Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1533084
6 LAW 9 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 MARCH 2025 Law Report IN its judgment on 5 March 2025, the Court of Appeal held that the interpre- tation of the Director General in the De- partment of Social Security was discrim- inatory. The judgment delivered by Mr Justice Lawrence Mintoff concerned the case Paul Spiteri vs Director General Social Security. This appeal followed a decision given by the Arbiter for Social Security, which had rejected Spiteri's claims. The Ap- pellant (Spiteri) received an email from the Department of Social Security that since he retired in 2015 at the age of 62, the budgetary measures introduced in 2016 did not apply and therefore, the pension increases did not apply in his case. The Appellant worked with a private company which suffered from a lack of orders. Since Spiteri was at the age of retirement, he left his job, but re- nounced his pension to be able to work as a tourist guide. He continued to pay his national insurance contributions. He pointed at the Legal Notice 289 of 2016, and argued that he should benefit from that law, since he was eligible to a pension in terms of Article 64A of the Social Security Act. He further argued that when the law came into force, he qualified to receive an increase of 5% on his pension. The Director General explained that the Appellant received the two thirds pension from February 2015. The Legal Notice introduced a deferment of the pension to have the pension increased. But this took place from 1 January 2016. The Director General held that budget measures are never retroactive. The Arbiter quoted from LN289/2016, which reads: "2.(1) Every person who satisfies the conditions laid down in article 64A of the Social Security Act and who chooses to remain in his insurable employment in the private sector or who is self-oc- cupied shall not be given the pension referred to in article 64A of the said Act when he has the right for it. (2) The aforementioned pension should be renounced for a period of not less than one year from the date when a person has the right for it and who chooses to remain in his insurable employment in the private sector or who is self-occupied". The Arbiter held that there is no ref- erence as to whether the law is to be retrospectively applied and states that it comes into effect from 1 January 2016. Therefore, the Arbiter turned down the Appellant's claim. The Appellant argued the Arbiter's in- terpretation was causing unjust and ille- gal treatment. The appeal sought to de- termine whether the Legal Notice was applicable to his case. Those who were born in 1952 and 1953 could retire at 62. The Appellant was born in 1952 and therefore eligible for an increase in the pension. Spiteri argued that the Arbiter's interpreta- tion was discriminatory against persons born in 1952. The Director General put forward the same arguments he presented to the Ar- biter, insisting the Legal Notice is not retroactive. The Court of Appeal in its delibera- tions held that the fact that the Appel- lant retired in 2015, before the Legal Notice became enforceable, is irrele- vant. What is relevant, the judgment says, is that the Appellant satisfied the requisites of Article 64A of the Social Security Act. The date of retirement is not to be considered. The only criteria used is with regard to when the person opts to take a pension. The Court agreed that the interpretation of the Arbiter and the Director General is discriminatory and went on to annul the Director Gen- eral's decision. The judge ruled that the provisions of Legal Notice 289/2016 are applicable to the Appellant. Court rules pensioner should receive an increase in pension LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates The Court of Appeal in its deliberations held that the fact that the Appellant retired in 2015, before the Legal Notice became enforceable, is irrelevant. What is relevant, the judgment says, is that the Appellant satisfied the requisites of Article 64A of the Social Security Act.