|
I refer to the articles on the Naxxar trade fair in both The Times and its electronic version (July 16).
It is not true that in January TFEA Ltd was denied a trading licence when the Commerce (not Trade) Department insisted the venue required a planning permit.
It is also not true that the Civil Court ordered that the original licence to hold a fair at Naxxar had to be reactivated after being irregularly terminated.
The facts are as follows:
According to LN1of 2006, the ongoing holding of fairs from a particular site
requires the following:
- A trading licence to hold fairs for the premises in question. The issue of
such a licence inter alia depends on the application being accompanied by a
Mepa permit or a declaration by Mepa that no such permit is needed.
- A commercial fair licence for each fair that is held. (The fact that a
trading licence exists to hold fairs does not automatically mean that a
commercial fair licence is issued as there may be instances where such a
licence may not be issued).
TFEA contacted the Commerce Department in January this year and was informed
verbally and in writing several times of these conditions.
In March TFEA then applied, and in April secured a reactivation of licence No
44/130 which had been issued in 1975 and cancelled in 2009. The licence was not to
hold fairs in Naxxar as stated in the article but "to keep an office for the managing
of the Malta International Fair at Nos 4 & 5, Gwejda Street, Naxxar. Furthermore,
contrary to what was stated in the article, there was no court involvement in this.
TFEA simply applied for reactivation and the Commerce Department accepted its
application.
Furthermore, again contrary to what is stated in the article, the Commerce
Department never denied TFEA a trading licence either in January or at any other
time. TFEA in fact never applied for a trading licence so that the premises could be
licensed to hold fairs. However, in April TFEA Ltd applied for a commercial fair
licence to hold a commercial fair from the former trade fair grounds in Naxxar
indicating that the said grounds had a trading licence to hold fairs citing the
aforementioned reactivated Licence 44/130. Since said licence "was to keep an office
for the managing of the Malta International Fair at Nos 4 & 5,Gwejda Street, Naxxar"
and not to hold fairs from the said grounds, TFEA Ltd were informed that their
application for a commercial licence could not be considered.
In May TFEA Ltd instituted a case against DG Commerce as a result of which the
First Hall of the Civil Court ruled on June 18, 2010 that licence 44/130 to keep an
office for the managing of the Malta International Fair at Nos 4 & 5, Gwejda Street,
Naxxar was to be deemed as covering the grounds in question and that said licence was
enough for the grounds to be considered as a premises licensed for the holding of
fairs. The court also ruled that no planning permit was required. Moreover, the court
also ruled that the director general was to decide whether or not to accept the
application for a commercial fair licence from the grounds in question.
In addition the court also ruled that:
- a decision had to be issued within four days;
- failure to issue decision would be taken to mean that the commercial fair
licence had been issued; and
- its judgment had to be applied provisionally;
The director general, Commerce Department, appealed to all the court's rulings
before the Court of Appeal. However, since the application challenging the court
ruling on provisional enforcement could not be heard within the time limit of four
days set by the First Hall of the Civil Court, the director general, without prejudice
to his appeals, proceeded to decide within the imposed time limit. And the decision
taken, based on sound legal advice, was to refuse the commercial fair licence. The
detailed reasons were outlined in the letter of refusal.
There was nothing in the ruling of the First Hall which prevented the director
general, Commerce Department, from taking such action since the court left the
decision concerning the commercial fair licence in his hands and in fact the decree
of the First Hall of the Civil Court which ordered the provisional enforcement of the
judgment specifically reserved the right of the director general to exercise his
discretion with regard to whether the proposed fair was to be held or not. Indeed
hen referring to the director general the decree expressly stated that "is-setgha ta'
diskrezjoni tieghu ma gietx immnaqqsa bis-sentenza" (his discretionary powers have
not been diminished by this sentence).
TFEA Ltd is now appealing to the decision by the director general before the
Licensing Appeals Board.
|
