TRAVEL AGENTS VERSUS AIRLINES IN THE MALTESE COMPETITION LAW 537 6. ONE ECONOMIC UNIT Furthermore, it was highlighted that the commission payable to travel agents was a decision taken by the Lufthansa Group, which all four airlines formed part thereof. As this was considered to be as ‘one economic unit’, it was not in breach of the Competition Law principle that the airlines would agree to pay the same commission percentage to the travel agents. The airlines noted that FATTA had to indicate which was the ‘relevant market’ in line with Article 9 of the Competition Act, since the four airlines, which formed the Lufthansa Group, were not actually dominant in the Maltese market, and therefore were certainly not acting in breach of Article 9 of the Competition Act. 7. DECISION BY THE CIVIL COURT On 27 June 2019, the Civil Court, after hearing the evidence brought by the plaintiffs’ travel agents, the defendant airline companies as well as IATA, decided the following: 8. JURISDICTION Each airline had raised a preliminary plea whereby they submitted that the Civil Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the cases, as this was a contract between the travel agents and the airlines concerning the PSAA. However, the Civil Court did not uphold this preliminary plea, and, in line with what FATTA had claimed, the behaviour was a breach of a contract entered with the carriers on an agreement co-ordinated through IATA. FATTA represented the Maltese accredited travel agents who had individually signed the PSAA. The Maltese travel agents had, in fact, agreed to sell the airlines’ tickets, and the commission payable was made through the IATA’s representatives in Malta. Indeed, in compliance with Article 742(f ) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure9, there is stipulated that: 9 Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==