Another soft drinks importer has filed a judicial protest in the First Hall of the Civil Court claiming that the confiscation of imports was manifestly unjust and a barrier to free trade.

Food Industries Limited filed its protest against the Malta Environment and Planning Authority (Mepa), the Minister for the Environment and Rural Affairs and the Police Commissioner.

The company claimed that on August 4 the police raided its warehouses on the basis that the company was in illegal possession of non-alcoholic beverages. The basis for the warrant (though this was not stated in the warrant itself) was that the soft drink Orangina, imported by the company, was not in conformity with a 1998 legal notice enacted in terms of the environment law. This legal notice stipulated that no importation of non-alcoholic drinks could take place unless the drink was bottled in a re-usable glass container or in kegs.

However, Food Industries Ltd claimed that on August 5 The Times had quoted George Pullicino, Minister for the Environment and Rural Affairs, as saying that: "If importers create a return system for bottles and inform Mepa how they intend to recycle bottles then they can import whatever they like. We are not trying to stop anyone from importing anything. We just want to control the waste problem".

The company added that it had informed Mepa some months ago about the recycling system it had adopted for Orangina products and it had also proven that the container of this product was not harmful to the environment. Orangina products were sold under a deposit system whereby a refund was given to the consumer when a bottle was returned.

The company had also made arrangements for empty bottles to be disposed of in accordance with environmental rules.

Mepa had, in writing, declared itself satisfied with this arrangement.

In its protest the company claimed that the police raid on its premises was unjustified and ultra vires the law.

Food Industries Ltd described the authorities' behaviour as manifestly unjust and added that the measure taken was not aimed at safeguarding the environment but to ensure a commercial advantage to the company's competitors. The company claimed that respondents' actions were aimed at safeguarding the interests of the Association of Soft Drinks Manufacturers, whose members produced bottled soft drinks.

Mepa's actions were in clear violation of the principle of free movement of products and constituted a barrier to trade.

In conclusion, the company claimed that the association and Mepa were ignoring the fact that if recycling requirements were satisfied, then any non-alcoholic beverages could be freely imported.

Respondents were making use of environmental principles to enable a local association to block competition. Respondents were held liable in damages.

Dr Franco Vassallo signed the protest.