Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/994982
NEWS 6 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 17 JUNE 2018 TO BE PUBLISHED ON SUNDAY 17 TH JUNE 2018 ENGLISH VERSION MALTA POLICE DEPARTMENT EXPRESSION OF INTEREST 1 /2018 The Commissioner of Police notifies that:- Proposals will be received by Email on address: tenderspolice.mhas@gov.mt by not later than 11.00 am on Monday 2 nd July 2018 for the:- PROVISION OF INTERPRETER SERVICES TO THE MALTA POLICE DEPARTMENT Further details may be obtained by sending an Email request with the subject title "Request Form – INTERPRETER SERVICES" on Email address: tenderspolice.mhas@gov.mt (Tel: 22942355) Proposals should be submitted as indicated on the request form document with the subject title: "BID – INTERPRETER SERVICES" TIA RELJIC MAGISTRATES presiding over defamation cases have the power to force claims into me- diation, even if one of the parties refuses to have the matter resolved under the less litigious fo- rum of mediation. The new Media and Defamation Act has given Maltese newspapers an important av- enue to seek less cumbersome court proceed- ings in defamation claims, by having the mat- ter mediated to seek a faster and less onerous solution on claims. Doubts as to whether a plaintiff could wil- fully refuse mediation to force a defamation case through its usual court procedure, have been put paid by justice minister Owen Bon- nici, who said that even when one of the par- ties refuses mediation, the presiding magis- trate can refer the case to mediation if the court feels that this could change the parties' outlook to the case. "The decision as to whether a case can be settled through mediation is one which is taken by the court," Justice Minister Owen Bonnici told this newspaper. "Therefore the Court might still refer the case to mediation in a situation where one of the parties is ada- mant not to mediate. "Although such a scenario appears unlikely, it is possible especially when the presiding magistrate would consider that mediation may lead the parties to change their outlook of the situation," the minister said. This means that parties reluctant to mediate – as vexatious plaintiffs are wont to do in a bid to put off sentencing or pursue 'political' libels – could still be forced to mediation by the presiding magistrate, giving journalists a greater measure of protection. In mediation, a third-party is appointed to oversee discussions and negotiations be- tween the parties involved. In the case of li- bel and defamation cases, agreements could be reached through a right of reply, voluntary classifications, or various methods of media- tion – a concept which is encouraged by the new law. Around 14 criminal libel cases have been dropped and turned into civil lawsuits with the new law so far. The new law abolishes criminal libel and introduces a civil alterna- tive to settling cases of slander. Defamation is also no longer a criminal matter, but has been reduced to a civil tort. Article 10 of the Media and Defamation Act provides for the possibility of defamation cas- es being referred to mediation after the pre- liminary hearing by the court. "The law does not mandate a particular type of mediation and therefore allows for flexibil- ity," Bonnici explained. "It would however be reasonable to con- clude that when reference to mediation is made by court decree this would be made in terms of the Mediation Act which estab- lishes the legal framework for mediation and that mediation in terms of that Act would follow." Courts can force defamation cases into mediation, even when plaintiff refuses MATTHEW AGIUS TELECOMS firm Vodafone have lost a case they had filed against the Malta Communications Authority over tariffs they are charged to finance Malta Secu- rity Services intercepts. In 2005, the MCA had imposed an obligation on telecommuni- cations companies to pay a per- centage of their gross profits to subsidise legal communication intercepts by the MSS. The plaintiffs Vodafone Malta and later Go Plc and Mobisle communications had argued that it was effectively a new tax on mobile telephony which went against the spirit of applicable European directives and associ- ated local laws. They contended that the EU Authorisation Directive imposed limitations on administrative costs on rights to use radio fre- quencies. The tariffs should be limited to the actual cost of the regulator to run the authorisa- tion system as member states are prohibited from imposing fur- ther financial burdens on the op- erators, they argued, saying that the tax was imposed in breach of the EU directives. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the MCA directive null and beyond the scope of the MCA's powers. But in his reply, the Attorney General argued that the Frame- work Directive regulating elec- tronic communications networks allowed member states to take the necessary measures for secu- rity, public politics, and criminal investigations. Additionally, the fee was neces- sary for telephony operators to be able to operate without harming public order and was therefore connected to administration. It was argued that the directive is always subject to the necessity of safeguarding public order. The directive did not specify who should pay for the service and therefore didn't exclude that operators could be made to foot the bill. This was up to the mem- ber states, it said. The MCA, in its reply, said that the role of the authority in the matter is to assist the MSS in col- lecting the payments due from companies authorised to provide communications services. The purpose of the directive was to define a cost sharing mechanism for legal interception obliga- tions and establish the manner in which contributions were paid. The authority was authorised by a memorandum of understanding to collect payments from service providers and pass them on to the security services, who own and operate the interception system. In 2004, the government had consulted with all parties in- volved, including the applicant, before implementing the system, it said. The MCA denied that the tariff was too high. The court observed that the system was a tool used by Malta to achieve the objectives of the Framework Directive and there- fore did not fall under the limits imposed by the EU Directive The court noted that the Mal- tese directive was not imposing a general tariff to operate in the islands and the fact that it was implementing a directive did not preclude the Authority from requesting further payments in the sector. The contributions in question are not to cover costs incurred by the authority in its function as a regulator but costs for the financing of a system which has nothing to do with its regulatory work, it said. The court turned down all the telecoms operators' claims in their entirety. Vodafone loses challenge on financing legal interceptions