A constitutional application filed by Easygas was dismissed because the company failed to use the ordinary remedies available to it at law.
Easygas had filed its constitutional application against the Ministry for Resources and the Malta Resources Authority.
The company had requested the court to annul a legal notice on the basis that this was depriving it of its right to enjoyment of its own property.
Easygas appealed to the Constitutional Court after the first court declined to look into the case in which it complained that a legal notice was in violation of its fundamental human right to enjoyment of its own property and requested the court to annul the notice.
The court had ruled that Easygas had other remedies available to it at law, in particular in terms of the law that protected competition.
Before Easygas entered the market, another enterprise had a monopoly on gas cylinders.
But although the market had been liberalised, Easygas had found it hard to encourage consumers to start buying its cylinders.
This was because when a consumer had first purchased gas from Easygas' competitor in the days when that enterprise had a monopoly, the consumer had to pay a deposit which was only refundable if the cylinder was returned.
And the cylinders used by Easygas' competitor were not compatible with Easygas' products.
If the consumer wished to switch to Easygas', he had to produce the receipt for the deposit originally paid on the cylinder to receive a full refund of €25.
To overcome this obstacle, Easygas had opted to refund this deposit to consumers who opted to switch to its products. As a result, it started to penetrate the market.
But a legal notice put a stop to this practice for it stipulated that no company could retain cylinders but had to return them to the issuer for €5 each, unless the original receipt was produced.
In its judgement, the Constitutional Court upheld the first court's ruling but noted that the first court had not been as precise as it could about the remedy which Easygas could have used.
It said Easygas ought to have used the remedy available to it in terms of the law regulating fair competition and not a constitutional remedy.