prime Minister. Whilst not automatically assuming that such an appointment would lead to political interference, it is clear that the system could have an impact on independence and impartiality and could strengthen Government’s agenda on any particular issue as the Board examine decisions taken by Government bodies.
- The manner in which the Board conducts its proceedings is not publicly available. There is a lack of procedural transparency: proceedings are not appropriately recorded, the minutes of the hearing are poorly done (if done at all), and the method of receiving submissions from parties is not formalised. The decisions are not published and are not publicly available.
- The Board’s decision is final, and no further appeal is possible on substantive issues. Whilst judicial review on administrative action might be possible, as also a Constitutional case alleging human rights violations, there is rarely the possibility to bring substantive elements before the Courts of law. Furthermore, the Board has consistently refused to accept request for filing Preliminary References to the CJEU, despite it being the Court of last resort and being faced with issues for which References would be warranted.
These concerns were shared by the Venice Commission which considered that specialised tribunals such as the Board do not enjoy the same level of independence as that of the ordinary judiciary and reiterated in October 2020 its recommendations in that respect.[9]
In its 2023 Rule of Law Report, the European Commission repeated statements made in its 2022 report regarding Malta’s commitment in the Recovery and Resilience Plan to review the independence of its specialised tribunals, including the IPAT and the IAB. The Report also made reference to input submitted by aditus foundation and the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation as well as the ECtHR judgement in S.H. The Report flags that decisions of these ”tribunals are at times only subject to judicial review on points of law, but not on points of fact.”[10] According to Malta’s commitment, this review should have been completed by 2024, with necessary legal amendments introduced by 31 March 2026.
The 2024 Report underlines that ”concerns persist regarding the independence of specialised tribunals”.[11] Although the report states that Malta launched public procurement procedures for the selection of the independent contractor who will assess the tribunal’s independence, these procedures have not in fact been launched by the time of writing (January 2026).
In 2024, the ECtHR judgement decided on the IAB’s unsuitability to conduct detention reviews, or any other form of quasi-judicial activities, in J.B. and Others. The Court looked at all aspects of the IAB’s operations and structure, clearly concluding that:
…despite that claim by all but the first applicant, the IAB indiscriminately confirmed the lawfulness of their detention, despite the fact that Regulation 14 of S.L. 420.06 provided that applicants who claim to be minors shall not be detained, except as a measure of last resort, unless the claim is evidently and manifestly unfounded. It has not been claimed that this was the applicants’ situation, which is reinforced by the fact that five of the six applicants were finally found to be minors. Despite the law, there is no indication of any such assessment having been made before the detention order was issued on 30 November 2022, nor was any proper assessment made during the review by the IAB in December 2022. Additionally, the automatic reviews provided for by law did not take place, denying the applicants any procedural safeguards, and the applicants’ requests for release on alternatives to detention in April remained without a formal reply. According to the applicants, the PIO verbally informed them that no alternatives to detention would be considered in view of the reports – which the Court observes, indicated that all but the first applicants were having difficulty in detention.
…it has found that the applicants did not have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 5 § 4, considering, inter alia, that in the absence of any safeguards the applicants had legitimate doubts as to the independence of the IAB. Bearing in mind that both independence and impartiality are important constituent elements of the notion of a “court” within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and that the general principles concerning the independence and impartiality of a tribunal, for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention apply equally to Article 5 § 4 (see 143 above) the Court calls on the Government to ensure that legislation is put in place in order for the IAB to conform with those requirements, having regard to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressure and the necessity for the body to present an appearance of independence.
As of January 2026, no indications have been shared by Government that any changes will be made to the IAB.
The operations of the Board are also being scrutinised by the ECtHR in the communicated case M.S. v. Malta, regarding the detention of an extremely vulnerable LGBTIQ+ applicant.
Other remedies
Together with the remedies offered by the ECtHR, there are a number of remedies available to detainees to challenge their ongoing detention.
Human rights complaints before the Civil Court (First Hall) in its Constitutional Jurisdiction
This remedy, which allows detainees to challenge the lawfulness of their detention in terms of the ECHR and the Constitution of Malta, has failed the Article 5(4) ECHR test for detained persons as, although it is clearly judicial, it is far from speedy.
In addition to the length of time for the delivery of judgments, Constitutional proceedings are virtually inaccessible to detainees as in practice most do not have access to a lawyer who could file a court case on their behalf. In fact, to date most cases have been filed by lawyers working with NGOs. In such cases there is no waiver of court fees, as there would be if the applicant had been granted the benefit of legal aid. The ECtHR delivered a string of judgements confirming that this remedy is not an effective one for the purposes of ECHR Article 5, including in the most recent cases A.D. v. Malta, and J.B. and Others v. Malta.
This remedy is deemed to be an effective one for persons who, at the time of the Court application, are no longer detained and wish to obtain a judicial pronouncement on their detention experience.
This Court delivered judgement on 13 January 2026 in the case of Ayoubah Fona, who was merely 15 years old at the time of his arrival in Malta.[12] The Court confirmed that Fona was detained in breach of his right to liberty and in conditions that amount to inhuman and degrading treatment.
Application under Article 409A of the Criminal Code (Habeas Corpus)
This remedy also allows a detainee to challenge the lawfulness of ongoing detention before the Court of Magistrates (Criminal Jurisdiction) and is based on an assessment on whether a legal basis for the detention exists, or otherwise. Several successful applications were brought before the Courts since 2019, resulting in the immediate release of the applicants. All the cases challenging the de facto detention of applicants under the Prevention of Disease Ordinance filed before the Court of Magistrates were successful except for one case decided in January 2022.[13]
An ongoing legal discussion in habeas corpus applications relates to the nature of Court’s assessment in determining whether a legal basis for the detention exists or otherwise, and Court practice has not been too clear on this. Most Magistrates refrain from engaging in a discussion as to the quality of a detention legal basis, including whether this conforms to EU or ECtHR provisions, insisting that the Criminal Code provision does not demand that assessment.
In J.B. and Others v. Malta, the ECtHR assessed the quality of the remedy presented by Article 409A in the context of persons detained under the Prevention of Disease Ordinance and also under the Reception Regulations, in the context of establishing whether it is a required domestic remedy for applicants before seeking redress before it. The Court found that the Government failed to show that remedies under Section 409A of the Criminal Code were effective or accessible during the first period of detention, particularly as the applicants – mostly minors – were not informed of the reasons for their detention, had no access to legal assistance or relevant information, and no evidence was provided that such remedies had ever succeeded in similar cases. Regarding the second period of detention, the Court held that Section 409A was not the appropriate remedy due to the principle of lex specialis, as the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB) had jurisdiction under the Immigration Act and Regulation 6 of S.L. 420.06.
Review of pre-removal detention under the Returns Regulations
Since the transposition of the Returns Directive, the law provides for the possibility to institute proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of detention before the Immigration Appeals Board.
The law provides that reviews should be carried ex-officio by the PIO at regular intervals of three months and supervised by the Board for people detained after 6 months.[14] However, lawyers and NGOs reported that the PIO reviews do not follow any formal procedures.
Parallel to these reviews, the detained migrant can appeal the removal order in terms of Article 25A of the Immigration Act within 3 days of the notification of the removal order.
According to lawyers assisting migrants served with a Removal Order, the IAB rarely questions the lawfulness of detention or its validity, as it considers the detention always necessary when a removal order is taken. The Board will take the police statements regarding the removal as sufficient to conclude that it is being executed with due diligence and that there is a prospect of removal despite a significant number of individuals being detained for more than 10 months.
Regarding the application of the principle of non-refoulement, the Board never questions the decisions of the IPA and will not carry its own risk assessment, even if the matter is raised during proceedings. Detention and removal will only be questioned when a subsequent application is filed.
Unless successfully challenged, Malta generally applies the maximum permitted detention duration for persons detained pending removal. Furthermore, NGOs report cases where this maximum period is exceeded either due to delays in the required medical clearance or in situations where the detained person is unable to provide a verifiable address.
Throughout 2024 and 2025, the vast majority of people coming from countries designated as safe were detained upon arrival, channelled through an accelerated procedure that rejected them, denied appeal, and served with a removal order. Their cumulative detention experience could reach and at times exceed two years.
In Feilazoo v. Malta decided in March 2021, the ECtHR found a violation of article 5(1) of the Convention (right to liberty and security).[15] The case was about a Nigerian national detained pending removal. The Court considered that the entire period of detention, fourteen months in total, cannot be justified for the purpose of deportation since the authorities insufficiently pursued concrete arrangements for his return. Therefore, the Court concluded that the ground for his detention could not be considered valid for the full duration of his detention.
[1] Regulation 6(3), Reception Regulations.
[2] Article 25A, Immigration Act.
[3] EUAA Case Law Database, https://bit.ly/3XQZJ4c; CADRE Database, http://bit.ly/3HaA932; aditus foundation, Our Cases, https://tinyurl.com/yc8jeb82.
[4] Article 16, Reception Regulations, and Article 25A, Immigration Act.
[5] The Shift News, ‘Foreign Minister Evarist Bartolo picks individuals from his district to serve as ambassadors’, 6 December 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/41OTbFK; The Shift News, ‘Labour-linked lawyer Maria Cardona chairs four government boards at the same time’, 20 November 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3KZPVkW ; Lovin Malta, ‘Prison lawyer defending wardens in inmate’s negligent death is an army officer, Magistrate’s brother, and represents controversial blogger’, 21 September 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3yakT29; Manuel Delia, ‘UPDATED: More iced buns’, 3 November 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3kJZZDZ; The Rule of Law in Malta: An overview of rule of law failings in Malta, 4 February 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/3BWci4v; Manuel Delia, ‘What she would have written’, 3 November 2017, available at: https://bit.ly/3IVOQb0.
[6] This includes the Corradino Correctional Facility Monitoring Board, http://bit.ly/3XrZKM7; the Minor Care Review Board, http://bit.ly/3ibfCSU; the ad-hoc Review Board of Community Malta Agency, http://bit.ly/3XpYF7B; the Grant Review Board, http://bit.ly/3F5rsr7; the Sentencing Advisory Policy Board, http://bit.ly/3U6uz61; the Arbiters on the Consumer Claims Tribunal, http://bit.ly/3i6qzW5; the Commissioner for Justice, https://bit.ly/3E3U9V2; and the Building and Construction Agency, https://bit.ly/3ZjzPqu.
[7] ECtHR, J.B. and Others v. Malta, Application no. 1766/23, 22 October 2024, at: https://tinyurl.com/mr2h83rs.
[8] 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.
[9] Ibid.
[10] European Commission, Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, 5 July 2023, at: https://bit.ly/4aDvuU7.
[11] European Commission, Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Malta, 24 July 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/yhk6878p.
[12] Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) Ayoubah Fona vs. The Minister for Home Affairs, Security, Reforms and Equality et, No. 75/2022, 13 January 2026, at https://tinyurl.com/33yp3ayk.
[13] See aditus foundation, ‘Our Cases’, https://bit.ly/3kP38Ch
[14] Regulation 11(8), Return Regulations.
[15] ECtHR, Feilazoo v. Malta, Application No. 6865/19, 11 March 2021.