CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 février 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 23 February 2026   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 27494/25 Mark CALLEJA against Malta lodged on 26 August 2025 communicated on 4 February 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns alleged discrimination in relation to a scholarship for veterinary studies. The applicant, at his own expense, pursued his veterinary studies in Hungary from 2014 until 2021, given that, at the time, no such degree was available in Malta. During that time, he received a State-funded stipend. Pending his studies, in 2020, the Government issued a scheme to cover the tuition fees for persons studying such course abroad (hereinafter “the scholarship”), and made it retroactive, to cover persons who had started their studies as of 2016. The applicant unsuccessfully applied for the scholarship since his studies had started in 2014. An appeal arguing that such cut-off date was discriminatory was rejected by the Education authorities whose remit was limited to applying the regulations as they stood. The applicant complained of discrimination before the constitutional jurisdictions relying inter alia on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. In a first instance judgment his claims were rejected as Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 could not be raised before the domestic courts given that, although ratified, it had not been transposed into domestic law. The applicant appealed arguing that the constitutional jurisdictions were obliged to take cognisance of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 in line with Article 13 of the Convention. However, on 23 June 2025, the first-instance judgment was confirmed by the Constitutional Court, the latter noting that the European Convention on Human Rights was not directly applicable, contrary to European Union law, and thus needed parliamentary action to be incorporated in domestic law. In the absence of such action the only remedy for the purposes of a complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 was an application before the European Court of Human Rights. The applicant complained that the cut-off date applied by the State was arbitrary and only excluded around four students, including himself. He thus considered that he had been subjected to discrimination contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been discriminated against by a public authority in the exercise of its discretionary power contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.   12 to the Convention?