Overview of the main changes since the previous report update

Author

aditus Visit Website

Visit Website

The report was previously updated in September 2024.

International protection

Asylum procedure

• Key asylum statistics: In 2024, Malta received a total of 528 applications, including 444 first applications, 24 new applications and 60 subsequent applications. 82% of these were submitted by adults, whilst 18% were submitted by children. The IPA ended the year with 507 pending applications. The majority of applications received in 2024 came from Syrian nationals (204). The IPA took 985 decisions in 2024, whilst 450 decisions at second instance were issued by the IPAT. Overall, including decisions taken at the appellate stage, 54 persons were recognised as refugees and 174 persons were granted subsidiary protection. Malta’s protection rate for the year stood at 27.4%.[1] Of the 985 decisions, 586 were negative decisions based on procedural issues. This included 194 decisions that applications were “implicitly withdrawn” and 132 decisions on “administrative closure”.
• Country of origin decision making trends: in terms of country profiles, Malta generally continued to acknowledge the protection needs of Syrians, Eritreans and Palestinians whilst also issuing more positive decisions in individual cases of Iranians, Libyans and nationals of Türkiye. However, the IPA continued to indicate a negative stance on international protection applications by nationals of Ukraine, Bangladesh and Pakistan. In relation to Libya, aside from the individualised recognition of refugee status, most applications were negatively assessed.
• Access to the territory: 2024 marked another year of Malta’s migration policy effectively limiting the number of applicants reaching the country; with 239 arrivals by sea in total. As in previous years, accusations highlighting that Malta failed to fulfil its international maritime obligations in relation to people in distress at sea persisted. Many reports of incidents seeing Malta failing or delaying to intervene, instructing private ships not to rescue and engaging in cooperation with the Libyan Coast Guard were published throughout the year. All these activities were also flagged in two key UN human rights reviews Malta underwent in 2024.
• Automatic detention of new arrivals: With the previous practice of de facto detaining all new arrivals under public health legislation for months being declared a violation of the ECHR, in 2024 Malta reverted to automatically detaining all new arrivals for an almost mandatory minimum of two months, with the exception of visibly vulnerable persons. Moreover, Malta started arresting and detaining people directly from the premises of the asylum office (IPA) following their spontaneous asylum application, at times including persons who were living in Malta under a valid visa or during the visa free period.
• Lack of access to the procedure and legal assistance in detention: people faced increased challenges to access the procedure and to participate in it effectively due to their detention. Detained newly-arrived applicants were denied any form of contact with NGOs or independent support, with notably the telephones in the detention centre being turned off. Despite efforts in being more present and active in detention, NGOs lamented logistical challenges in visiting their clients and the impossibility to organise group information sessions on the procedure. UNHCR was only permitted to visit applicants following their lodging of the applications. Only the authorities could visit newly-arrived persons and according to testimonies focused on voluntary return procedures.
• Access to asylum applicant status following withdrawal of protection: Applicants seeking reinstatement after their international protection had been withdrawn by the IPA after one year following their non-renewal of expired documentation, were not treated as asylum applicants during the reinstatement procedure. They were not protected against refoulement, not provided with an Asylum-Seeker Document and could not benefit from any form of reception conditions.
• Inadmissibility criteria: Practitioners expressed concern at several applications declared inadmissible on the basis that the applicant had been granted international protection in another EU MS when that international protection was not actually being enjoyed, either due to revocation or withdrawal following non-renewal. In most cases, these were spouses to persons granted international by Malta.
• Return procedure: A Strasbourg judgement blocked the removal of two Uighurs, flagging deficiencies in the various elements of their asylum procedures.

Reception conditions

• Conditions in open centres: Despite the very low number of applicants reaching Malta in 2024, living conditions in the open reception centres remained challenging for most residents. Marsa Initial Reception Centre was closed in 2024. Despite an increasing number of applicants benefitting from reception conditions whilst living in the community, little effort was made to shift Malta’s reception regime from large centres towards a more community-based approach. Whilst provision of support and care in some centres, especially those accommodating the most vulnerable, did improve, living conditions for all applicants remained a serious challenge. The largest centre, the Ħal Far Tent Village, is composed of several rows of metal containers and shared facilities underlining the temporary nature of this accommodation.
• Withdrawal of reception conditions: The policy of withdrawing material reception conditions for all applicants, save the most vulnerable, following six months of residence in the reception centres was maintained, yet it is not formally described or treated as a withdrawal. In 2024, the reception agency, AWAS, strengthened its material support for applicants opting to live in the community, but this remains an exceptional approach and not a mainstream programme.

Detention of asylum-seekers

• Detention of newly arrived asylum-seekers: Malta maintained administrative detention as the primary reception model for newly-arrived asylum-seekers. All persons, including children and vulnerable persons, were detained on public health grounds under a regime found to be illegal by Maltese Courts and the European Court of Human Rights. Although this initial detention was reduced to a couple of days at the beginning of 2024, largely following an ECtHR ruling, a new unwritten policy mandates the automatic detention of all applicants – save vulnerable persons – for around two months.
• Detention upon applying for asylum: Several applicants spontaneously approaching IPA to apply for asylum were immediately arrested and detained, including persons who were regularly staying in Malta. NGOs and UNHCR were approached by persons wishing to seek asylum but fearful of being detained.
• Detention of vulnerable persons: the Detention Services Agency was involved in the assessment of vulnerable persons for the purpose of decision-making regarding their ongoing detention. Originally the exclusive remit of AWAS, given the Agency’s expertise, in 2024 vulnerability assessments were carried out by the DSA and invariably led to increased detention of vulnerable persons. Furthermore, Malta adopted legal amendments enhancing the use of detention for vulnerable persons, including children.
• Access to detention centres: Access to detention centres and to detained asylum-seekers was a key challenge throughout 2024: UNHCR was not allowed to be in contact with newly-arrived applicants; NGOs are only permitted to visit named clients; the DSA decides dates, times and possibility of NGO lawyer visits; centre telephones were turned off for several days following new arrivals; NGOs offering anything other than legal services were denied access to detention.
• Appeals mechanism re. detention decisions does not meet ECHR standards: An ECtHR ruling found that the Immigration Appeals Board, tasked with deciding on the legality of detention decisions as well as age assessment appeals, does not fulfil basic requirements of impartiality and independence from the Executive and is therefore not an effective remedy under the Convention. Despite this judgement, no changes were made to the IAB in 2024 and early 2025.
• Detention conditions: Living conditions in the detention centres remained extremely poor, particularly for vulnerable persons and children. This was confirmed in a European Court of Human Rights judgement, the CPT report published in mid-2025 and several other reports by human rights bodies.

Content of international protection

• Access to naturalisation: NGOs welcome the adoption of Malta’s second national integration strategy. Nevertheless, Malta further restricted its approach to integration by increasing the minimum number of years of residence in Malta refugees must demonstrate before being eligible to apply for Maltese citizenship to 15, up from 10 previously. Beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, together with being permanently ineligible for family reunification, are required to have lived in Malta for over 20 years.
• Derivative status of family members and loss of protection: Malta does not recognise derivative protection status for dependant family members of refugees. In 2024, in several situations children of refugees turning 18 reverted to an undocumented status. At 18 these children are required to obtain a residence permit in their own name on the basis of either international protection, employment or studies, yet several factors prevent them from being eligible for any of these.
• Re-accessing protection status following lapse in documentation due to expiration: persons whose international protection had been withdrawn due to administrative reasons, namely failure to renew documentation following their expiry, faced serious challenges in being reinstated into the asylum procedure.

The report is accompanied by an Annex on Temporary Protection.

[1] This includes decisions recognising refugee status and granting subsidiary and temporary humanitarian protection by the IPA and the IPAT. Positive decisions of the IPAT that resulted in reversals back to IPA are not included.