Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1266179
5 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 5 JULY 2020 NEWS Operational Programme II – Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 Investing in the Human Capital to Create More Opportunities and Promote the Well-being of Society ANNOUNCEMENT - CALL IV European Social Fund The Managing Authority (MA) for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 in Malta, the Planning and Priorities Co-ordination Division (PPCD) within the Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs (MFEA), would like to announce it is launching a call for project proposals. This call will close on Wednesday, 30 th September 2020 at noon and will contribute to the priority axis and investment priorities listed below: Priority Axis 2 - 'Towards a more inclusive society' ▪ Investment priority (IP) 9i - Active inclusion, including with a view to promoting equal opportunities and active participation, and improving employability. This call is restricted for activities proposed by Voluntary Organisations and Social partners. Priority Axis 4 - 'Building the Institutional Administrative Capacity' ▪ Investment priority (IP) 11ii – Capacity building for all stakeholders delivering education, lifelong learning, training and employment and social policies, including through sectoral and territorial pacts to mobilise for reform at the national, regional and local levels. This call is restricted for activities proposed by Social Partners and Civil Society Organisations. The online application form for the submission of project proposals is available on http://eufunds.gov.mt/opencalls (PPCD section). Supporting documentation relating to this announcement are also available on http://eufunds.gov.mt/opencalls (PPCD section). Further information on this call and on the European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 may be obtained from http://eufunds.gov.mt. Any generic queries and requests to participate in Information Sessions related to this Call can be sent to PPCD's email: info.eufunds@gov.mt until Tuesday 7th July 2020 at noon. The Information Sessions (these are repeated sessions), will be held on the following dates: ▪ 8th July 2020 at 17:00 – 19:00 ▪ 10th July 2020 at 10:00 – 12:00 ▪ 13th July 2020 at 15:00 – 17:00 Operational Programme II - European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020 'Investing in human capital to create more opportunities and promote the well-being of society' Call part-financed by the European Social Fund Co-financing rate: 80% European Union; 20% National Funds State. The Sliema property was req- uisitioned in 1957 by the State in favour of a third party, for an annual lease of £61. In 1958 the property was derequisitioned and remained in the tenant's possession under title of lease. In 1980, the two parties agreed to fix the annual rent at Lm100 (€233). In Malta, the owners chal- lenged the Reletting Urban Property Ordinance, which obliged them to renew the lease on a yearly basis without a possibility of increasing the rent. In 2015, the Civil Court found a violation of their right to enjoyment of their property and awarded them €20,000 in compensation from the State, but refused their request to evict the tenants. On appeal in 2016, the Con- stitutional Court upheld the original decision but reduced compensation to €10,000. Fol- lowing the constitutional judg- ment the parties negotiated a new reduced rent on condition that the lease would terminate within 18 months. On an unspecified date in 2017, the tenants vacated the property. But the applicants complained that that they were still victims of the violation of the right to enjoy their prop- erty, given the low amount of compensation awarded. They noted that the €10,000 was a far cry from the court-ap- pointed expert's estimate of the house's annual rental value of €16,800. They also said their father had no choice to consent to the 1957 lease as the proper- ty had been requisitioned. The ECHR ordered that the Maltese government pay Ellis and Scilio €148,000 in pecuni- ary damages, and €5,000 in le- gal costs. where the expert is appointed to carry out work that had sub- jective elements and ones where experts are simply there to con- firm objective facts like call pro- files. The court had held that in the latter situation, there was no ba- sis for the substitution of Bajada. Bajada continues to enjoy the trust of Malta's judiciary and is still regularly appointed to car- ry out tasks relating to mobile phone data extraction. This is not the first time Alfred Degiorgio had attempted, and failed, to have Bajada removed from the proceedings. He had filed an identical case in 2018. Mr Justice Francesco Depas- quale expressed "worry and in- credulity" at the fact that the applicant had filed applications on facts and objections which were identical to those cases al- ready dismissed by the superior courts. "The court observes that un- fortunately it appears to have become a practise adopted by certain [lawyers], that persons accused of crimes do anything to stultify and stop the judicial process against them by… in- venting Constitutional actions" in the hope that the criminal cases against them hit an obsta- cle or their arrest exceeds the maximum time limits laid down in the law. "This is a totally disconcerting and abusive practise and this court condemns without reser- vation, the barefaced abuse of such an important and solemn procedure, as is the Constitu- tional action." It was clear, said the court, that the intention of the applicant was not to protect some right of his, but to, while extending criminal proceedings against him, also obtain details about the evidence gathered against him before these are exhibited in the competent Court of Mag- istrates. It was also clear that the appli- cant had lost interest in the pro- ceedings after the Bill of Indict- ment against him was issued, such that he had not even exhib- ited Bajada's report in the case. Whilst everyone had a right to protect their fundamental hu- man rights, this did not allow that right to be clearly abused to violate the fundamental rights of victims, said the court, this in line with the principle that jus- tice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The case was dismissed, the court saying that it found no difficulty in declaring the ap- plicant's complaint as frivolous and vexatious, denying them the right to appeal. TRANSPORT ministers for Malta and eight EU countries are appealing to the European Parliament over the adoption of reforms to the road transport sector which they believe un- dermine the competitiveness of transport companies. The vote by MEPs takes place on 8 July. While the mobility package ensures better working and so- cial conditions for drivers, there will be an obligation for trucks in international transport to return to the company's operational centre every eight weeks which would mean empty journeys to Malta, and other countries, for road freight operators. In addition to the greenhouse gases produced as a result, the obligation may entail higher freight rates and general logisti- cal inefficiency. Island and peripheral countries of the EU believe the proposed restrictions discriminate against them and have written to the European Parliament. The eight countries opposing the new law are Estonia, Bul- garia, Cyprus, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Romania. Transport minister Ian Borg, who signed the address, said this was a long and costly journey for Malta, and called on MEPs not to back the rules, accusing them of being protectionist. Borg has been criticised for failing to build momentum on behalf of the Maltese trucking industry two years in advance. Maltese MEPs also failed to pass amendments to the truck- ing rules inside the European Parliament committee that drafted the rules. Maltese industry leaders have accused the rules of being a crude form of protectionism by Central European car compa- nies to oust competitors from the periphery. Ministers in last-ditch attempt to swap MEPs on trucking rules