Malta faces acute land scarcity and environmental pressures, prompting regulatory intervention to preserve agricultural land. The introduction of the Protection of Agricultural Land Regulations (2025), L.N. 150 of 2025, aims to safeguard agricultural resources through mandatory registration, maintenance obligations, and restrictions over property for non-agricultural use. However, throughout this process, many concerns have been raised as to whether these measures could ever be compatible with the fundamental freedoms that are granted to every individual by operation of our Constitution, as well as the European Convention of Human Rights, which is transposed into our local legislation (Chapter 319 of the Laws of Malta).

In light of the fact that the local authorities lack a cohesive strategy and a precise database to clearly understand the quantity of agricultural land that is being effectively utilized, the legislator has empowered the local agency, Riżorsi Agrikoli Malta (RAM) to directly register unclaimed land, take effective possession and allocate it to third parties for cultivation. Whilst by enacting these Regulations, the Government may seem to be pursuing legitimate aims, which include food security and environmental sustainability, one needs to examine and naturally reconcile such aims with the guarantee of the peaceful enjoyment of possession, as safeguarded by Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the European Convention of Human Rights.

The Regulations aim to promote agronomic viability however in nature create questionable restrictions for individuals who opt to use their agricultural land for the purposes of recreation. Furthermore, the Regulations have placed an unnecessary and abusive restriction for the disposal of property, because through the imposition of these regulations, individual property owners are now also prohibited from advertising and promoting the disposal & acquisition of agricultural land for purposes that do not conform with agricultural use. This seems to inherently run counter to the fundamental freedom that guarantees the free disposal of one’s own property in the manner that would be circumstantially desired. Such interference, hence, must most definitely be interpreted in the context of necessity and proportionality. However, no dire situation can ever justify such a restriction on the free disposal of one’s property, which in this case goes as far as creating a blanket restriction and elimination on making use of market trends and demands, to be able to convey property unto others.   

Albeit, our Courts have always recognised and favoured a wide discretion for the State to pursue legitimate aims by exerting due interference with fundamental human rights, certain measures that have been promulgated through these Regulations raise serious doubts on the legitimacy and compatibility with the protected freedoms of each and every individual. Seemingly, the fact that the RAM is expressly authorised to claim and take possession of unregistered land for the purpose of being allocated to other users, without any mechanism for compensation being explicitly provided for, can surely be deemed as a highly cumbersome measure that interferes disproportionately with the free enjoyment of one’s property.

Furthermore, the Regulations place an additional burden on landowners to provide crop plans and maintenance without providing or guaranteeing the financial assistance and support that may be required to carry out such activity. Through such a regulation, landowners are being forced into additional costs, as the said Regulations do not allow them to freely opt-out of such requirements which may risk conditioning them to face the extreme sanction of loss of possession or worse still, criminal sanction.

The Regulations grant extraordinary powers to the Director of Agriculture who is empowered to affix notices on unregistered land and kick-start the process to obtain effective possession of land without the consent of any relevant title holder. This may lead to a rise in disputes, wherein contestations on title shall undoubtedly increase as a result of such a limitation of the use of property in the manner desired. Although such possession seems to be a temporary measure, it is not clear whether the fact that occupation of property without just and fair compensation can be considered to fall fairly within the proportionality test envisaged for qualifying a breach of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The fact that the Director of Agriculture has been afforded very wide powers in investigation, decision and enforcement also sounds alarm balls in respect of having an independent and impartial decision-maker with regards to compliance or non-compliance of these Regulations. Although the same law provides for recourse to judicial review, the intertwining of the above-mentioned and supposedly distinct functions, leaves much to be desired when striving to achieve impartiality and guaranteeing a fair trial for a subject person.

Although the initial intentions of promulgating L.N 150 of 2025 were positive, the effects of these Regulations could be tantamount to de facto expropriation without statutory safeguards that ensure that the rights protected by the Constitution & the European Convention of Human Rights are truly upheld. The Regulations have, whilst providing a clear way forward in the industry, simultaneously raised several concerns of compatibility with guaranteeing one’s fundamental human rights. Interestingly, the Regulations have come into force unscrutinised and will remain so, however through the operation of time and when challenged in the appropriate fora, the potential of producing genuine harmony between the Regulations and constitutional rights guaranteed at law, seem rather slim.