6.  The applicants are Maltese nationals who were born in 1949, 1956, 1984 and 1986 respectively and live in San Gwann, Malta. The third and fourth applicants are the children of the first and second applicants. 7.  The applicants have resided in a house in San Gwann owned by the first and second applicants since 1994. Their property includes 4,800 sq. m of surrounding fields. The house is one of three houses in a remote area of grassland. 8.  Every year, on the occasion of certain village feasts, firework displays are set up in the fields close to the applicants’ residence (a distance of 150 metres or more). 9.  The applicants allege that every time fireworks are let off from this area they are exposed to grave risk and peril to their life, physical health and personal security. Moreover, the heavy debris produced causes considerable damage to the residence. 10.  In consequence, over the years the applicants complained to the Commissioner of Police (“CoP”), but no remedial action was taken. 11.  On an unspecified date the applicants brought their complaint before the Ombudsman. By a report of 10 December 1999, the latter recommended that in considering applications for discharge of fireworks from areas whose residents had put forward complaints, the CoP should request the advice of a group of experts established by law in order to determine whether the area in question ought to be declared a restricted area in terms of Rule 15 of the Control of Fireworks and Other Explosives Regulations (“the regulations”). 12.  Eventually, the group of experts recommended that the fields from where the fireworks were being let off should be classified as a restricted area in terms of the regulations. 13.  In spite of this recommendation the CoP again issued permits for the letting off of fireworks from the field in question for the purposes of two village feasts. Since the committee of experts had not, at the relevant time, been constituted, the CoP acted on the recommendations of the Explosives Committee. 14.  The applicants again complained to the Ombudsman. By a report of 22 February 2001, the latter held the complaint justified and noted that the two licences issued were not in accordance with the regulations (regarding the applicable distances and type of fireworks). The group of experts had the duty to give advice and the competent authority had little justification to exercise its discretion and refuse this expert advice on such technical matters. While the pressure applied on the authorities from various quarters in such cases was well known, this was an instance of maladministration which could not but attract criticism. 15.  This notwithstanding, the CoP continued to issue the relevant permits for the purposes of two feasts per year, to the present date. 16.  The applicants alleged that further requests to the CoP, by the applicants and their neighbours, for information or reasons as to why they had not been consulted, remained unheeded, except for one meeting which was held at the police station in the absence of the group of experts. 17.  On 13 April 2005 the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings, complaining that the CoP was not protecting them as he was duty bound to do. While he ignored the experts’ recommendations, the applicants had not been consulted about the issue of the relevant permits. They submitted that the law did not protect their interests, in that although it established a certain distance which had to be maintained between residences and the letting off of fireworks, it applied such distances only to “inhabited areas” which according to law meant “an aggregation of houses inhabited, or capable of being inhabited, by more than one hundred persons”. However, their house was one of three in the area and thus did not benefit from the protection of the law. Moreover, they claimed that the law was deficient, as it did not provide a procedure for issuing licences whereby the residents were informed and could make submissions to safeguard their interests, or appeal against the issue of such permits. Furthermore, the application of the definition of “inhabited area” resulted in discriminatory treatment against the applicants. They invoked Article 8, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. 18.  On 14 February 2006 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction upheld the applicants’ claims in part. It dismissed the complaint about the failure of the authorities to take appropriate procedures for the issue of licences for lack of exhaustion of ordinary remedies. For the rest, it held that the legal definition of “inhabited area” breached the applicants’ rights under Article 8, alone and in conjunction with Article 14, and that the law regarding the issue of permits and licences also breached their rights under Article 8, in that its application failed to include sufficient procedural safeguards. The Court noted that the applicants were aware of the situation when they purchased the property. However, it noted that the letting off of fireworks had caused damage to the applicants’ property, namely to the roof’s membrane and the swimming pool area, as a result of the debris produced; and during the relevant feasts the noise levels were very high, to the extent that the applicants were suffering hearing impairment that could become permanent. Although the effects of this pollution were not continuous, as in most cases which had been decided by the ECHR, the practice of letting off of fireworks would certainly continue and its effects on the applicants included damage and threats to their person and their home, as dangerous unexploded fireworks were often found in the surroundings. In consequence, the court considered that, while the legality of the issue of these permits was questionable, by depriving the applicants of protection, on the basis that their area did not accommodate a hundred people, the law was not giving due weight to the interests of the applicants. 19.  The respondent State, together with the Fireworks Association of St Helen and the Maltese society of Pyrotechnics, appealed. In common they submitted, inter alia, that unlike the ECHR cases dealing with environmental pollution, the present case did not deal with such pollution, because, among other reasons, the letting off of fireworks was restricted to a few hours over a few days in a whole year. 20.  On 30 October 2009, the Constitutional Court reversed the first-instance judgment. It noted that the applicants’ case was not grounded on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, although the applicants had made reference to damage to their property, but on Article 8. Thus, the Court had to establish whether the State had taken all the necessary measures to protect the applicants’ rights under this provision. The Court acknowledged that the noise and peril to their lives and property during certain days created an inconvenience for the applicants which amounted to interference. However, the interference was in accordance with the law, as it had its basis in the Control of Fireworks and Other Explosives Regulations, and whether the CoP had issued licences according to the regulations, a matter which was to be examined by the ordinary courts as established by the first-instance court, was irrelevant. As to the proportionality of the interference the Court considered that in the present case the complaint was not directed towards a fireworks factory near the applicants’ residence, but simply the venue used to let off the fireworks at a specific time. In the present case, the relevant law struck a balance between the conflicting interests by means of specific measures, such as the times at which fireworks could be let off; the type of fireworks which could be let off; the different venues which could be used; the security distances which had to be complied with; compulsory insurance coverage; the presence of a fire engine; and police on site. Indeed, in the present case the police were on site to make sure that the action was taken according to the permits issued and a person from the relevant association was present in the area of the applicants’ houses as a precaution. The latter association also offered the applicants its help and protection to prevent any harm to the property. Thus, it could not be said that the applicants had not been protected. As to the definition of “inhabited area”, it was to be borne in mind that Malta was a small country, densely populated, with few, if any, areas where no people lived, and such legislation could only be seen in this context. Furthermore, the letting off of fireworks happened in a limited period for a few hours in a week twice a year and some years even less often. Acknowledging that such noise might also cause disturbance to other persons, old and young especially, the court could not ignore the fact that the applicants had been informed of this danger by the previous owner (who had had an accident in the house due to the fireworks) before they bought the house. Yet, they chose to purchase the said property. Overall the court was of the view that the legislator had successfully tried to reach a balance between the right to home and private life of the applicants and the traditional, cultural, religious and touristic needs of Maltese society, bearing in mind the size of the island. This might be otherwise if it were established that the measures applied were or would not be in accordance with the parameters set by law, a matter which the applicants had and have the right to contest before the ordinary courts regarding any future permit granted. In consequence there was no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 21.  As to the alleged discrimination, the court reiterated that the provision only applied to persons in analogous situations. However, the applicants had not proved that they had been treated differently to other persons who resided in “inhabited areas”. Moreover, it has already been held that the applicants were receiving appropriate protection and that the applicants had knowingly decided to move to the area in question.