Undertaker given licence to import motor hearse

The Fair Trade Commission has decided in favour of an undertaker in a complaint against the Public Transport Authority to be granted a licence to import a hearse to Malta.

A case was filed by the director of the Office of Fair Competition on May 14, 2003, after the undertaker, Carmel Mifsud of Qormi, filed the complaint on December 12, 2002.

The PTA first argued that it was not an enterprise and so the case could not be concluded but this was rejected by the Commission since the Fair Trade Act also applied to government departments, all legal persons established by law and all companies and bodies in which the Government has a majority interest, both directly and indirectly.

It also argued that its name had been changed to Awtorità dwar it-Trasport (ADT) and its function did not extend to issuing commercial licences to hearses.

Mifsud argued that he had been trying to obtain a licence to buy a hearse for the past 10 years. The market for these hearses has been restricted to 10 vehicles which operate through a central office called the Motor Hearses Association to the exclusion of anyone trying to penetrate the market.

The situation has been unchanged since 1970 and in reality it has been impossible for anyone but the owners of these 10 hearses to operate in the market. Those buying the services of these hearses are constrained to pay for the transport of the religious celebrant. Mifsud has been excluded from joining the association.

The Commission considered that the PTA had conducted a study, titled 'Exploratory Memorandum: Motor Hearses Licensing', dated October 16, 1997, which has since been superseded. There appeared to be confusion in the meaning of the word "licence" as referring to the authority required for every type of vehicle with an engine to be driven on the road and the authority granted for an enterprise to carry out a commercial function at a level of quality to enable it to use a suitable vehicle.

The ADT licence was issued solely so the motorised vehicle could be driven on the road. So long as the vehicle complied with legal requirements enabling it to be driven there should be no other reason for Mifsud to be denied a licence to import a hearse. This would enable the service to be liberalised, enabling more modern and cheap services to be introduced to the benefit of the consumer.

Mifsud was assisted by Dr Michael Tanti-Dougall.

The Sunday Times had covered Mr Mifsud's case in an article on September 10, 2000, and the case has been pursued since.