Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,479 of 29 September 2015
01/01/2015
Notice 1519
1519By means of adecree given by the Constitutional Court, on the 20th March 2015, by theConstitutional Court, in the records of the Application Number 68/14, in thenames Francis Portelli vs the Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies et,the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of therespondent Anthony Cassar, in terms of Article 187(3) et. seq.of Cap 12.
Bymeans of an Application, filed, in the Constitutional Court, application Number68/14, Francis Portelli (ID 986249M) Anthony Cassar (ID 45750M) against theHonourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, the Chairperson of the PermanentPublic Accounts Committee, in their capacity premised and in representation ofthe same Chamber of Deputies and Committee respectively, on the 4th February2015, the applicant the Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies Dr AngeloFarrugia, the Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, the Honourable Dr JasonAzzopardi, all in their capacity premised and in representation of the sameChamber of Deputies and the same Committee respectively respectfully pleaded;
The Court saw theapplication presented on the 22nd September 2014;
That on the 21stFebruary 2013, the interpellants were arraigned before the Court of Magistrates(Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry, charged with the crimes contemplated inarticles 115, 124 and 125 of Cap 9 of the Laws of Malta, as well as the crimescontemplated in article 3(1) of Cap 373 of the Laws of Malta.
That on the sameday the interpellants were freed from arrest under various conditions amongstwhich that they do not commit another crime of a voluntary nature.
That the saidinquiry is still pending till this day because the prosecution is still at thestage of the gathering of evidence.
That by means ofthis letter of the Permanent Committee for Public Accounts dated 25th February2014, the interpellant Anthony Cassar was asked to give his evidence on the 12March 2014, regarding the report of the Auditor General, entitled ‘An Analysisof the Effectivness of Enemalta’s Corporation Fuel Procurement’ dated July2013. The interpellant was also asked to bring with him documents he hasavailable which are related to the case (a copy of the letter is being annexedand marked DOC PC4).
That together withthis letter a copy of the ‘Guide for Witnessess appearing before the PublicAccounts Committee of the House of Representatives’(copy of the Guide annexedand marked Doc PC5) was sent.
....omissis....
That by means of aletter of the 7th March 2014, the interpellant through the undersigned lawyerinformed the Chairperson of the Committee that he was going to invoke his rightto remain silent and referred to the constitutional procedures pending on asimilar point by Frank Sammut (see attached letter DOC PC).
That during thesitting of the 12 th March 2014, after the undersigned lawyer elaborated on thereasons for the invocation of the right of silence of the interpellant, theCommittee brought to his notice a Ruling of the Honourable Speaker of theChamber of Deputies, of the 3rd February 2014, regarding a similar plea raisedby Tancred Tabone (a copy of the ruling is annexed and marked Doc PC 7) theinterpellant was informed that the said Ruling had to be respectedindependently from procedures of a constitutional nature which could have beeninstituted by third persons.
That by means of aletter of the Permanent Public Accounts Committee, dated 19th May 2014, theinterpellant Francis Portelli, was asked to give his evidence on the 3rd June2014, regarding the same report of the Auditor General, entitled ‘An Analysisof the effectiveness of Enemalta Corporations’s Fuel Procurement’ dated July2013.
The interpellantwas also asked to bring with him any documents he has available.
That by means of aletter of the 23rd May 2014, the interpellant Francis Portelli, through hislawyer the undersigned informed the Chairperson of the Commiteee that hisposition was similar to that of the interpellant Cassar in the sense that hewas going to invoke his right to remain silent and that such right had to besafeguared by the Court of Constitutional Jurisdiction.
That by means of aletter dated 5th June 2014, the interpellants through their lawyer of trustasked the Permanent Public Accounts Committe to clarify whether the Rulingmarked Doc PC 7 in so far as given in regard to a third person was applicableeven to them.
That theundersigned lawyer attended the sitting of the 1st July 2014, whereby the pointraised in the letter of the 5th June 2014, was discussed.
In fact at the endof that meeting it was decided that the Ruling marked Doc PC 7 had to applymutatis mutandis to the interpellants Francis Portelli and Anthony Cassar.
1. Violation of theright to a fair hearing sanctioned by Article 6 of the European Convention aswell as Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta.
That according tothe Ruling of the Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies of the 3rdFebruary 2014, a witness is to appear before the Permanent Public AccountsCommittee, is to answer the questions made to him by every member of thisCommitteee and in case of a question which may incriminate him he should beasked to be exempted from answering that question and in case there is anobjection by a member in the sense if the question is answered the witnessshall not incriminate himself, the Committee should ask for a directive fromthe Chair to give its direction whether the question should be answered or not.
That whilst in thisRuling ample reference was made to the Book Parliamentary Practice of ErskineMay, it results from the same Ruling that as regards the witnesses which appearbefore the Public Account Committee, there should be applied the ‘Guide for Witnessesappearing before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representative,Parliament of Malta’.
According to theintroduction of these guiding principles, which introduction was also citedverbatim in the Ruling
‘the underlyingprinciple must be that all protection afforded to witnesses under the CriminalCode Cap. 9, the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure Cap. 12 and the CivilCode Cap. 16, including protection from incrimination shall be applicable towitnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee’.
That it is statedwith the utmost respect that the conclusions reached in the Ruling address onthe basis of that stated by the law, the position of a witness who is not goingthrough criminal proceedings and not that of a witness who is going throughcriminal procedures like the interpellants Francis Portelli and Anthony Cassar.
....omissis....
That Harris,O’Boyle & Warbrick, in their book Law of the European Convention on HumanRights (Second Edition) state thus;
‘The right to afair hearing includes freedom from self-incrimination in criminal cases ... Asthe Court stated in Saunders v UK’ the right to silence and the right not toincriminate oneself are generally recognised international standards which lieat the heart of the notion of a fair procedure under Article 6’.
That at the stageof exchange of correspondence which eventually led to the Ruling of the 3rdFebruary 2014, reference had effectively been made to the judgement of theStrasbourg Court, in the names ‘Saunders v UK’. Infact in that Ruling it wasdecided that’ A Public Accounts Committee cannot be considered as a tribunalwhich is subject to what one expects from every judicial proceeding asindicated in the interpretation of Article 6.
....omissis....
That it is thusbeing submitted that both the ‘Guide for Witnessess appearing before the PublicAccounts Committee of the House of Representatives’ as well as the Ruling ofthe Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, of the 3rd February 2014,violate their right to a fair hearing as sanctioned by Article 6 of theEuropean Convention as well as Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta.
2.Violation oftheir right of personal liberty sanctioned by Article 5 of the EuropeanConvention, as well as Article 34 of the Constitution of Malta.
That Regulation 4of ‘Guide for Witnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee of theHouse of Representatives ‘ stipulates so;
‘A person who having been duly served with acopy of the warrant as prescribed in article 3 above fails without lawfulexcuse to appear before the Committee refuses to be sworn in or to answerquestions shall be guilty of contempt of the House and shall be liable to thepenalties prescribed in Article 11 of the House of Representatives (Powers andPrivileges Ordinance) (Cap. 113).
That one of thepenalties contemplated in Subarticle (5) of Article 11 of the Privileges andPowers of the Chamber of Deputies (Cap. 113 of the Laws of Malta) for lack ofrespect (contempt) is that of imprisonment for a period of not more than sixmonths’.
That theinterpellant in view of the criminal procedures against them are availingthemselves of the right to silence as stated above sanctioned by thejurisprudence in Strasbourg. Thus the interpellants can potentially in theeventually they insist to protect their right to a fair hearing, be punished bya penalty of effective imprisonment.
That apart fromthis on the 21 February 2013, the interpellants were given freedom from arrestby the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court Criminal Inquiry under variousconditions amongst which that indicated with number 4 that they do not commitanother crime of a voluntary nature whilst they are freed from arrest.
That thus theinterpellants are not only potentially exposed to a penalty of imprisonment dueto that provided in subarticle 5 of Article 11 of the informal copy of thejudgement page 8 out of 25, Courts of Justice Ordinance, mentioned, but theyare outrightly exposed to loose their freedom from being arrested due to aviolation of the condition indicated.
That it is thusbeing submitted that both the ‘Guide for Witnesses appearing before the PublicAccounts Committee of the House of Representatives’ as well as the Ruling ofthe Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, of the 3rd February 2014,violate their right of personal liberty sanctioned by Article 5 of the EuropeanConvention, as well as Article 34 of the Constitution of Malta.
Thus theinterpellants for the reasons premised pray that this Honourable Court so that;
1. It declares thatthe ‘Guide for Witnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee of theHouse of Representatives’ violates their right to a fair hearing as sanctionedby Article 6 of the European Convention, by Article 39 of the Constitution ofMalta in so far as it binds them to reply to the questions from members of thePublic Accounts Committee which can violate their right to a fair hearing.
2. Declare that theRuling of the Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, of the 3rdFebruary 2014, rendered applicable to the interpellants by means of a decisiontaken during the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee of the 1st July 2014violates their right to a fair hearing as sanctioned by Article 6 of theEuropean Convention and by Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta.
3.Declare that the‘Guide for Witnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee of theHouse of Representatives’ violates their right to personal liberty sanctionedby article 5 of the European Convention and Article 34 of the Constitution ofMalta.
4. Declare that theRuling of the Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies, of the 3rdFebruary 2014, rendered applicable to the interpellants by means of decisiontaken in the Public Accounts Committee, of the 1st July 2014, violates theirright to personal liberty sanctioned by Article 5 of European Convention, aswell as Article 34 of the Constitution of Malta in so far as they arepotentially exposed to the loss of their personal liberty in the eventualitythat they insist to protect their right to a fair hearing.
5. Give all thedirectives in order that there be sanctioned the fundamental and Constitutionalrights of the interpellants as protected by the Constitution and theConvention.
With costs againstthe respondents summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Saw the documentswhich the applicants presented with the original application.
Saw the reply thatthe respondents together presented on the 10th October 2014.
1. That in thefirst place the service of the application is null as it is against a provisionof public order contained in Article 65(3) of the Constitution.
2. That in thesecond place the decisions of the Speaker cannot be reviewed by the Court andnor the general guidelines made by him can be reviewed.
3. That furthermorethe Honourable Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and The HonourableChairperson of the Permanent Public Accounts Committee in so far as they aresummoned in representation of the Chamber of Deputies do not have thatrepresentation and are wrongly summoned because the Chamber of Deputies doesnot enjoy a locus standi in Court.
4. That thus theprocedure is evidently defective and not complete because the right defendantin the proceedings is missing as the respondents are certainly not the rightsdefendants in these proceedings.
5. That the Chamberof Deputies and its committees are in no way by their actions violating anyfundamental right of the applicant it is neither contemplated or is there anyfear that the fundamental rights of the applicant be violated.
6. That as regardsthe facts listed in the application the interpellants point out that there isno contestation about the facts listed in paragraphs one to eleven in theapplication.
7. That as regardsthe facts listed in the paragraphs under point number one and under the heading‘Violation of their right to a fair hearing sanctioned by Article 6 of theEuropean Convention as well as Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta’, the interpellantspoint out the following;
a) In the Firstplace it is made clear that the criminal procedures held before the Court ofMagistrates, are distinct and separate proceedings from that being held in theCommitttee.
....omissis....
b) The interpellantsare in no way denying the application and the importance of the so called rightto silence intended to protect the individual from incriminating himself.
....omissis....
c) It is thuscrucial for the present procedures that one keeps in mind the fact that thenature of procedures before the Committee can in no way be considered ascriminal procedures ....omissis.... that theprocedures before the Permanent Public Accounts Committee are not only not of acriminal nature but nor of a judicial nature.
....omissis....
d)In fact it isstated that those criminal procedures do not interest the Speaker and theprocedure before the Committee is not related with those criminal proceduresand is in no way intended in order the gathering of evidence to be used incriminal proceedings but it is something completely independent from them.
e) ....omissis....
f) In any case itappears that the arguments of the applicants are all arguments of conveniencecertainly the Speaker can see that the fundamental right of the witness is notviolated in so far as concerns the decisions he takes.
8. That as regardsthe facts listed in the paragraphs under point number two and the heading‘Violation of their Right of personal liberty sanctioned by article 5 of theEuropean Convention as well as Article 34 of the Constitution of Malta’ theinterpellants point out the following;
a) The allegationthat Rule 4 of the Guide for witnesses appearing before the Public AccountsCommittee of the House of Representatives, in any way violates the right ofpersonal liberty of the applicant is being contested in its entirety.
b)The applicants intheir application are alleging that the fact that one of the penalties for‘lack of rescpect (contempt)’ provided under the Ordinance regarding the Privilegesand Powers of the Chamber of Deputies or rather the penalty emerging fromsubarticle 5 of article 11 which provides the possibility of effectiveimprisonment violates the right of personal liberty of the applicants.
....omissis....
c)In the firstplace it is observed that this situation that results in this case is analogousto a situation were a person who has been freed from arrest under specificconditions legally listed by Our Courts is during that period freed from arrestsummoned to give its testimony before the Court. One can certainly not concludethat the fact that the Court orders the arrest of the witness who despite thathe is summoned to appear before it fails to do this, it does not consist in aviolation of the personal liberty of the individual.
d) In any case thepotentiality of a penalty of imprisonment under the Ordinance above referred toresults only in the case that the witness fails to appear before the Committee.
....omissis....
e) The powers bywhich the Chamber is empowered by means of the Privileges and Powers Ordinanceof the Chamber of Deputies which are certainly applicable to the Committee areessential for the functioning of democracy, the holding of public order, insuch a manner that the Chamber can carry out its functions.
Thus theapplicant’s demands are unfounded in fact and at law and are in any casepremature and only the result of speculation and are are to be rejected intheir entirety, with costs against the same applicants.
That in virtue of ajudgement in parte the Honourable First Court Constitutional Jurisdiction,decided on the 15th January 2015, by rejecting the first and second plea of therespondents, costs for the respondent and ordered the continuation of thecause.
That the appellantsfelt aggrieved by this judgement of this Honourable Court and are thus filingthis humble appeal before this Honourable Court.
....omissis....
That the grievanceis clear and manifest and consists in the following;
1. The HonourableCirst Court isolated the provisions of the Constitution in such a manner thatthen it did not interpret them wholly and as related to each other. The disputein this cause is simply whether the Court has the right to review a directiveof the Speaker in the regulation of the procedure of the Chamber. Instead oflimiting itself to this aspect, the Honourable Court of First Instance, enteredinto a dispute which was not strictly relevant as regards the inquiry relatingto the jurisdiction of the Court regarding the action as propsed by theapplicants.
....omissis....
2. The interpellantis emphasising the lack of jurisdiction of the Court as regards the procedurefollowed by the Chamber because this is of an essential nature for the correctworking of democracy because it is essential that the Chamber is free to makethose inquiries in matters of public nature which it deems required andnecessary without being shackled ....omissis....the dispute which should be brought to be resolved by this Honourable Court, iswhether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction, to review the procedure of theChamber and the r-‘rulings’ of the Speaker in so far as they are intended toregulate that procedure.
3. That stated bythe Honourable First Court, regarding the third demand of the applicant is syntomtaticin the sense that;
‘Itis the considered opinion of this Court that there cannot be brought forwardthe argument that because the third demand was made than the Court does nothave jurisdiction to examine the first and second demands. The allegedviolation of the Constitution and the Convention is one thing, and the remedyanother. The value or lack of it of the third demand has be to considered atthe stage if it be the case when the Court is considering both the merit of thealleged violation and the remedy demanded. However the Court is not sharing theopinion of the respondents, that by the propsing of the third demand, theapplicant excluded the jurisdiction of this Court to consider the first andsecond demands. Moreover it emerges clearly from Article 46(1) of theConstitution and Art 4(1) of Cap 319 that if the Court finds a violation of theprovisions which protect the rights and fundamental freedoms of the individualit has a discretion in the quality of the remedy it gives to the individual.
.......omissis....
4. With all respectthis shows how correct and founded was the submission of the respondents asregards the lack of jurisdiction of this Court. It is the case that when aCourt gives a remedy for the violation of fundamental freedoms it gives thoseremedies it deems fit and not necessarily those demanded. But in the presentcase this is the remedy demaded and namely a declaration of nullity of theguidelines of the Speaker intended only to regulate the going on of theprocedure in the Chamber and nothing more ...omissis... with all respect inthis matter the Court, has no jurisdiction because the dispute is assigned bythe Constitution to the Speaker and the Chamber and with no other person.From aruling of the Speaker an appeal can only be made to the Chamber in accordancewith the procedures contemplated in the regulations of the same Chamber and noother authority.
5. Naturally it isin no way being submitted that the right to a fair hearing of the respondentcan be violated and should not be safeguarded ....omissis.... The investigation undertaken by the Chamber haspurposes of a public nature within the workings of democracy so that theChamber can freely investigate and discuss what is of public interest.
6. Furthermore itis strange that one asserts the possibility of a violation of fundamentalfreedoms when no question has been made to the persons in question and when thesame guide lines give the right to who is being asked to reply to chose not toanswer if the reply can incriminate him.
....omissis....
7. What therespondents are limiting themselves to say and plead is that this HonourableCourt, does not have jurisdiction regarding this action as proposed by theapplicants. In no way are the respondents expecting that this Court does nothave jurisdiction in the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of theapplicants, something which is not being asserted. What the respondents arewith respect asserting is that this Honourable Court, does not havejurisdiction on the action as proposed and as trying to review and control adecision of the Speaker regarding the Chamber procedure.
....omissis....
8. It is alsosyntomatic what it being pretended by the present procedures not in so muchthat a person does not reply to the questions which may incriminate him, butthat a person does not testify at all in these procedures. There exists noright whereby one is absolutely not asked to testify because a prosecution isin course against him although it is admitted that he can choose not to answerto questions which may incrimnate him.
....omissis....
9.If one reads the provisions of the law and even the authority on this point onecannot with the greatest respect to the Honourable First Court decline fromjurisdiction regarding the action as proposed. The Chamber has the primary andexclusive right itself to regulate its procedure without interference, whateveris stated in the Chamber cannot be subject to judicial action and in the samemanner and multo magis it becomes a ruling of the Speaker who is President ofthe Chamber and the Speaker cannot be notified and should not be notified byjudicial acts ....omissis.... the respondents are not stating that this HonourableCourt, does not have jurisdiction to see that the fundamental rights of theindividual are safeguarded what is being stated is simply that the Court cannotreview the workings of the Chamber and rulings of the Speaker.
....omissis....
10.It is alsoimportant that it is pointed out that the Committee is not A Court or Tribunalbut only a Parliamentary Committee whose functions is neither judicial or quasijudicial.
....omissis....
11. Thus it issubmitted with the greatest respect to the Honourable First Court, that itsjudgement above mentioned was erroneous and that this Honourable Court does nothave jurisdiction on these procedures in the light of how the same wereproposed by the applicants and in any case this Honourable Court should havedeclined any jurisdiction in view that the applicants have there position wellsafeguarded by law and by the same Constitution in the ambit of the criminalprocedures taken against them.
12. Thus theappellants whilst referring to all the proof already produced and reserve tobring all the proof permitted by law including the reference to the evidence ofthe applicants, pray with respect that this Honourable Court, revoke itsdecision of the 15th January 2015, in the cause in the names premised and thusuphold the pleas raised by them and which were rejected in virtue of that judgementwith costs, of both instances against the respondent applicants.
Appellants: Chamberof Deputies, The Palace, Valletta.
Respondents 1. ....omissis....
2. Anthony Cassar,142, Ville Marandelle, Triq Xintill, Ħal Tarxien.
ADV. FRANKPORTELLI, LLD.
For the Reġistrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1520
1520By a decree givenon the 3rd July, 2014 by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that theextract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service accordingto Article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Bydecree given by the CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on the 10th July 2015, on theapplication of HSBC BANK MALTA PLC, Thursday 1st October 2015 at half past tenin the morning (10.30 a.m.), has been fixed for the SALE BY AUCTION, to be heldon THE FIRST FLOOR, COURTS OF JUSTICE, REPUBLIC STREET, VALLETTA of thefollowing property.
1. Apartmentinternally marked number three (3), on the second floor/third storey above roadlevel including its overlying air space forming part of Block of Apartmentsnamed ‘Anvil Apartments’, numbered four (4), in Triq il-Minfaħ, Naxxar, freeand unencumbered together with its share of the common parts of the externalstaircase leading to the block, the door, the entrance, the entrance hall, thestairs and the stair well from basement level up to the roof, lift and liftshaft and water and drainage system which property is valued one hundred andninety thousand Euros (€190, 000).
2. Six Garages inthe basement under the block of apartments named ‘Anvil Apartments’, numberedfour (4), in Triq il-Minfaħ, Naxxar internally marked;
Garage number two(2) of approx 73.47 meters squared valued forty five thousand Euros (€ 45, 000)
Garage number three(3) of approx 13.71 meters squared valued twenty three thousand Euros (€ 23,000)
Garage number four(4) of approx 13.80 meters squared valued twenty three thousand Euros (€ 23,000)
Garage number five(5), of approx 11.78 meters squared valued twenty thousand Euros (€ 20, 000)
Garage number six(6) of approx 15.74 meters squared valued twenty five thousand Euros (€ 25,000)
Garage number seven(7) of approx 44.43 meters squared valued forty thousand Euros (€ 40, 000)
Included in thissale is the undivided share of 1/7 for each garage being sold of the rampcommon to all garages together with the undivided share of the car lift, itsshaft and of the access to the carlift from the said ramp, of the front gardenleading to the door of the basement garages, and the undivided share of thestairs leading to the basement garages. The access to the carlift is from aramp common with others from the front garden infront of the basement garages’door.
With every garageunderlaying the Block of Apartments known as, 4, ‘Anvil Apartments’ in Triqil-Minfaħ, Naxxar is included an undivided share of one from seven (1/7) of thecommon parts in the basement that provide access from the carlift to everygarage.
The said tenementis the property of XUEREB ALBERT and ROSARIA.
N.B. The saidtenement will be sold as described in the Judicial Sale 77/2013.
RUDOLPH MARMARÀ
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1521
1521By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of 11th June 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Charles MicallefSwimming Pools Limited (C 5290) of 11, Naxxar Road, Lija, filed a Claim on the6th February 2015 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Alfred Zarifa ofSpring Glory, Harrison Smith Street, San Pawl tat-Tarġa, Naxxar, to pay theplaintiff company the sum of €1,784.80 which amount is due to the plaintiffcompany.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (ClaimNumber 116/15YMS) is deferred on the 8th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1522
1522By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of 10th June 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Bank of Vallettaplc (C2833) of 1/5, Misraħ San Ġorġ, Valletta, VLT 1190 filed a Claim on the4th May 2015 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Kenneth Xuereb (ID14176M) of 46, Triq il-Kanun, Santa Venera, to pay the plaintiff company thesum of €1,850.34 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andinterests.
The case (ClaimNumber 341/15YMS) is deferred on the 16th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1523
1523By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of 11th May 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
MobisleCommunications Limited (C24655) of Triq Fra Diego, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed aClaim on the 16th April 2015 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn DakoErion (ID 70245A) of Watergate, Flat 9, Triq Victor Denaro, Msida, to pay theplaintiff company the sum of €3,231.25 which amount is due to the plaintiffcompany.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (ClaimNumber 290/15KPS) is deferred on the 6th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1524
1524Bann for Curators.
Republic of Malta.
To the CourtMarshall
By means of adecree given by this Court, on the 29th July 2015, following a request ofGeorge Cilia et, it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent theinterests of the co-owner Joseph Mizzi, or his heirs in the records of thesworn application number 719/2015 MCH, in the names George Cilia et vs deputycurators and in the relative and subsequent acts.
By means of anApplication, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, by George Cilia (ID344442(M) Stella Grima (ID 369044M) Franġiska Spiteri (ID 932447M) AnthonyCilia (ID 977748M) Joseph Cilia (ID 318951M) Carmel Cilia (ID 446654M) andDolores Grima (ID 718861M) siblings Cilia who are the children of the deceasedGiuseppe Cilia and Maria Dolores née Mizzi, which was filed on the 27th July2015, the applicants premised;
1. That theapplicants together with this application are filing a sworn application interms of Article 495A of Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta, which relates to thesale of property in common whereby one or more of the owners have not giventheir consent to the sale;
2. That whilst theycan confirm that Joseph Mizzi is the co-owner of three out of thirty (3/32)undivided parts of the property which is situated at the address 11, Triqiż-Żejtun, Ħal Għaxaq, in the limits of Bir id-Deheb, they have no contact withhim, they do not know where he resides, that it is necssary that deputycurators be appointed to represent the interests of the co-owner Joseph Mizzior his unknown heirs of the property hereunder described and thus theapplicants are asking this Honourable Court to appoint deputy curators torepresent the interests of the co-owner Joseph Mizzi under those conditionsthat this Honourable Court deems fit.
In virtue ofanother Sworn Application, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, applicationnumber 719/15 MCH, above mentioned, on the same date of the 27th July 2015,sworn application in terms of Artiocle 495A of Cap. 16, of the Laws of Malta,by the same applicants above mentioned George Cilia et vs Deputy Curators torepresent the co-owner Joseph Mizzi or his unknown heirs of the property withoffiicial number eleven (11) Triq iż-Żejtun, Ħal Għaxaq, in the limits ofBir-id-Deheb, the applicants George Cilia et above mentioned respectfullypleaded;
1. That thisapplication is being made in terms of article 495A of Cap. 16 of the Laws ofMalta that relates to the sale of common property where one or some of theowners do not consent to the sale;
2.That the propertyin question is situated at the address, 11, Triq iż-Żejtun, Ħal Għaxaq, in thelimits of Bir id-Deheb.
3. That thisproperty has been held in common since the 12th November 1960.
4. ......omissis......
5. ......omissis......
6. That thus the applicants between them havethe share of (29/32) undivided part of this property and wish to pass to itssale according to the preliminary agreement for the price for the entireproperty of two hundred fifty thousand (€250,000) to Raymond Carabott and hiswife Marlene Carabott (preliminary agreement attached).
7. ......omissis......
8. That the valueof the share of Joseph Mizzi is of (3/32) undivided is of (€23, 437.50c).
......omissis......
11. That as sincehe emigrated to Australia, Joseph Mizzi never made any contact with his familyand the probability is that today he is dead it is not possible for theapplicants to establish who are the other co-owners who have (3/32) undividedpart of this property.
Thus in view of thepremised the applicants humbly pray that this Honourable Court;
1. Authorise thesale of the property herein mentioned which is situated at the address of 11,Triq iż-Żejtun, Ħal Għaxaq, in the limits of Bir id-Deheb.
2. Establish thetime, day and place where and when the publication of the relative transfershall be made and appoint deputy curators for the unknown co-owners and NotaryPublic Dr Ritienne Bugeja Fenech, to publish the deed.
With costs againstthe respondents summoned so that a reference to their evidence be made.
Applicant: 1.George Cilia, Flat 3, Triq il-Ġnien, Blokk H, Santa Lucija.
......omissis......
Respondent: JosephMizzi.
You are thereforeordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this SuperiorCourt and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before thisRegistry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration thathe wishes so to act.
You are alsoordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within thestipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.
And after so actingor if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, youare to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by the CivilCourt First Hall, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr JusticeGiannino Caruana Demajo, Doctor of Laws.
ADV. FRANKPORTELLI, LLD
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1525
1525By decree given bythe CIVIL COURT, FIRST HALL on 25th August, 2015, on the application of BANK OFVALLETTA PLC, Tuesday, 13th October, 2015 at noon (12.00 p.m.), has been fixedfor the SALE BY AUCTION, to be held in the FIRST FLOOR OF THESE COURTS OFJUSTICE, REPUBLIC STREET, IL-BELT VALLETTA of the following property.
Thetenement official numbered eighty four (84) known as numbered sixty three (63),in Triq Santa Marija, Gudja, including the relative airspace of the saidproperty, subject to the active and passive servitudes resulting from itsrelative position the rest is free and unencumbered with all its rights andappurtenances also subject to annual ground rent of one Maltese Lira (Lm1.00)equivalent to two euro and thirty three Euro cents (€2.33) valued at eightyfive thousand euro (€85, 000).
The said propertybelongs to Fabian Catania (I.D.544275M) and Mariella Catania (I.D. 506976M).
The said tenementwill be sold as described in the Judicial Sale 33/14.
MARVIC FARRUGIA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1526
1526By a decree of the5th May, 2015 given by the Court of the Magistrates, the Court ordered that theextract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service accordingto article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
That by theapplication filed by Falcon Wines and Spirits Limited on the 27 th May, 2014 isasking for the withdrawal of the amount of €1,664.06 deposited by the Scheduleof Deposit number 1685/13 in the names of:
Falcon Wines andSpirits Limited (C3774) vs Roberto Loporto et (ID 501173M)
The Court orderedthe notification of this application with one week to file a reply.
MARVIC FARRUGIA
For Registrar ofCourts and Civil Tribunals
Notice 1527
1527By means of adecree on the 25th September 2014, in the records of the judicial letter number1823/12, in the names Pater Finance Co Ltd vs Jacobs Import Limited, the Courtsof Magistrates (Malta) ordered the following publication for the purpose ofservice of the respondent company in terms of Article 187(5) of Cap. 12.
By means of ajudicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) against JacobsImport Limited (C 33565) of 13B, Sqaq tal-Ħlas, Żebbuġ, on the 18th July 2012,Pater Finance Co Ltd (C 22643) of UCIMCO Building, B’Kara Road, , Birkirkara,whilst reference is made to six bills of exchange, one (1) in the amountof€192.20, four (4) in the amount of €270.20 and one (1) in the amount of €310.04relative to the account number 040403097, duly accepted by you and lapsed fromthe 1st December 2008 till the 1st May 2009 and not paid, copies of the saidbills of exchange are here attached (animo ritirandi);
The interpellantcompany calls upon you so that within two days you pay the amount of €2,019.06as for the sum of €1,583.06 due as for the bills of exchange above mentionedand as for the sum of €436 due as interest from the day of maturity of eachbill of exchange calculated till the 17th July 2012, and also further interesttill the date of effective payment.
In default, theinterpellant company will proceed furtherly against you according to law,without further notice, including the issuing of the opportune warrants againstyou;
This letter isbeing made for all the purposes and effects of Law and particularly to renderthe said bills of exchange executable according to law in terms of Article256(2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta.
You are also beinginformed, as requested by Article 253(e) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, thatyou can by means of an application that has to be done within twenty (20) daysfrom the day of notification of this judicial letter, you plea the competentCourt to suspend the execution of the bill of exchange or bills of exchangeabove mentioned all or part of them and this if you oppose the execution ofthese bill of exchange or bills of exchange because the signature on them isnot your or of your mandatory or if you have grave and valid reasons to opposethis execution.
With costs andfurther interest.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1528
1528By a decree of theCourts of Magistrates (Malta), of 15th September 2015, the publication of thefollowing banns which appear hereunder was ordered for the purpose of servicein terms of Article 903 et seq of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure(Cap 12).
Banns for Curators
Republic of Malta
To the CourtMarshall
By a decree givenby the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) it was ordered that on an application ofMaria Assunta Farrugia for the selection of Deputy Curators to represent thevacant inheritence of the late Charles Felice Debono in the schedule of depositnumber 1325/15 and in other relative and subsequent acts where he demanded:
That APS BankLimited (C 2192) was notified as garnishee with the garnishee order abovementioned and is proceeding to deposit money and/or other objects that it hasin its hands that belong to the defandant;
The Bank holds inits hands the sum of €6,229.56 belonging to the decujus Charles Felice Debono,to satisfy the amount due;
The Bank declaresthat this deposit is being made pursuant the Garnishee Order issued by theFirst Hall of the Civil Courts on the 30th March 1998 number 938/1998 in thenames Maria Felice vs Dr Robert Mangion and PL Paul Saliba as deputy curatorsto represent the vacant inheritence of the late Carmel Debono known as FeliceDebono.
Thus the applicantBank is calling upon this Honorable Court and under its Authority it isdepositing the amount €6,083.36 which together with €146.19 respresenting thecosts of this procedure, amount to €6,229.55 so that it will be freely releasedin favour of those who have the right to them according to Law.
That the applicantMaria Assunta Farrugia filed an application where she demanded the release ofthe sum on €6, 083.36 deposited by means of a schedule of deposit abovementioned.
Applicant: CamerataBldgs, l/7, Merchants Street, Valletta.
Youare therefore ordered to post a copy of these banns in the entrance of thecourt and call upon whoever wishes to act as curator to appear within four daysin this registry and files a note with a declaration that he is prepared to actas such.
You are also orderedto inform every one that if there is no such declaration within the stipulatedtime, this court will proceed to the selection of curators of office.
After so acting, orif you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of the said banns, youare to inform forthwith this Court.
Given by theaforementioned Courts of Magistrates (Malta) with the witness of Dr MonicaVella LLD, Doctor of Laws, Magistrate of the above mentioned Court.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Ċivili Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1529
1529By means of anapplication filed in Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 30thJune 2015, Application number 684/2015 by Anthony Magri, Carmen Magri, daughterof Carmelo and the late Luigia Magri née Aquilina residing at Casa Magri, 20,Triq Annunziato Schembri, Sigġiewi holding identity card number 483869(M) wasinterdicted by means of a decree given on the 15th September 2015.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the RegistrarCivil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1530
1530By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of the 17th March 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Go plc (C22334) ofFra Diego Street, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 30th January 2015whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Adolph Busuttil (ID 339973M) ofŻonqor View, Flat 8, Triq Għar ix-Xama’, Marsaskala, to pay the plaintiffcompany the sum of €644.20 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (ClaimNumber 100/15KPS) is deferred on the 6th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1531
1531By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of the 11th May 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Go plc (C22334) ofFra Diego Street, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 16th April 2015 wherebythey asked the Tribunal to condemn Vincent Attard (ID 517657M) of AshgillCourt, Flat 1, Triq Ċensu Busuttil, Fgura, to pay the plaintiff company the sumof €295.40 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (ClaimNumber 315/15KPS) is deferred on the 6th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1532
1532By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of the 11th May 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Go plc (C22334) ofFra Diego Street, Marsa, MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 16th April 2015 wherebythey asked the Tribunal to condemn Svetlana Ivanovna Attard (ID 428708L) ofOcean Heights, Flat 9A, Triq Piscopo Macedonia, San Pawl il-Baħar, to pay theplaintiff company the sum of €348.73 which amount is due to the plaintiffcompany.
With costs and legalinterests.
The case (ClaimNumber 280/15KPS) is deferred on the 6th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1533
1533By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of 7th April 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Gordon Micallef (ID371690M) for and on behalf of Gordon’s Moto Auto Dealer of Valley Road,Birkirkara, filed a Claim on the 27th February 2015 whereby they asked theTribunal to condemn David Azzopardi (ID 384062M) of 60, Mariella, Wied ĦalBalzan, Buontempo Estate, Ħal Balzan, to pay the plaintiff nomine the sum of€1,510.21 which amount is due to the plaintiff nomine.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (ClaimNumber 156/15YMS) is deferred on the 6th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1534
1534By a decree of theSmall Claims Tribunal of 10th June 2015, the publication of the followingextract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) ofthe Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Complex Co Ltd (C61722) as administrator of the condominium Blue Waters, Triq l-Etna, Mellieħaof 11, St Francis, Triq ta’ Gawdieri, San Ġwann, filed a Claim on the 11th May2015 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Aaron Galea of Flat 3, Blue Waters,Triq l-Etna, Mellieħa, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €685 whichamount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs andlegal interests.
The case (ClaimNumber 351/15YMS) is deferred on the 6th October 2015 at 12.30 p.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1535
1535By a decree of theCourt of Magistrates (Malta) of the 3rd September 2015, the publication of thefollowing extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article187(3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap 12).
Argus InsuranceAgencies Limited (C-597) for and on behalf of the foreign company ArgusInsurance Company (Europe) Limited and this as subrogated in the rights of itsinsured Victor Galea in terms of a comprehensive insurance policy and this interms of Law and the same Victor Galea (ID 660637M) of La Concorde, Triq AbateRigord, Ta’ Xbiex, filed a Claim on the 19th June 2015, whereby they asked theCourt to condemn Kevin Micallef of 48, Winston, Triq il-Fliegu, San Pawlil-Baħar, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €8,393.31 which amount is dueto the plaintiff company.
With costs andinterests.
The case (NoticeNumber 183/15FDP) is deferred to the 15th October 2015 at 9.00 a.m.
ALEXANDRADEBATTISTA
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1536
1536By means of adecree given, on the 24th September 2015, by the Court of Appeal, in therecords of the Appeal, in the names Noel Falzon vs Dexter Bianco, Applicationnumber 969/11, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of serviceof the respondent Dexter Bianco, in terms of Article 187(3) et seq. of Cap 12.
By means of anApplication, filed, in the Court of Appeal, in the records of the Appeal969/11, in the names Noel Falzon vs Dexter Bianco, on the 30th March 2015, theapplicant Noel Falzon, respectfully pleaded;
1. That in thejudgement decided on the 14th January 2015 of the First Hall Civil Court, thejudgement appealed in these procedures, the applicant was given the expenses ofan armchair and reclinable bed which estimation had been presented before theCourt of First Instance.
2. That theapplicant had made the expenses for these objects following the judgement ofthis Honourable Court, on the 19th January 2015 and has the relative receipt;
Thus the applicanthumbly asks that this Honourable Court grant that he presents the receipt forpayment made by the applicant for the armchair and reclinable bed mentioned, inthe cause in the names above premised.
Service: Flat 7,Joanna Triq il-Kostituzzjoni, Mosta.
ADV. FRANKPORTELLI, LLD.
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1537
1537By means of adecree given, by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 4th September 2015, in threcords of the Sworn application in the names Malta International Airport plc(C 12663) vs Safety and Security Management Ltd (C 37504) application number640/15 MAH, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service ofthe respondent company, in terms of article 18793) et seq. of Cap 12.
By means of a Swornapplication, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names MaltaInternational Airport plc (C 12663) vs Safety and Security Management Ltd (C37504) on the 2nd July 2015, the applicant Malta International Airport plc,asked this Honourable Court;
1. To declare thatthere is a valid contract of sale between the parties in question and this interms of article 1347 of Cap 16 of the Laws of Malta, declare that thedefendant company failed to carry out its obligations to deliver the objectsold in terms of Article 1378 of Cap 16 and declare the contract dissolved interms of article 1385 of Cap 16 and uphold the other demands in theapplication.
With costs andinterest against the respondent summoned so that a ereference to its evidencebe made.
Service: Safety andSecurity Mangement Ltd, Pjazza 16 ta’ Settembru, Mosta MST 1180, Malta.
The Swornapplication in the names Malta International Airport plc (C 12663) vs Safetyand Security Management Ltd (C 37504) has been deferred for hearing to Friday2nd October 2015, at 9.00 a.m.
ADV. FRANKPORTELLI, LLD
For the Reġistrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1538
1538IT IS herebynotified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 257 of theCivil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 23rdSeptember, 2015, and this after a written plea numbered 111/2015, Ordered:
The correction ofthe Act of Marriage of Gordon Milsom and Dolores Vella, bearing number 1787 ofthe year 1965, wherever the surname “MILSON” appears, this must be cancelledand substituted with the correct surname “MILSOM”.
JANETCALLEJA
f/ Registrar, Courtof Revision of Notarial Acts
Notice 1539
1539IT IS herebynotified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 257 of theCivil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 23rdSeptember, 2015, and this after a written plea numbered 113/2015, Ordered:
The correction ofthe Act of Marriage of Saviour Attard and Rita Ellul, bearing number 521 of theyear 1990, under the columns entitled ‘Particulars respecting the Husband –Name and Surname’, the name “SALVATORE” is to be cancelled and substituted withthe name “SAVIOUR”.
JANETCALLEJA
f/ Registrar, Courtof Revision of Notarial Acts
Notice 1540
1540IT IS herebynotified that in virtue of the powers conferred on it by Section 257 of theCivil Code, the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, by a Decree dated the 23rdday of September, 2015, and this after a written plea Numbered 117/15, Ordered:
The correction ofthe Act of Death of Maria Catania, bearing number 1601 of the year 2015, in thecolumn entitled “Name and Surname of parents, and whether living or dead”, theword “(DEAD)” that appears under the name JOSEPH CATANIA is to be cancelled.
JANETCALLEJA
f/ Registrar, Courtof Revision of Notarial Acts
Notice 1541
1541IT IS herebynotified that by virtue of a decree delivered on the 10th July 2015, the SmallClaims Tribunal (Gozo) ordered the publication of the following notice for thepurposes of service in terms of section 187(3) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Maltain respect of defendant Portelli Gemmell Charles of Djar tal-Fjur, Sant’ AntninStreet, Għajnsielem, Gozo.
The plaintiffcompany Go pc (C22334) filed a claim in the Small Claims Tribunal (Gozo) – CaseNumber 34/2015 (KM) in the names of “Go plc vs Portelli Gemmell Charles” – onthe 7th of September 2015, wherein it requested the Tribunal to condemn thedefendant to pay it the amount of €671.09 with regard to services provided.With costs and interest.
The case isdiffered to the 27th of October 2015 at 11.00 a.m.
DANIELSACCO
f/Registrar
Notice 1542
1542By a Decree ofthe 14th September, 2015, given by the FirstHall Civil Court, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned bepublished for the purpose of Service according to Articles 187 (3) 338(1) ofthe Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12)
That by applicationand a Schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by HSBC Bank Malta plc on the9th September, 2015, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demandedfor the amount of €21,600 following judicial sale by auction 46/14 in the namesBank of Valletta plc. vs Josef Borg, held under the Authority of the said Courton the 3rd September 2015.
According toArticle 338 (2) of Cap. 12: Any person who may have an interest and the personsso served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating indetail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; andwhere such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale analleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and thebasis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevantevidence to substantiate their opposition.
RUDOLPH MARMARÀ
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1543
1543By means of adecree given, on the 5th June 2015, by the Civil Court First Hall, in therecords of the Sworn application, in the names Grech Christian vs CallejaFrancesco Saverio sive Frank et, application number 374/15 AE, the followingpublication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondents, in termsof Article 187(3) et seq of Cap 12.
By means of a Swornapplication, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Christian Grech(ID 0615281M) vs Francesco Saverio sive Frank Calleja u Ines Calleja (ID150227M) and 496132(M) Peter and Doris Agius (ID 131770M) and 209269(M)Charlotte Ciantar (ID 234578(M) Joseph Abela (ID 237455M) Martin Farrugia (ID500077M) on the 23rd April 2015, the applicant Christian Grech (ID 0615281(M)asked the respondents to state why this Honourable Court should not;
1. Declare that theapplicant has a valid title at law of the small yard with plank rooms overlyingit, which is situated in Triq Diċembru Tlettax, Marsa, which forms part of afarm known as ta’ Ħanni ż-Żgħir of the area of circa one tumolo and that theapplicant has the possession of the same land and has the right to remain inthe possession and use of the yard by title of lease in terms of the agreementof the 6th January 2009, as stated and uphold the other demands in theapplication.
With costs anddamages as demanded against the respondents or either of whom.
Applicant;Corradino Correctional Facility, Paola Hill, Paola.
Respondents;Francesco Calleja, Iċ-Ċens 6, Triq Indri Bezzina, Mosta.
Ines Calleja, Iċ-Ċens 6, Triq Indri Bezzina, Mosta.
Joseph Abela: 2, Raceourse Street, Marsa.
Peter Agius, 86, Triq il-Greċja, Naxxar.
Doris Agius, 86, Triq il-Greċja, Naxxar.
Martin Farrugia; 39/41 Triq Toni Pace, Mellieħa.
Charlotte Ciantar, 39/41, Triq Toni Pace, Mellieħa.
The SwornApplication in the names Grech Christian vs Calleja Francesco Saverio siveFrank et, application number 374/15 AE, has been deferred for hearing to the5th October 2015, at 9.00 a.m.
ADV. FRANKPORTELLI, LLD
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals.
Notice 1544
1544IT is herebynotified that in virtue of a decree given by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo) inits Voluntary Jurisdiction on the 24th September 2015 (Decree number111/2015JVC, following application number 50/2015JVC) VINCENZA THEUMA,spinster, daughter of Paul and Maria Antonia née Galea, born and residing inXagħra, Gozo (Identity Card number: 41046(G)) has been interdicted from allacts of civil life.
Paul Teuma, son ofFrancis Teuma and the late Mary née Bartolo, born in Sydney, Australia andresiding in Xagħra, Gozo (I.D. No. 232485(M), has been nominated as hercuratrix, by virtue of the said decree and together with Dr Joseph Grech, thatis any ordinary administration of her assets can be done by the same Paul Teumaalone but those of an extraordinary nature including money transactions abovethe sum of five hundred euro a month and any publication of notarial acts areto be administered by both curators together.
VoluntaryJurisdiction.
DORIANNECORDINA
Deputy Registrar
Notice 1545
1545By means of adecree given, by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 9th July 2015, in therecords of the Sworn application, in the names Zammit Maempel Adv. Dr Michaelnoe vs M.A.P.C. Malta AudioVisual Production Center Limited C42407, applicationnumber 432/14 SM, the following publication was ordered for the purpose ofservice of the respondents, in terms of Article 187(3) et seq. of Cap 12.
By means of a SwornApplication, filed, in the First Hall Civil Court, in the names Advocate DrMichael Zammit Maempel ID 51677M as special mandatary of the foreign companyAnteprima Video S.R.L. (VAT No 04474990159) vs M.A.P.C. Malta AudioVisualProduction Center Limited (C 42407) on the 11th May 2015, the applicant humblyasked this Honourable Court;
1. To declareexecutable and consequently order the execution of the judgement given on the11th May 2011, by the ‘Tribunale Di Milano’, Italia, in the names AnteprimaVideo S.r.L. vs M.A.P.C. Malta Audo Visual Production Center Limited andauthorise the execution of the judgement so that the applicant nomine candemand the payment of the amount of thirty thousand one hundred nineteen euroand thirty one cent (€30,119.31) together with the judicial expenses of onethousand three hundred thirty euro (€1,330.00) as deducted in the judgementwith interests from the 11th May 2012, till the effective payment.
With costs againstthe respondent summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made.
Notify: M.A.P.C.Malta Audio Visual Production Center, ‘Anatruf’, Triq Tal-Ħriereb, Msida.
The SwornApplication in the names Zammit Maemel Adv Dr Michael noe vs M.A.P.C. MaltaAudiovisual Production Center Limited C 42407, application number 432/15 SM,has been deferred for hearing to the 27th October 2015, at 9.00 a.m.
Reġistry of theSuperior Courts today 28 th September 2015.
ADV. FRANKPORTELLI, LLD
For the Registrar,Civil Courts and Tribunals