A constitutional application made by Easygas Malta Ltd to help it attract customers was yesterday thrown out by the court, which ruled the company should have used ordinary legal remedies instead.
Easygas had filed a constitutional application against the Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs and the Malta Resources Authority.
It asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to annul Legal Notice 465 of 2011 on the basis that it deprived Easygas of its right to enjoy its own property.
The Constitutional Court noted that before Easygas, which sells liquefied petroleum gas in cylinders for domestic use, had entered the market, another enterprise (now Easygas’ competitor) enjoyed a monopoly on gas cylinders.
Although the market had been liberalised, Easygas had found it hard to encourage consumers to purchase its cylinders due to the deposit system introduced by its competitor.
To overcome this obstacle, Easygas had decided to refund the €25 deposit to consumers who opted to switch to its products. Easygas would then keep the cylinder without refilling them. This allowed Easygas to penetrate the market.
However, Legal Notice 465 halted this practice, stating no one could retain cylinders but had to return them to the person who had originally issued them (namely Easygas’ competitor).
Easygas objected and asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to annul the legal notice.
The first court had ruled that Easygas had other remedies available at law, in particular in terms of the law that protected competition. The First Hall of the Civil Court had therefore declined to examine the case on a constitutional basis.
Easygas then resorted to the Constitutional Court, composed of Chief Justice Silvio Camilleri, Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo and Mr Justice Noel Cuschieri.
The Constitutional Court upheld the ruling, noting that the first court had not been as precise as it could have been about the remedy available to Easygas.
The Constitutional Court added that Easygas ought to have used the remedy regulating fair competition rather than seeking a constitutional remedy.