Peter Murray writes:

You are absolutely correct to state that the removal of the departure tax constitutes "a victory for citizens' rights".

You are also quite correct in pursuing the removal of this tax against marine travel as the tax is discriminatory against the individual regardless of the form of transport.

Yet, we urgently require an interpretation of this departure tax and a definitive declaration of its legality. For if it is officially declared illegal then this results in a raft of concerns requiring further clarification. Issues such as why this tax is not removed with immediate effect or as soon as reasonably practical. Can one back-claim this tax? Can one expect a reimbursement of tax already paid for airline bookings occurring after November and have the airlines been instructed not to impose this tax after November?

Finally, what alternate taxation is envisaged, given the financial impact that its removal will undoubtedly have on the government's coffers?

The removal of the departure tax is certainly a victory for citizens' rights. Originally imposed by a Labour government, the tax was doubled from Lm10 (€23) to Lm20 (€46) by a PN government in the budget speech of October 2004.

Admittedly, this was done at a time when Malta was striving to rein in its public deficit not least to qualify for the euro. But this argument could never justify the collection of a tax in breach of EU law. Hence, the avalanche of complaints on this tax.

I had first reacted in December 2004 in this column, giving reasons why I felt that it was in breach of EU law, notably freedom of movement. I then raised the issue with the European Commission which, surprisingly, at first replied that it saw nothing wrong. I then presented parliamentary questions with more motivated arguments and, eventually, the Commission agreed and instituted infringement proceedings.

Although the Maltese authorities have always insisted that the tax was not in breach of EU law, they did reduce the tax back to Lm10 a couple of years ago. Nevertheless, this proved futile since the point was no so much the quantum of the tax but the principle at stake, namely that it fell foul of EU law.

For this reason, the Commission persisted in its proceedings and decided to take the issue to the European Court. These were eventually suspended following an announcement last year that the tax would be removed in 2008. Indeed, the removal of this tax was rightly included in the PN electoral programme earlier this year (although not in the MLP programme).

Noting that the tax has still not been removed, the Commission decided last month to pursue the legal proceedings in court.

Last week, the Commission reported all these developments during a meeting of the Petitions Committee and announced that it had received a letter from the Maltese authorities confirming that the tax will be removed with effect from November 1 this year. This means that the Commission is likely to stop the proceedings again on the basis of this undertaking.

The reader rightly points out that, unless there is a definitive ruling on the legality of the departure tax by the European Court or by the Maltese national courts, some questions will indeed remain unanswered.

Most importantly, the question of whether the departure tax collected since Malta joined the EU should be reimbursed cannot be answered definitively and the Maltese authorities may therefore refrain from refunding the tax that has already been paid.

As to post-November bookings that have already been paid, reason dictates that the tax should be reimbursed. Equally, once the relevant legal notice is issued, airlines would be empowered not to collect it for flights taking place after November 1.

As to the replacement of the tax with another tax given its impact on public revenue, my understanding is that the tax will be removed because the authorities feel that they could forego this revenue in the light of the improving state of public finance. But, of course, provided that it does not fall foul of EU law, taxation remains a reserve for national authorities.

To be sure. There were EU rights at stake and there is no question that they had to be respected. The delay served no one's interest.

At a time when the rejection of the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland has highlighted public disillusion towards the EU the removal of the departure tax shows that the EU works.

And it works for the citizens.

We should keep it that way.

Readers who would like to ask questions to be answered in this column can send an e-mail, identifying themselves, to contact@simonbusuttil.eu or through www.simonbusuttil.eu.

Dr Busuttil is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.