On the 23 June 2025, the Court of Appeal delivered a judgement confirming the findings of the Civil Court (Commercial Section) finding that the then Enemalta Corporation (Enemalta) had abused its dominant market position.
The case originated from a complaint by Attard Services Limited and Shell Aviation Limited regarding alleged anti-competitive practices by Enemalta in the provision of aviation fuel infrastructure access. After carrying out an extensive investigation, the then Office for Fair Competition found that Enemalta held a dominant position and even a monopoly position on the upstream market for the provision of storage and throughput facilities for Jet A1, which is a necessary input for fuel and oil handling operators to be active on the downstream market for rendering refuelling services to aircraft.
The Office concluded that Enemalta did indeed abuse its dominant position in this market in refusing access to its infrastructure by employing a ‘margin squeeze’ for the period between 2004 and 2008. The Office found that the margin between Enemalta’s prices to aircraft for its downstream refuelling services and the tariff rate to be charged to Attard Services for access to its storage and throughput infrastructure was clearly negative.
The Office for Competition successfully defended its findings before the Court. On 17 June 2020, the Civil Court (Commercial Section) delivered a judgment upholding the findings of the Office for Competition. The Court confirmed the report of the Office for Competition concluding that Enemalta abused its dominant position, infringing Article 9 of the Competition Act and Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
This judgment, delivered by the Court of Appeal represents a significant competition law case involving Enemalta’s abuse of dominant position in the aviation fuel supply market at Malta International Airport. The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed Enemalta’s appeal in its entirety and confirmed the findings of the Civil Court (Commercial Section) that Enemalta had abused its dominant market position through margin squeeze practices.
18.02.2020
The decision of the Office for Competition which was issued on 4th October 2016 finding resale price maintenance in the fuel market, an infringement of article 5 of the Competition Act, has now become final.
On the 12th July 2019, the Constitutional Court in the case Falzon Group Holdings Limited Et Vs Direttur Ġenerali (Kompetizzjoni) et rejected the arguments raised by Falzon Group Holdings Limited alleging that the investigative process adopted by the Office breached the right of the undertaking to a fair hearing, as protected by article 39(1) of the Constitution of Malta and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore, the investigative procedure carried out by the Office in the case was within the parameters of the law.
Subsequently, Falzon Group Holdings Limited discontinued the case which was instituted against the Office before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, and on 12th February 2020 it also discontinued the appeal proceedings which were instituted against the Office regarding the merits of the said decision, before the Competition and Consumer Appeals Tribunal, today the Civil Court (Commercial Section).
Publication of Administrative Decisions in Terms of Article 110H (2) of the Consumer Affairs Act
15 April 2019 – Administrative Decision with regards to Vodafone Malta Ltd. – C10865
17 August 2018 – Administrative Decision with regard to Melita Ltd. – C12715
29 October 2015 – GO plc agrees to remove additional charges in connection with different payment methods.
Following administrative proceedings instituted on the 31st August 2015 and subsequent talks and correspondence between the Office for Consumer Affairs (MCCAA) and GO plc, the latter willingly agreed to remove all the charges in relation to payment mechanisms. As from 1 December 2015, all GO customers will no longer pay any extra charges even if they opt not to pay their bills via direct debit. With regards to charges connected to printed bills, GO plc also agreed that as from 1 December 2015, it will provide clear and prominent information on such charges in all advertising media and commercial communications, with the exception of those aired on radio considering the limitations thereof.
16 July 2015 – Administrative Decision with regard to Stoppa Telefonforsaljning Limited
11 October 2012 – Decisions taken regarding the use of the word ‘unlimited’ by the following operators:
Judgements
A case of Unfair Commercial Practices: Misleading use of the term “Unlimited” by Melita confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the appeal in the names of “Melita Limited (C 12715) (ġà Melita p.l.c.) u Melita Mobile Limited; u b’dikriet tad-19 ta’ Novembru 2014 Melita Limited (ġà Melita p.l.c.) assumiet l-atti minflok Melita Mobile Limited v. Direttur Ġenerali (Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur); u b’dikriet tas-17 ta’ April 2013 l-Awtorità ta’ Malta dwar il-Komunikazzjoni tħalliet tintervjeni in statu et terminis.
On the 10th November, 2022, the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by Melita Limited (C 12715 formerly Melita p.l.c. that assumed the acts instead of Melita Mobile Limited) from the Competition and Consumer Appeals Tribunal of the 21st February, 2017, and has confirmed that the use of the term “unlimited” is misleading when made in conjunction with the application of a fair usage policy since the latter is an actual limit to services advertised as unlimited.
The full Court of Appeal decision may be viewed here.
—
On the 24th April, 2024 the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in its Criminal Judicature imposed a fine (multa) of Euro 250 on Corner Foodstores Company Limited C30452 upon finding it guilty of having failed to comply with the provisions of the Consumer Affairs Act (Price Indication) Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 378.09), since at cash point it imposed higher prices than those indicated at shelf/sale point.
The full judgement may be viewed here.
