GreenPak, a packaging waste company, has filed a judicial protest against the government's Approval Body, saying it is violating one of the basic tenets of the European Union – the free market – by acting against free competition.
The case arose after the Approval Body of eco contributions in the packaging waste retrieval scheme decided to act against four companies which swtiched from the GRTU’s Green MT Ltd to join the GreenPak Scheme. The companies’ switch to GreenPak had been approved by the Malta Environment and Planning Authority.
Green MT Ltd and GreenPak operate rival, packaging waste retrieval schemes. GreenPak distributes well over one million green recycling bags to promote the Resources Ministry’s ‘Recycling on Tuesday’ scheme, it runs a weekly lottery with a €200 prize to encourage residents to dispose of their packaging waste at bring-in sites or through the door-to-door collections, and last year won the ‘Management Award for Sustainable Development’.
Margarine Manufacturing Company Ltd, Poultry Products Ltd, the Edible Oil Refining Company Ltd, and Food Industries Ltd, gave up membership of Green MT Ltd with effect from May 1, 2011, by joining GreenPak.
But Approval Body, made up of representatives of MEPA, the Resources and Rural Affairs Ministry, and the Ministry of Finance subsequently contacted GreenPak to say it would not be approving these four companies’ exemption from the eco contribution on products whose waste would have been recovered under the approving scheme.
GreenPak has now filed a judicial protest, calling upon the Approval Body and its constituent bodies to reconsider their unlawful decision.
GreenPak said the behaviour of the government body was in direct contrast with the provisions of Legal Notice 74 of 2008, which says in part that when a producer who obtains an eco contribution exemption ceases his participation in the scheme for which he applied, he would lose the exemption entitlement and the producer would have to pay the eco contribution, with interest – but when a producer ceases participation in an approved scheme in which he would have participated continuously for at least six months in a calendar year, the exemption entitlement for the relevant calendar year would not be forfeited.
GreenPak added in its judicial protest that the four companies had not stopped taking part in an approved scheme during the calendar year in question, so much so that they immediately were registered as members of the GreenPak scheme it itself operates, and their membership for that year had been for more than six months.
GreenPak described this position as unfair and unjust to the four companies because they were in effect being prevented from joining a scheme they preferred.
The attitude of the approving body, if allowed, could be interpreted by some operators of the authorised schemes as giving them a free hand to use bullying tactics against their own members, who would not have the freedom to change schemes when they felt they needed to, GreenPak said.
It called on those notified of the judicial protest to, within a week of being notified of the judicial protest, remedy the unjust and anomalous situation by confirming that Margarine Manufacturing Co. Ltd, Poultry Products Ltd, the Edible Oil Refining Co. Ltd and Food Industries Ltd had taken part in the GreenPak approved scheme during the year 2011 for a continuous period of more than six months; and that these companies were therefore entitled to be exempted from the eco contribution on products whose waste would have been recovered through any authorised scheme for 2011.