The government has reopened a call for Maltese victims of thalidomide to receive compensation. 

The original call to compensate those who were born with disabilities due to the drug – worth a totel of €3 million – was opened five years ago. 

On Monday, the Minister for Inclusion and Volunteering, Julia Farrugia, announced the reopening of the call for individuals who did not apply the first time around. 

Farrugia explained that the reopening of the call was clear evidence of the government’s firm commitment to addressing historical injustices and to giving the dignity and recognition deserved to those who suffered the tragic consequences of the Thalidomide drug.  

“For many years, these victims have lived with a disability that was not the result of their own choice, but of serious shortcomings in past medical and regulatory systems. As a government, we believe it is our duty not to turn our backs, but to take responsible action. 

Thalidomide was used in the 1960s by pregnant women, mainly to relieve morning sickness. It was developed by German company Chemie Grünenthal (now Grünenthal GmbH) in the mid-1950s. Although its effects on babies were first highlighted in 1961, it remained available in Malta until 1968. 

So far, the government has compensated 29 surviving victims, who underwent a rigorous screening process and physical assessment by medical experts. The assessment determined the percentage of disability suffered, on the basis of which the compensation amount was calculated according to a specially established formula.  

The victims have already received two payments and are expected to receive the third and final payment later this year. 

In May 2025, long-time campaigner and thalidomide survivor Anatole Baldacchino highlighted that only €1 million worth of compensation had reached the 29 surviving victims at the time.

Anatole Baldacchino, a long-time campaigner and thalidomide survivor, said that just €1 million out of the promised sum has so far reached the 29 surviving victims. 

Baldacchino had questioned why the full amount was not issued and said he was told the figure was based on “certain standards”, a term he described as offensive considering the nature of the issue.