{"id":4793,"date":"2025-02-12T13:47:37","date_gmt":"2025-02-12T12:47:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sciberras.legal\/?p=4793"},"modified":"2025-02-12T13:47:39","modified_gmt":"2025-02-12T12:47:39","slug":"appeal-against-a-refusal-of-single-permit-application","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sciberras.legal\/fr\/2025\/02\/12\/appeal-against-a-refusal-of-single-permit-application\/","title":{"rendered":"Appeal against a Refusal of Single Permit Application"},"content":{"rendered":"

Preliminary:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An appeal against the Refusal of Single Permit Application, concerning our client, a Nepalese national.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Facts:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our client, a Nepalese, who arrived in Malta through legal means, had applied for a change of employer. She diligently followed the prescribed legal procedures to obtain a new Single Work Permit, yet her application was refused due to baseless bureaucratic technicalities. The refusal was grounded on an alleged \u2018objection from Jobsplus\u2019, which classified her prospective employer as a \u2018temping agency\u2019. However factual evidence clearly demonstrated that their prospective employer is a cleaning and housekeeping company, not a temping agency. The refusal letter\u2019s claim that the employer company and their brand are two separate entities is factually incorrect, their brand is merely a brand operated by the company, not an independent legal entity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The way our client\u2019s application was handled is an appalling example of bureaucratic negligence, several critical procedural violations can be identified such as despite having the power to request additional documentation under Regulation 16(1) of Subsidiary Legislation 217.17, Identit\u00e0 never asked for clarification or supporting documents, proceeding instead with an outright refusal. The refusal letter was unmotivated, failing to cite any specific legal provision that was allegedly violated. This directly contravenes European legal principles that mandate clear reasoning for administrative decisions. The decision was also made without giving our client an opportunity to respond or provide further clarification, a direct violation of the audi alteram partem<\/em> principle. This decision disregards the fundamental human dignity of an individual who has made Malta their home, lawfully secured employment, and upheld all legal responsibilities. The case law cited in their appeal demonstrates that Malta has previously ruled in favour of applicants in similar situations, recognising that any wrongdoing by an employer should not unfairly penalise the employee. The decision against our client, however, ignores this crucial precedent, treating them as collateral damage in a bureaucratic misstep. Our client\u2019s case is not merely a legal dispute but a profound moral failing of the system that should be protecting individuals like them. The authorities\u2019 actions have created an undue burden on an individual who has done everything in their power to comply with the law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Decision Appealed:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sciberras Advocates appealed this decision for the Refusal of the Single Work Permit. The appeal mentioned the violation of fundamental rights such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n