TRAVEL AGENTS VERSUS AIRLINES IN THE MALTESE COMPETITION LAW 531 (PSAA), which was signed through IATA, whereby it clearly stipulated that “for the sale of air transportation and ancillary services by the agent under this agreement the carrier shall remunerate the agent in a manner and amount as may be stated from time to time and communicated to the agent by the carrier. Such remuneration shall constitute full compensation for the services rendered to the Carrier”; The same article further contemplated that the commission payable had to be also paid for any other ancillary services connected therewith, besides the sale of air transport tickets, including airport and fuel taxes. FATTA emphasised the fact that, besides each airline was acting in breach of the PSAA, the irresponsible behaviour on the part of each defendant airline, also breached the Commercial Code5 and the fundamental principles which were embedded in the Competition Act6, particularly concerted practices, since there was a mutual agreement between the airlines – namely Swiss Air, Belgian Air, Lufthansa and Austrian Airlines – which simultaneously reduced the commission on the selling of airline tickets to 0.1%, so much so that the letter that the travel agents had received from the four airlines carried the same date. Moreover, FATTA argued that each airline was also acting in breach of the Competition Act concerning the principle of the abuse of a dominant position since each airline was in agreement with each of the three other airlines on the commission payable to the travel agents. Given the above, FATTA members were suffering a financial loss due to the reduction which was imposed on them arbitrarily by the airlines, albeit that Resolution 824 stated that such remuneration “shall constitute full compensation for the services rendered to the Carrier”. Furthermore, FATTA pleaded before the Court that IATA should be the undertaking that should safeguard the PSAA in every aspect, and yet, it remained passive and even ignored FATTA’s judicial protest, which was filed earlier before the court cases against it in order to safeguard the interests of travel agents. Furthermore, FATTA requested the Civil Court to decide in its favour and declare that the airlines were, in fact, violating Article 9 of Resolution Number 825 of the PSAA. It also asked the Civil Court to declare that the airlines were in breach of Articles 5 and 9 of the Competition Act, both being replicated almost verbatim from Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Article 5 of the Competition Act stipulates that: 5 Chapter 13 of the Laws of Malta. 6 Chapter 379 of the Laws of Malta (unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Competition Act in this Paper are related to this Chapter).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==