Court revokes prohibition of monti relocation
The court revoked a prohibitory injunction on the grounds that such a warrant could only be issued if a government representative confirmed on oath that the action complained of was in fact going to take place.

A court has turned down a request by the Merchants Street Business Community Association (MSBCA), that it halt the relocation of the open air market to Merchants Street.
Last December, the court had provisionally upheld an application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the Minister for the Economy, asking the court prevent him from executing the relocation plan.
In August the court had heard MSBCA president Anthony Camilleri explain that Mario Cutajar, the head of the Civil Service, had told him the government intended to relocate the market to Merchants' Street.
The MSBCA president told the court that Cutajar had asked him to keep the issue quiet in order not to anger monti vendors and had assured him that he would be updated on any developments.
But in spite of Camilleri not being given further information about the planned relocation, he learned, through the grapevine, that the date of relocation had been set for 14 December. A promised meeting with the minister never materialised, he added
Instead, Camilleri had been contacted by One TV newsreader Jonathan Attard who made no bones about the fact that relocation to Merchants Street was going to happen. Camilleri had expressed his disappointment to him, saying that the Prime Minister had promised him that the move would not happen .
The court however held that the requirements for the issuing of a warrant of prohibitory injunction were not all present. Such a warrant could only be issued against the government if a government representative confirmed on oath that the action complained of was in fact going to take place.
Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon, in his judgment on the matter, noted that ministry consultant Alexander Farrugia had confirmed under oath that no decision on the relocation plan had been taken as yet and that negotiations between all interested parties were still underway.
The court, however, made it clear that the responsibility for the sworn declaration did not lie solely with Farrugia, but also with the minister who had delegated his authority to him .