An administrative freeze on the issue of licences for pharmacies was an abuse of administrative discretion on the part of the Superintendent of Public Health, a court has ruled.

Madam Justice Anna Felice delivered this judgment in a case filed by pharmacist Colette Schembri against the Superintendent, the Medicines Authority, the Minister for Health, the Attorney General and the Housing Authority.

Ms Schembri told the court that in 2001 she had purchased property in Mtarfa from the Housing Authority to be used as a pharmacy. She had previously applied for a licence to operate a pharmacy from the premises in 1998, but no licence was issued on the basis that there was an administrative freeze in place in respect of such licences.

It was only in 2011, after the court case had been opened, that Ms Schembri was granted a licence to operate a pharmacy in Mtarfa.

In its judgment, the court noted that Ms Schembri had been informed that her application could not be processed because of the administrative freeze. The court pointed out that in 1996 the regulations on the licensing of pharmacies had been amended and the sector had been completely liberalised.

However, due to the negative reaction of a number of operators in the sector, including the Chamber of Pharmacists, the authorities had immediately imposed an administrative freeze on new licences until an agreement could be reached with all interested parties.

In 2007, the law was again amended and a demographic ratio of one pharmacy for every 2,500 persons in any locality was introduced. The administrative freeze was removed and Ms Schembri's application for a licence was approved in 2011.

Madam Justice Felice found that the Superintendent of Public Health had abused the administrative discretion granted to him at law.

The administrative freeze was the only factor which had stopped Ms Schembri from obtaining her licence to operate a pharmacy, and the freeze was not based on any law but was a policy adopted by the authorities.

The court ruled that since the freeze had not been approved by Parliament, then its retention by the authorities on the grounds of "policy" was ultra vires.

The court found in favour of Ms Schembri and ruled that the administrative freeze was an abuse of administrative discretion on the part of the Superintendent.

All the other defendants were declared not to have a role in this lawsuit.