| Uffiċċju għall-Kompetizzjoni vs Korporazzjoni Enemalta wara l-ilment ta’ Attard Services et | 

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.

Competition Office Findings

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.

Civil Court (Commercial Section)

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

Court of Appeal

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.