A Transport Ministry extension of a public concession for ferry services around Valletta which was kept under wraps will have to be reviewed.
The extension of the services in the Grand Harbour and Marsamxett had only been made public through a parliamentary question in December of 2020, months after being granted.
The judgment ordering a revision of the extension was delivered on Tuesday after Supreme Travel Ltd filed an appeal against a decision by the Public Contracts Review Board rejecting its call to declare that concession “ineffective.”
The dispute revolved around a concession for scheduled ferry services between Sliema, Valletta and the three cities which rival operator Marsamxetto Steamferry Services Ltd had won by public tender in 2012.
That concession was due to expire in 2020.
That was when Supreme Travel Ltd, as an operator having an economic interest in the market, observed that the ferry services had continued unchanged, prompting a query with Transport Malta.
No reply was forthcoming from that end.
PQ reveals extension
A parliamentary question answered by the Transport Minister on December 3 last year eventually revealed that the original concession had been extended for an additional three years.
Two months after that revelation, Supreme Travel Ltd filed a letter of objection before the Public Contracts Review Board, challenging that extension in terms of the law.
On June 1, the board threw out that objection, stating that it was “inadmissible since it was not filed within the six month period following the signing of the contract.”
Supreme Travel filed an appeal against TM, Marsamxetto Steamferry Services Ltd, the Minister for Transport, Infrastructure and Capital Projects and the Director General at the Department of Contracts.
The appellant argued that since the extension had only been made public through a parliamentary question in December, the six-month term for objection was to run from that date.
That argument was to be upheld “in the interest of rectitude and justice,” declared the Court of Appeal, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Mr Justices Joseph R Micallef and Tonio Mallia.
In light of EU and local laws, the term for filing an objection in such cases was to commence from the time when an interested party could get to know about the publication of the contract.
“It was difficult to claim that the term commenced from the date of the contract that was kept under wraps,” observed the court, pointing out further that the relative EU directive called for such public concessions to be made public.
In terms of that directive, should the contracting authority fail to do so, it must provide reasons for awarding the contract without any such public notification, observed the court.
In this case, no notice was posted on the Official Journal of EU and it was only because Supreme Travel kept an eye on the situation when the original concession was due to expire last year, that the extension came to light.
Therefore the court upheld the appeal, revoked the decision of the PCRB and ordered the board to review Supreme Travel’s objection.
Expenses related to the appeal were to be borne by the Transport Ministry.
The court also declared that the ministry had an “obvious” interest in the matter since it was the one that had granted the extension.