Court dismisses case against Enemalta, Electrogas, over gas procurement
Corruption claims are unproven and the gas procurement arrangement has not caused bills to rise, court finds
The Constitutional Court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by dozens of people who alleged that the Electrogas power station contract was rooted in corruption and fraudulently inflated their electricity bills.
The case was filed in June 2021 by a group of individuals, including notable activists and professionals, against the State Advocate, Enemalta plc and ARMS Ltd.
The plaintiffs alleged that the power station deal saw state energy provider Enemalta and power station operator Electrogas introduce an unnecessary "layer of profit".
They argued that Enemalta could purchase natural gas directly from the supplier Socar SA, instead of buying it through Electrogas. This arrangement resulted in the people paying higher and inflated rates to benefit private entities, which, the plaintiffs argued, amounted to fraud and negligence.
The group sought financial compensation for damages and asked the court to rescind the arrangements between Enemalta and Electrogas.
Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, sitting with judges Anthony Ellul and Robert G. Mangion dismissed the case, finding that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the necessary legal threshold for a human rights violation. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' demands for a refund on allegedly overpaid bills amounted to mere "hope or expectation," rather than an "existing possession" or a concrete "legitimate expectation".
The judges pointed out that electricity tariffs in Malta are strictly established by law. Evidence presented in court showed that utility tariffs decreased following a 2014 legal notice and had not increased since, even after the Electrogas agreement was signed.
The court further clarified that citizens do not possess a subjective legal right to guarantee that electricity tariffs remain unchanged or do not increase.
While the plaintiffs heavily emphasised the allegations of corruption surrounding the energy deal, the court said that these claims were unproven and were contingent upon the outcomes of separate judicial proceedings.
The court also noted that while an Auditor General’s report found shortcomings in the project's due diligence, it did not explicitly conclude that the agreement was fundamentally defective due to corruption.
In a reaction, the NGO Repubblika expressed disappointment at the Constitutional Court’s decision. It stressed that the ruling did not exonerate any of those involved in the Electrogas deal and argued that the case exposed a significant flaw in Malta’s legal system, whereby victims of large-scale corruption were often denied effective legal remedies. Repubblika also renewed its call for legal reforms to ensure that victims of corruption were better protected and adequately compensated.