Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,415 of 24 April 2015

By means of a decree given on the 6th November, 2014, by the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal Application, in the names E. Grech Cristal Bath Limited vs VG Shutter & Concrete Works Ltd, Application number 486/10, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant company VG Shutter & Concrete Works Ltd in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Court of Appeal, in the names R. Grech Cristal Bath Limited vs VG Shutter & Concrete Limited, application number 486/10, on the 2nd June, 2014, the applicant company E. Grech Cristal Bath Limited (C 13298) respectfully pleaded:

That by means of a sworn application presented, on the 12th May, 2010, the appellant company premised the following:

1. That the applicant company E. Grech Cristal Bath Limited, of Psaila Street, Birkirkara BKR 9076, supplied and delivered to the respondent company VG Shutter & Concrete Works Limited, of number 102, Triq Tal-Braġ, Mellieħa SPB 12, various materials and other objects relating to construction as results from the invoices issued in the name of the same respondent company, for the total value of forty three thousand four hundred and five Euro and sixty four cents (€43,405.64).

2. That furthermore there is also a sum of eight thousand seven hundred thirty five Euro and fifteen cents (€ 8,735.15) which are preliquidated damages and agreed to be due to lack of completion of works within the stipulated time.

3. That despite that the company was called upon various times to pay the amounts mentioned, it remain in default.

4. That in the opinion of the applicant this debt, is certain, liquid and due.

5. That thus, this gives the right to the applicant to proceed against the respondent company by means of special summary proceedings in terms of article 167 et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

6. Thus the respondent company is to state why this Court should not decide according to the demand without proceeding to a hearing of the cause in terms of Article 167 et. seq. of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.

That to these demands the defendant company brought the following reply:

1. That the applicant’s demands are unfounded in fact and at law.

2. That on the basis of a contract which was made between the parties the payment of works of a value of €43,405.64 had to be made by the carrying out of construction works by the defendant.

3. That infact, this work was commenced and is almost complete, and the defendant infact has every interest to conclude this work.

4. That the plaintiff never called upon the respondent before these procedures nor for the conclusion of the works nor for the payment of the amounts due.

5. That as regards to the amount of €8,735.15 claimed by the plaintiff as penalty according to the same contract of the 10th April, 2010, this amount is still not due.

6. ...........omissis...........

7. ...........omissis...........

8. That without prejudice to that above pleaded, the plaintiff’s demands are unfounded infact and at law, and should be rejected.

...........omissis...........

That in virtue of a judgement of the 12th May, 2014, the Honourable First Hall Civil Court, whilst rejecting all the pleas of the defendant company for the reasons given in the judgement, condemned the same defendant company to pay the plaintiff, the sum of twenty seven thousand six hundred twenty three Euro and ninety nine cents (Euro 27,623.99) with interest from the date of the judgement. The Court also ordered that the expenses of the cause be divided between the parties, the fees of the referee’s report are be divided as to 70% by the defendant company and 30% by the plaintiff company.

...........omissis...........

That the appellant company agrees both with the conclusions as well in general with the factual and legal evaluation made by the First Hall, in the judgement appealed, from which judgement it is asking that it be limitedly changed on two points.

1. The final liquidation of the amount due by the defendant company to the plaintiff company.

2. The decision that the intersest is to run from the date of the judgement and not from the date of the presentation of the cause and the partition of the costs.

The First Grievance

That there can be no doubt that the First Hall Civil Court, in its judgement of the 12th May, 2014, made a very detailed anyalsis of the proof brought forward before it as well as of the legal principles applicable and its judgement on the merits deserves to be confirmed.

Where in the first place, the appellant company demands that the judgement is to be reformed is in the amount liquidated in its favour.

In order to establish this amount as the Court of First Instance explained in the judgement appealed itself it relied on the report of the Technical Referee Architect Alan Saliba AIC.

Architect Saliba was appointed by the Court to hear the proof and draw up the report essentially regarding the disastrous execution of the contract of works commissioned to the defendant company VG Shutter & Concrete Limited.

...........omissis...........

It results from the deeds that factually Architect Alan Saliba was appointed and acceded to the premises in question at a stage where the reparatory works had already been carried out, and thus he could not physically and visually relate regarding to the defects encountered on the premises.

...........omissis...........

The first grievance of the appellant from the judgement appealed is simply one of liquidation of the amount due to it. Of the one part regarding the work truly carried out well by VG, there are the amounts first certified by Architect Tancred Mifsud then by Architect Musumeci appointed by the Court, in the context of the warrant of prohibitory injunction. Approximately these two Architects agreed that there was truly a small amount of useful work carried out by VG. Architect Mifsud liquidates this amount in slightly more than ten thousand Euro (circa €10,000), whilst Architect Musumeci liquidates the same in slightly more than seven thousand Euro (€7,000).

It was on the basis of these two reports and as stated in their evidence by Adrian Grech and Wilfrid Buttigieg, because of the preliminary agreements there were on the two apartments, that afterwards Architect Mifsud had issued a bill of works after Architect Musumeci had made a lengthy access on the premises ...omissis... and this when it was excatly in the state it was by by VG that AWBG continued with the works with another contractor.

It was these reparatory works which put the Technical Referee Alan Saliba appointed two years after the access of Architect Musumeci, in the impossibility to determine exactly the amount of the damages.

...........omissis...........

In the present case there are three Architects (Mifsud, Musumeci and Saliba) that agree that the work was not carried out well. But there is one Architect, Architect Saliba, who was in the physical impossibility to establish of his own accord and physically verify the defects caused by VG, and thus his capacity to establish the real value of the useful work carried out by VG is compromised. This explains why Architect Saliba granted a much higher amount of circa €24,000 when he worked out the value of the work carried out well by VG.

Contrary to that declared by the Techincal Referee Alan Saliba, in his report a lot of the defects were not avoided due to lack of proof. At the stage he was involved there was no proof which the Architect could see because after they relied on the reports of Architects Mifsud and Musumeci, AWBG proceeded with the project, arranged the defects and honoured its obligations with the purchases of the premises with whom they had a preliminary agreement.

It is thus that the interpellant companies humbly submit that whilst the three Architects confirmed that the work was not carried out according to the art or trade, the Court should have taken the Report of Architect Musumeci as the report which establishes correctly the value of the work made by VG.

One is to point out finally on this grievance that naturally the evaluations, considerations and conclusions of a technical nature including the liquidation of the amounts like in the present case which are made by a Court appointed Referee, constitute an important proof for the judicial authority, but the Court, although it should not set aside such analysis easily it is not bound by this technical conclusion where the complexity of the proof shows that there were matters of a fundamental nature which could essentially impinge on the anaylsis and correctness of the technical referee.

...........omissis...........

With the utmost respect, the appellants humbly submit that in the circumstances there concur those elements so that the Court does not accept the value of the works drawn up by Technical Referee Alan Saliba, and base itself on the value of the work reached by Architect Robert Musumeci. This because the analysis of Architect Saliba although profound and detailed departs from a basis which is fundamentally wrong because it was made at a time that those reparatory works which had to be made had already been made, and there was no visual or technical proof which Architect Saliba could bring forward at that stage. When Architect Saliba entered the scene everything was ready and arranged.

The Second Grievance

This cause commenced as one with a request for dispensing with a hearing in terms of Article 167 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, and the Court subsequently gave the opportunity to the respondent VG Shutter & Concrete Limited to submit a reply.

Naturally, it is an established principle at law and reflected in our jurisprudence that where the amount pretended by the plaintiff in the cause is not liquidated but has to be liquidated by the Court, the Court is to apply the general principle that ‘in illiquidis not fit mora’, and should not impose payments of interest, if not from the date of the judgement.

...........omissis...........

In the first place, it is to be stated that dealing with a commercial obligation, the interests run from the moment the obligation is contracted.

...........omissis...........

In the second place, the appellants humbly submit that in its evaluation of the running of interests, the Court of First Instance should have better evaluated the facts in the present case before applying in a most generally manner the principle ‘in illiquidis not fit mora’. This because there exists an agreement between E. Grech Cristal Bath, AWBG and the defendant VG Shutter & Concrete and the indebtedness of the respondent VG Shutter was clear and liquid from the very beginning ...omissis... that the interest on the balance can be imposed only from the date of the judgement, instead from the date of the invoice or at least from the date of the filing of the present cause brings about the paradoxical result whereby VG Shutter & Concrete benefitted and not on a small scale from its default.

This is the case ‘multo magis’ because VG Shutter certainly knew that it did not carry out fifty thousand Euro work, and thus there was (however big or small) an amount due to the plaintiff ...omissis... by the judgement regarding the interests the respondent ended up making an investment. Her intransigent and incorrect attitude that it did not pay absolutely nothing was rewarded by the Court, in deference to the principle ‘in illiquidis not fit mora’, whilst it is clear that this principle applies were the amount is to be liquidated by the Court, after the evaluation of the whole proof and not in circumstances where it was evident and not contradicted from the beginning that there was an amount due, and where the debtor did nothing to settle what was due by him.

Finally, as regards the head of costs, the appellants humbly submit that all these procedures were necessary due to the contractual default of the respondent company and the disastrous execution of the contract of works. It will not be just or equitable in very clear circumstances were a company in order to take was is due to it had to resort to judicial procedures, ends up by suffering as well (although partly) such judicial expenses.

Thus, in view of the above, and whilst confirming in its entirety the judgement given by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 12th May, 2014, in the names premised, the appellants E. Grech Cristal Bath Limited prays this Honourable Court to reform the judgement appealed in the sense that it liquidated the amount due by the respondent company, in the amount demanded in this application, together with legal interests applicable from the date of presenting this sworn application, and the costs of both instances entirely against the respondent company.

Notify: VG Shutter & Concrete Works Ltd (C 21877), 102, Triq Tal-Braġ, Mellieħa.

VG Shutter & Concrete Works Ltd (C 21877), 37, Triq Tal-Braġ, Mellieħa.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 9th April, 2015, Application number 322/2015 by Josephine Vella, wife of the decujus, and Giorgia Magro, daughter of the decujus, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in their favour in equal share between them, the Succession of Carmelo Vella, son of the late George Vella and Carmela née Azzopardi, born in Saing Julians, resided in San Ġwann, where he died on the 31st December, 2014, aged 63, intestate, holding identity card number 573651(M).

Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 26th March, 2015, Application number 295/2015 by Rosina Xuereb and others, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in favour of the same Rosina Xuereb, wife of the decujus, in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and in favour of George, Emanuel, Maria Dolores Gauci and Michael, all brothers and sisters Xuereb, children of the decujus, and this in the quota of one tenth (1/10) undivided share each one of them, and in favour of David, Ruth Gauci and Suzanne Delia, all brothers and sisters Borg, children of the late Grace Borg, the latter daughter of the decujus, and this in the quota of one thirtieth (1/30) undivided share each one of them, the Succession of Giorgio Xuereb, son of the late Giorgio and Michelina née Cachia, born in Ħaż-Żabbar, Malta, resided in San Vinċenz de Paul, Ħal Luqa, where he died on the 21st March, 2014, aged 94, intestate, holding identity card number 190520(M).

Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 27th March, 2015, Application number 303/2015 by Lesley Kendall, whereby she prayed that it be declared open in her favour in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share, and the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of Gilliam Mary Naylor and Christian John Kendall, in equal shares between them, the Succession of her husband Alan Edward Kendall, son of Clifford Kendall and Helen Mary née Robinson, born in Bradford, England, resided in Mellieħa, and died in Leeds, England, on the 30th May, 2014, aged 63, intestate, holding identity card number 51040(M).

Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 9th March, 2015, Application number 229/2015 by Nazzareno Psaila et, Judith Psaila, daughter of Salvatore and Maria née Grixti, born in Tal-Pietà, on the 29th January, 1969, holding identity card number 60969(M), was Interdicted by means of a decree given on the 9th April, 2015.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 27th February, 2015, Application number 186/2015 by Doris Schembri and others, whereby she prayed that it be declared open in favour of the same Doris Schembri, wife of the decujus, in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share, and in favour of Daniel and Roberta, brother and sister Schembri, children of the decujus, and this in the quota of one fourth (1/4) undivided share each one of them, the Succession of Alfred Schembri, son of the late Victor and Mary née Quintano, born in Ħamrun, resided in Iklin, limits of Ħal Lija, where he died on the 8th October, 2014, aged 71, intestate, holding identity card number 339842(M).

Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 6th April, 2015, Application number 308/2015 by Felicita Farrugia, wife of the decujus, and Edgar Farrugia, son of the decujus, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in their favour in equal share between them, the Succession of Giuseppe Farrugia, son of the late Angelo Farrugia and Maria née Psaila, born and resided in Qrendi, and died in Tal-Qroqq, Imsida, on the 28th December, 2014, aged 78, intestate, holding identity card number 482136(M).

Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 26th March, 2015, Application number 297/2015 by Josephine Aquilina, Maria Briffa and Joan Leone, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in their favour, the Succession of Carmelina Aquilina, widow of Domenic Aquilina, daughter of the late Giuseppe Formosa and Giuseppina née Filleccia, born and resided in Ħamrun, and died in Tal-Qroqq, Imsida, on the 24th October, 2014, aged 94, intestate, holding identity card number 502520(M).

Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals

NOTICE

CIVIL COURT (FAMILY SECTION)

Whereas the plaintiff Ryan Fenech (ID 379085M), filed an application under oath (No. 85/15 AL), demanding Correction in the Act of Birth of the minor Aleandra Bonnici, number 1004/2006 in the Public Registry.

Whosoever may have an interest therein and wishes to oppose that demand, is hereby called upon to do so by means of a note to be filed in the Registry of these Courts within fifteen days from the day of the publication of this present notice in the Government Gazette.

Those who within the aforesaid time shall have filed such note, shall be notified by the service of a copy of the said application under oath of the day which will be appointed for the hearing of the case.

By order of the Court.

Rita Mangion

For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given by the First Hall Civil Court, (Constitutional Jurisdiction), on the 25th March, 2015, in the records of the Application, in the names Balzan Angela, sive Gina vs the Honourable Prime Minister et, application number 16/2015 MCH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application filed in the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) in the names Angela, sive Gina Balzan (ID 97247M) vs 1. The Honourable Prime Minister, 2. The Honourable Minister for Home Affairs and National Security, 3. The Attorney General, and 4. Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio, on the 6th February, 2015, the applicant Angela sive Gina Balzan (ID 97247M) respectfully pleaded:

1. That the applicant had acquired under identical terms and conditions in virtue of four contracts in the records of Notary Dr Joseph Spiteri, made on different days and by title of donation from Salvatore Bezzina, the temporary sub-directuum and relative subgroundrent of (€263.22) yearly as imposed on each one of the apartments numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, which apartments form part of a block of the same four apartments and three garages or store without number, known as Block A forming part of a larger block of buildings without number, and with the name ‘St Julian’s Court’, in Triq Manwel Dimech, previously Prince of Wales Road, St Julians, for the remaining period of circa 31 years from the original sub-emphyteutical concession together with the right of reversion to the bare ownership.

2. That the applicant acquired the apartment number 3 in the manner already explained and regarding which this lawsuit is being filed by means of the present application.

3. That by means of a contract in the records of Notary Paul Pullicino, dated 14th June, 1957, the said block of 52 apartments with the name ‘St Julian’s Court’, including thus the four apartments above described had been granted by title of temporary emphyteusis to the English Sevices for 45 years.

That clause number 12 of the said contract of temporary emphyteusis textually read as follows:

‘The present sub-emphyteusis is stipulated for a period of forty five years (45) from this day provided however that the Admiralty reserve the right to which the Grantors agree to determine this concession and restore the site with all the buildings thereon to the Grantors or their successors at the end of the twenty first or the twenty eight ...omissis... to run from today before the expiration of any one of the aforesaid periods of their intention to terminate the present sub-emphyteusis’.

...........omissis...........

4. That by title of assignment dated 1st September, 1978 (copy hereby attached) the Government of Malta passed for purposes of administration this block of building to the company Holiday Sevices Company Limited, for the exclusive use of foreigners visiting Malta. Later on by means of a parliamentary resolution and amendment of the original contract in virtue of a subsequent contract dated 24th August, 1983, the said company was exonerated from this original condition to make use of these apartments to exclusively accomodate foreigners.

...........omissis...........

5. That in virtue of four contracts made on different days with identical terms and conditions the temporary sub-utile dominium of each of the four apartments property of the applicant was acquired from the company Holiday Services Company Limited, for the remaining period of the original sub-emphyteutical concession of 45 years from different persons.

6. That the successors of the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Aloisio acquired the temporary subutile dominium of the said apartment number 3, in Block A of the same block of building above described in the manner already explained in virtue of a contract in the records of Notary Dr Carmel Martinelli, dated 18th October, 1984.

7. That on the 13th June, 2002, following the expiry of the temporary emphyteusis as above described the block of building together with the ameliorations reverted to the sub-direct owners free and unencumbered in terms of the same deed of concession and according to law.

8. That thus by means of four judicial letters all dated 15th November, 2006, the applicant had duly called upon the respective occupants of each one of the four apartments being its property including the successors of the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio, Carol-Ann Micallef Eynaud, to release the apartment in their respective possession.

9. That notwithstanding that each one of the respective occupants of each of the four apartments property of the applicant including each of the successors of the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Aloisio, remained in default.

10. That in view of this, the applicant filed four sworn applications, against the respective occupants of each one of the four apartments belonging to it in virtue of which it asked the Court to decided by ordering the said occupants to vacate the respective apartments occupied by them.

11. ...........omissis...........

12. That during the course of these procedures, the Maltese Parliament passed the Act Number XVIII of 2007, which brought about the Amendment to the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, with the addition of Article 12A which provides in regard to sub-emphyteusis like than in examination ...omissis... when the emphyteuta or the sub-emphyteuta is occupying the residential house as his ordinary residence he ‘shall have the right to continue occupying the residential home under a lease from the person who is the holder of the emphyteusis’.

13. That thus, the applicant presented a Constitutional Application in the names Angela, sive Gina Balzan vs the Honourable Prime Minister, the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, the Attorney General and Brian and Cecilia spouses Bajada, with reference to apartment number 1, which was also being used and occupied illegally and abusively by its respective residents and asked the Court, which was hearing the lawsuit filed against the successors in title of the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio, to put away the same cause sine die, to be reappointed only after the same Constitutional Application is decided.

14. That the same Constitutional Application, was finally decided by the Constitutional Court as a Court of Appeal, on the 7th December, 2012, by means of a judgement in the names Angela, sive Gina Balzan vs the Honourable Prime Minister, the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs and Justice, The Attorney General and Brian and Cecilia spouses Bajada.

15. That in virtue of that judgement in the Application number 15/08 GCD, the Constitutional Court confirmed that decided by the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) in the judgement delivered in First Instance, on the 11th October, 2011, in the same names and namely ‘that the application of art 12A of Cap. 158 to the property of the plaintiff mentioned in the application violates her rights as safeguarded under art. 1 of the First Protocol’.

16. That in virtue of the same judgement in the Application Number 15/08 GCD, and with reference to its judgement of the 25th November, 2011, in the names Gerald Montanaro Gauci et vs Director of Social Housing et, the Constitutional Court decided that ‘the remedy should be of compensation as is provided by Article 41 of the European Convention the only law which has been found to be violated’.

17. That the Constitutional Court in its judgement of the 7th December, 2012, in Application number 15/08 GCD and with reference to the judgement given on the 15th of September, 2009, by the European Court of Human Rights, in the names Amato Gauci vs Malta, decided also that ‘the law is to be considered applicable to the case but because in the same law there exist procedural deficiencies to create an equitable balance, adequate compensation has to be granted to the owner in order that this balance is created, and this with reference to Article 12 A of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance’.

18. ...........omissis...........

19. That the Constitutional Court in the Application number 15/08 GCD, after considering also that the applicant had been since 2002, from taking adequate compensation for the use of apartment number 1 which was being made by the respective occupants liquidated the sum of sixty thousand Euro (€60,000) which had to be paid by the Government of Malta.

20. ...........omissis...........

21. That despite that the judgement of the Constitutional Court above referred to related only to one of the four apartments property of the applicant which are found in Block A in ‘St Julian’s Court’, Triq Manwel Dimech, St Julians, and namely apartment number 1, the applicant is of the humble opinion that the same principles and remedies as enunciated in that judgement are to apply also to apartment number 3 merit of the cause de quo as illegally and abusively occupied till this day by the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Aloisio.

22. That this is being stated not only because in virtue of its judgement of the 7th December, 2012, in the Application number 15/08 GCD, the Constitutional Court declared that the application of Article 12 A of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance violates the Fundamental Human Rights as guaranteed under Article 1 of the First Protocoll, but as it is evident from all this exposed that the merit of the present cause is identical to the cause, regarding which the Constitutional Court delivered its judgement.

23. That thus, the applicant by means of a Judicial Protest, of the 4th October, 2013, above referred to called upon the respondent Honourable Prime Minister to come forward to the liquidation and payment of the compensation due.

...........omissis...........

24. That the Honourable Prime Minister remained in default in this regard and did not take action to remedy the injustice created by Article 12 A of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance.

...........omissis...........

25. That thus the applicant was never given an effective remedy in terms of Article 13 of the First Schedule of the Act regarding the European Convention so that the compensation pretended from it in terms of Article 37 (1) (a) of the Constitution of Malta be paid due to the use and occupation of the apartment in question being its property from the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Aloisio or theirs successors.

26. That Article 37(1) (b) and (c) clear delineate that the effective remedy in virtue of which a person who is vaunting a right of compensation as the applicant is doing should be the right of access to the Court or indipendent and Impartial Tribunal set up by Law and given the necessary powers for the purposes as deducted in the same sub-sections of the law.

27. That as already brought forward by the application of Article 12 A of the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance, the use and occupation of the applicant’s property by the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosiostill subsist till this day, and this without any compensation on the part of the same respondents for all the loss suffered and which has to be suffered by the applicants, and thus as decided by the Constitutional Court, in its judgement of the 7th December, 2012, there is still being violated the applicant’s right of property as protected by the First Protocoll, attached with the Convention for the Protection of the Fundamental Rights and Liberties.

28. That the Honourable Prime Minister did not answer the applicant’s callings in order to reach agreement regarding the regulation of adequate compensation for the applicant for every future year that the same apartment property of the applicant shall be occupied by the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Aloisio.

Thus and for the reasons above premised the respondents are to state why the Honourable First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) saving every necessary and opportune declaration should not:

I. Declare and decide that the principles and remedies enunciated by the Constitutional Court, in its judgement of the 7th December, 2012, in the names Angela, sive Gina Balzan vs the Honourable Prime Minister, the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, the Attorney General and Brian and Cecilia spouses Bajada (Application number 15/08 GCD) are to apply also to apartment number 3 for a period of ten years, and namely between 2002 and 2012, which by application of Article 12 A of the Housing (Decontrol) Orduinance were violated the Fundamental Human Rights and Liberties as safeguarded under Article 1 of the First Protocoll due to the abusive occupation of the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio.

II. Declare and decide that the failure on the part of the Honourable Prime Minister and the Honourable Minister for Home Affairs and National Security to provide an effective remedy for compensation for its deprivation of the premises in question of her property for the years following 2012, is violating her right to an effective remedy in terms of Article 13 of the First Schedule of the Act relating to the European Convention (Cap. 319 of the Laws of Malta).

III. Declare and decide that the default on the part of the Honourable Prime Minister and the Honourable Minister for Home Affairs and National Security to provide an effective remedy so that the applicant can vaunt her claims for compensation in the manner delineated in Articles 37(1) (b) and (c) or other suitable remedy is violating her rights to a fair hearing in terms of Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta.

IV. Declare and decide that the use and occupation of the property of the applicant by the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio, or the failure on the part of the respondents to pay the applicant adequate compensation forthe loss suffered and they still have to suffer due to the use and occupation of the same respondents of the property of the applicant they are violating the right of the applicant from deprivation of property without compensation in terms of Article 37(1) (a) of the Constitution of Malta.

V. Declare and decide that the default on the part of the Honourable Prime Minister and Honourable Minister of Home Affairs and National Security to come forward to an agreement in order to regulate the adequate compensation due to the applicant for every future year that the same apartment property of the applicant is occupied by the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio, is violating her right to protection from deprivation of property.

Uphold the demands number VI, VII and VIII in the same application, including the eviction of the respondents Amanda and Marie Chantal Alosio, from the apartment in question and the liquidation of the damages suffered by the applicant.

With costs as demanded.

Applicant: 19/4, Sir Adrian Dingli Street, Sliema.

Respondents: 1. ...........omissis...........

2. ...........omissis...........

3. Marie Chantal and Amanda Aloisio (two services) Flat 3, Block A, St Julian’s Court, Triq Manwel Dimech, St Julians.

4. ...........omissis...........

The Constitutional Application in the names Balzan Angela, sive Gina vs the Honourable Prime Minister et, application number 16/2015 MCH, has been deferred for hearing to the 28th May, 2015 at 8.30a.m.

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals