Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 – Malta

The year 2025, in Malta, saw the appointment of a new Director General of the Office for Competition (“OC”) - Malta’s National Competition Authority - following the post having been vacant for almost two years, ongoing antitrust investigations, 18 merger control clearance decisions and a couple of judgments by the Maltese courts upholding decisions issued by the OC. The OC also hosted the European Competition Network meeting for the first time.  

Legislative Framework

The legislative framework for competition law regulation in Malta is governed by the Competition Act (Chapter 379 of the Laws of Malta) (“Competition Act”) and the Control of Concentrations Regulations (S.L. 379.08 of the Laws of Malta (“Merger Control Regulations”) which govern merger control in Malta. Other subsidiary legislation is in place as regards immunity and reduction of penalties in cartel investigations (leniency) (S.L. 379.10), Regulations implementing the ECN+ Directive (S.L.379.11) and Regulations to support investigations in the digital sector, aiding the enforcement of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (S.L. 379.12) The Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority Act (“MCCAA Act”) (Chapter 510 of the Laws of Malta)governs the establishment of the Malta Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (“MCCAA”), and the OC which sits within its structure. A Collective Proceedings (Competition) Act (Chapter 520 of the Laws of Malta) is also in place to facilitate collective proceedings to rectify the consequences and or allow for compensation for harm resulting from an infringement of the Competition Act. 

Public Enforcement Overview 

As further covered in the Kluwer Competition Blog 2024 yearly update for Malta, the OC together with the Maltese courts are responsible for the public enforcement of competition law in Malta. It is the Civil Court (Commercial Section) (“Court”) that will decide on whether an infringement of the Competition Act has taken place and impose any fines, following a sworn application being filed by the Director General of the OC. An appeal from the Court’s decision may then be brought on points of law and, or fact before the Court of Appeal. 

Since 2022, the OC has started the practice of issuing warning letters to undertakings where it has reasonable grounds to suspect an infringement of the Competition Act. Such a warning letter is not a finding of a breach but merely a way to encourage compliance. The OC has noted, however, that failure of an undertaking to comply with a warning letter will be considered a serious aggravating factor that could result in an increase of at least 25% in the penalty requested by the OC, should Court proceedings be instituted following an investigation. 

Antitrust investigations

In the MCCAA Annual Report 2024 (“2024 Report”), published in July 2025, the OC noted that it had pursued investigations into several alleged instances of anti-competitive practices spanning various sectors of the economy, including entertainment, transport, telecommunications and health. It also conducted informal investigations (based on voluntary co-operation by undertakings) in the communications, food and retail, transport, insurance, health and pharmaceutical sectors. 

The 2024 Report also referred to two Provisional Findings Reports issued in relation to its investigations in the entertainment sector. Such reports are issued to ensure due process, and allow parties to respond before the OC decides whether to initiate Court proceedings or to close an investigation on the basis of insufficient grounds to act. No further developments on the OC’s investigations have been made public in the course of 2025. However, the OC has confirmed that three rejection decisions were issued in 2025, finding that there were insufficient grounds to act on complaints it received in the entertainment, energy and recycling sectors - a summary of which will be made public during the course of 2026. A sworn application was filed in court to contest the rejection of the complaint in the energy sector (Dottor Vassallo John vs Direttur Generali (Kompetizzjoni)) with the first court hearing due in January 2026. 

Merger Control

Following the first ever prohibition decision issued by the OC on the 19 September 2024, blocking the acquisition by Lidl Immobiliare Malta Limited (“Lidl”) of property owned by Said Investments Limited and leases belonging to Scott's, another major supermarket chain on the island , the OC published the full text of its Phase II decision on the 16 December 2025.

Lidl has challenged the OC’s decision and a partial judgment was given by the Court (Lidl Immobiliare Malta Limited et al. vs Direttur Generali (Kompetizzjoni)), as further covered below.

A total of 18 merger control decisions were issued by the OC in 2025, all of which gave clearance to the proposed transactions to proceed. 15 of these qualified for the simplified procedure under regulation 12 of the Merger Control Regulations, while 3 were unconditional Phase I decisions.  

Appointment of new Director General

Dr Melchior Vella, an economist, was appointed Director General of the OC on the 24 September 2025. This followed a period of almost two years of the post being vacant, further to the retirement of the previous Director General, Mr Godwin Mangion in October 2023. 

Judicial Review

Enemalta judgement

On the 23 June 2025, the Maltese Court of Appeal upheld a 2020 Civil Court (Commercial Section) judgment finding that Enemalta Corporation engaged in anti-competitive conduct within the aviation fuel supply sector at Malta International Airport (MIA) and abused its dominant position through a margin squeeze, infringing both national and EU competition law. 

An overview of this case is given here. 

Lidl judgement 

Following the OC’s first prohibition decision under the Merger Control Regulations, Lidl filed an application before the Courts, challenging such a decision. A judgement in parte was given on the 17 November 2025, deciding on the first point raised by the plaintiff companies. This involved Lidl arguing that the proposed transaction should be automatically approved since no decision signed by a Director General had been issued within the prescribed timeframes. The decision had been signed by Melchior Vella, as Director, who at the time also occupied the post of acting Director General, with the post of Director General being vacant. Lidl contended that since applicable legislation (the Merger Control Regulations and MCCAA Act) only explicitly gives authority to issue decisions to the Director General, no other person would be so authorised. The Court, however, did not uphold these arguments and observed that the law does not always refer to the possibility of having acting officials but there are various examples, referenced by the Court, where such are appointed. It went on to note that not recognising the authority of an acting Director General would give rise to a free for all and anarchy in the field of fair competition until a Director General was formally appointed. Furthermore, it also highlighted the inconsistency in approach by Lidl in accepting a decision decided in its favour on the 29 December 2023 and not challenging the fact that this had not been signed by the Director General of the OC, as it was doing now. 

The Court also did not accept plaintiffs' submission that they did not know that Director General Godwin Mangion was no longer in post at the time the decision in their favour was issued because (i) there was sufficient public knowledge that the position of Director General was vacant, (ii) this is not a matter of an individual but of a functioning office, (iii) the whole process was with the OC and correspondence was for a long time carried out with Melchior Vella, the person who took the decision as acting Director General. 

The Court also remarked on the time it took to appoint a Director General and on what it describes as the puerile excuses made by the Permanent Secretary, including reference to a 2021 Court decision which determined criteria that should be used to select a competent person. It also went on to urge competent authorities to ensure that posts being temporarily occupied by acting officials are filled in the shortest time possible. 

The Court is to re-convene to consider other pleas raised by Lidl.