Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,106 of 18th December 2018

By means of a decree given by the Constitutional Court in the records of the Application in the names Angela sive Gina Balzan vs 1. The Honourable Prime Minister et, Application number 16/2015, the following publication was ordered so that the Appeal Reply and the Incidental Appeal, filed in the records of the application abovementioned, be notified to the respondents Amanda Aloisio and Marie Chantal Aloisio, by means of publication in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

That the above mentioned Angela sive Gina Balzan (ID 97247M) by means of a deed presented in the records of the application abovementioned 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 Aloisio on the 23rd March, 2018, resprectfully pleaded:

That the present deed is intended to serve both as a reply of the applicant Angela Balzan to the Appeal which was filed by the respondent Honourable Prime Minister and the Attorney General, from the judgement in names above premised of the 9th October, 2017, as well as an Incidental Appeal of the Applicacnt from the same judgement.

1. Reply

That the grievances of the appellant Honourable Prime Minister and the Attorney General, as brought forward in their appeal application, are totally unfounded in fact and at law and consequently merit to be rejected by this Honourable Court.

That the grievances of the appellant appear to be five and namely:

1. The legitimacy of the person of the Honourable Prime Minister in the present procedures

That by means of their first grievacnce the appellants lament from the decision of the First Hall Civil Court, in its Constitutional Jurisdiction (from now on refered to as the First Court) to accept the appellant Honourable Prime Minister as legitimate defendant in the present procedures and uphold that in judicial actions where the consitutionality of a law is challenged, the Government is to be represented by the Attorney General and this in terms principally of the second sub-section of Article 181B of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta).

That in the first place the interpellant submits that by means of the present procedures she is not simply bringing forward her complaint as regards the violation of a fundamental right and asking for a declaration that the provision of the law violates a fundamental right but also insists that the behaviour of the appellant and the other respondent the Honourable Minister for Home Affairs and Nationality Security, after in fact she obtained a declaration in the judgement of this Honourasble Court, differently presided, given on the 7th December, 2015, in the names Angela sive Gina Balzan vs the Honourable Prime Minister et, by application of Article 12 A Housing(Decontrol) Ordinance (Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta) is bringing about a violation of her fundamental and constitutional rights.

… omissis …

That in the second place and without prejudice to the above the interpellant declares that in principle she does not agree with the prevailing jurisprudence regarding the interpretation of Article 181B of Cap. 12.

… omissis …

That the interpellsant is of the humble opinion that in order that justice truly be made in any type of judicial action, the phrase ‘head of government department who is responsible of the matter in dispute’ forming part of Article 181B of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, has to be necessarily given a wide interpretation in order to include the various ministries and parliamentary secretariats as ‘government departments’ and the Ministers and relative Parliamentary Secretaries as their ‘respective heads’.

… omissis …

That as the First Court correctly points out, Article 242(2) of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta identifies expressly the appellant Honourable Prime Minister as the minister who when a judgement that has become res judicata declares that an instrument that has the force of law in Malta or in a provision of the same goes against a provision of the Constitution of Malta or a fundamental human right or liberty listed in the First Schedule which is found with the Act regarding the European Convention or that is ultra vires in terms of the sub-section (1) of the same Article 242, can:

‘remove any inconsistency with the Constitution of Malta or with the relevant right or fundamental liberty of the individual established in the First Schedule which is found with the Act regarding the European Convention as was declared in that judgement’.

… omissis …

That thus the interpellant is of the humble opinion that the first grievance of the appellants should be rejected and this Honourable Court is to reject the appeal of the appellants.

3. The submission of the interpellant to Article 12 A of Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta

That regarding this grievance the interpellant appellant points out that at the time when the temporary sub-emphyteusis merit of the present procedures lapsed on the 13th June, 2002, the person who was occupying the apartment number 3 in ‘St Julian’s Court’ in Triq Manwel Dimech, St Julian’s, was the mother of the respondents Amanda Aloisio acnd Marie Chantal Aloisio and namely Carol-Ann Micallef Eynaud.

That the interpellant had duly called upon the same Carol-Ann Micallef Eynaud to release the apartment in her possession by means of a judicial letter with number 3939/2006 of the 15th November, 2006, and subsequently filed against her a sworn application which is till this day sine die pending the outcome of the present procedures.

That all this took place before Act XV11 of 2007 came into force, on account of which the interpellant was constrained to file constitutional procedures in the names Angela sive Gina Balzan vs the Honourable Prime Minister et (15/2008 GCD).

That it was only after the interpellant filed the said constitutional procedures that Carol-Ann Micallef Eynaud died, but for all intents and purposes it is pointed out that the respondent Marie Chantal Aloisio confirmed in her affidavit that both herself and her sister the respondent Amanda Aloisio very well knew that there were eviction proceedings filed against their mother.

… omissis …

That notwithstanding all this, the failure of the Government to take measures as recommended by the Constitutional Court in its judgement in the procedures with number 15/2008 GCD and within a reasonable time, even after a judicial protest which was filed by the interpellant was duly notified, she was forced to file the present procedures as well.

That thus the interpellant is of the humble opinion that the second grievance of the appellants is to be rejected and this Honourable Court should reject the appellant’s appeal.

3. There is no violation of the First Article of the First Protocol of the European Convention

That by means of their third grievance the appellants lament of the fact that the Court of First Instance found a violation of the interpellant’s fundamental rights in terms of the First Article of the First Protocol of the European Convention (Cap. 319 of the Laws of Malta) which violation was found by the First Court because a just and proportionate balance was not kept between the social purpose of the state to provide accomodation to who is in need and the necessity that there be respected the fundamental rights of the owner.

… omissis …

That notwithstanding that in no manner was it alleged at this stage of the proceedings in First Instance, and much less proved neither by the appellants and nor by the respondents siblings Aloisio themselves, that the same siblings Aloisio qualify according to any legal criteria in order that they can hold the premises merit of the present procedures at the derisory rent provided by Article 12 A of Cap. 158 ‘for social purpose’.

… omissis …

That on her part the interpellant is of the humble opinion that the conclusions of the First Court as to how the principle of proportionality is to apply are completely just and correct.

… omissis …

That when the First Court carried out this exercise it could not but arrive to the conclusion that:

‘It follows that the law as it is entitles the applicant to recieve a rent of €471.18 yearly which does not amount to 10% of what effectively the market can give’, although it is true that the compensation is not necessarily as given by the open market and this should not necessarily mean that it can legitimately be so low that it has no relativity with the economic reality.

… omissis …

That consequently the interpellant submits that even if it is the case that the leases which were created by the application of Article 12 A of Cap. 158 are not perpetual, this law, possibly due to its ambiguity but perhaps even for other reasons, unbalanced the legal relationship between the owner and the leasee in such an extreme manner that the leasee is pretending rights which in fact the law does not give him.

… omissis …

That thus the interpellant is of the humble opinion that the third grievance of the appellants is to be rejected and this Honourable Court is to reject the appellant’s appeal.

4. There is no violation of Article 37 of the Constitution

That by means of their fourth grievance the appellants lament of the fact that the First Court found that the application of Article 12 A of Cap. 158 constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights of the interpellant in terms of Article 37 of the Constitution and argue that this is not the case because the present lawsuit does not concern the expropriation of property but only the control of use of property.

… omissis …

That in order to avoid repetition the interpellant submits that these principles are to be applied also to the present procedures and thus is of the humble opinion that the fourth grievance of the appellants is to be rejected and this Honourable Court is to reject the appellant’s appeal.

5. The compensation liquidated by the First Court

That by means of their fifth grievance, the appellants lament of the fact that they were condemned to pay the amount of €15,000 as compensation and argue that no remedy is due by the interpellants inter alia because the premises merit of the present procedure was hit by a measure justified by law as ‘control of use’ for a temporary period.

… omissis …

That since the First Court found that by an application of Article 12 A of Cap. 158 a disproportionate and excessive burden is being imposed on the interpellant and did not find any exceptional circumstance on account of which the interpellant is not entitled to compensation, then the payment of compensation is justified in terms of the First Protocoll of the European Comnvention.

… omissis …

That thus the interpellant is of the humble opinion that the fifth grievance of the appellants should be rejected and this Honourable Court should reject the appellant’s appeal in its entirety with all costs against the appellants.

B. Incidental Appeal

That the interpellant is, according to the provisions of Article 240(1) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta), availing herself of the Appeal made by the appellants from the judgement in the names above premised of the 9th October, 2017, in order to make this incidental appeal from this judgement.

That by means of the sixth demand as brought forward in her original application, the interpellant asked the First Court to liquidate compensation as a reasonable settlement in terms of Article 41 of the European Convention of Human Rights regarding apartment number 3 with effect from the 13th June, 2002, from which date by Application of Article 12 A and the Housing (Decontrol) Ordinance there were violated the Fundamental Human Rights and Liberties as safeguarded under Article 1 of the First Protocol.

That by means of its judgement in First Instance the First Court considered that:

‘It is truly upheld that as a consequence of the violation of the rights as mentioned before, compensation is a suitable and just remedy keeping in view the disproportionate interference that the applicant suffered in the right of enjoyment of her property and deprivation from the rights of her property without suitable compensation’.

… omissis …

That the only grievance of the interpellant resulting from the judgement appealed consists of the fact that despite that the Court of First Instance took into consideration and applied the principles and remedies as declared by the Constitutional Court in its judgement given on the 7th December, 2012, in the names Angela sive Gina Balzan vs the Honourable Prime Minister, the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior and Justice, the Attorney General and Brian and Cecilia spouses Bajada, as demanded by the interpellant almost in every aspect of its judgement, it did not do this as well when it came to liquidate the amount of compensation due to the interpellant and in fact liquidated the compensation in a very low amount from that liquidated by the same Constitutional Court.

That the interpellant felt aggrieved by this part of the judgment and is thus filing this humble appeal.

That whilst the interpellant understands that perhaps it will be presumptuous on her part to expect that the First Court had to liquidate the compensation due to her on the basis of the rental value of the premises merit of the present procedures on the open market for every day she was deprived of the enjoyment of the same premises in terms of the First Article of the First Protocol of Cap. 319, she is of the humble opinion that such compensation should not be so distanced from the market value that it does not cover the loss of leases suffered by her for three years.

… omissis …

That in the second place the interpellant refers to the attitude adopted by the European Court of Human Rights in the judgement in the names Galea and Others v Malta and Cassar v Malta, given on the 13th February, 2018, and the 30th January, 2018, respectively whereby it was upheld that once it was proved that the measures taken by Government in both cases brought about that the applicant in those procedures be deprived from the enjoyment of their property as a state of fact they were not serving any social purpose, then there should have been no deduction from the compensation due to the same applicant due to such consideration.

… omissis …

That in the last resort the interpellant points out that after all, in the judgement in the names Josephine Azzopardi vs the Honourable Prime Minister et given on the 12th May, 2017, which refers to the apartment in one of the adjacent blocks of apartments where the block merit of the present procedures is situated, the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) liquidated nothing less than €89,900 in compensation to the applicants in those procedures and on the same lines the interpellant is of the humble opinion that the amount due to her is of €122,631.

Thus the interpellant, whilst referring to the evidence and all the documents exhibited and whilst reserving the right to bring proof and further evidence according to law, respectfully prays that this Honourable Court uphold this incidental appeal and consequently reform the judgement of the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) in the names above premised of the 9th October, 2017, by cancelling and revoking that part of the same judgement by means of which it was decided that the Court in First Instance:

‘iv. Liquidate the compensation due to the applicants for the violation suffered in the amount of €15,000, because her rights of property as safeguarded by the European Convention and Constitution were violated’.

… omissis …

and instead pass on to liquidate a higher amount in compensation which is to be paid to the interpellant qua applicant for the violation of the rights suffered by her, condemn the appellants qua respondents to pay the same amount and confirm the rest of the judgement appealed in the reast and this within all costs against the appellants.

Interpellant: 

19/4, Triq Sir Adrian Dingli, Tas-Sliema

Respondents: 

1. Amanda Aloisio, 4, Belle Vue, Flat 1, Triq Mattew Pulis, Tas-Sliema

2. Marie Chantal Aloisio, St Julian’s Court, Block A, Flat 3, Triq Manwel Dimech, St Julian’s

ADV. FRANK PORTELLI, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Court of Magistrates (Malta) of the 24th October, 2018, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

AIL Limited (C 11156) of Paramount Garages, Triq il-Kostituzzjoni, Mosta filed a claim on the 27th April, 2018, whereby they asked the Court to condemn Anthony Vella as President and Trevor Vella as Secretary of the committee Mellieħa Fireworks of Mellieħa Fireworks Committee, Mellieħa, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €9,432.80 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests

The case (Notice Number 104/18SG) is deferred to the 10th January, 2019, at 10.30 a.m.

Notification: Trevor Vella as secretary of the committee Mellieħa Fireworks, of 243, Triq il-Fortizza, Mellieħa

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 17th April, 2018, Application number 562/2018, by Carmelo Decelis, whereby George Decelis, widow of Maria Carmela Abela, holding identity card number 0733448M, aged 70, son of the late Francis Decelis and Violet née Pritchard, born in Ħal Qormi, Malta on the 18th August, 1948, and residing in Ħal Qormi was interdicted by means of a decree given on the 8th November, 2018.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Court and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 16th November, 2018, Application number 1826/2018 by Anthony Francis Calleja and Delma Fay Calleja whereby they prayed that it be declared open in their favour in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share each one of them the succession of their son Anthony Joseph Calleja, bachelor, son of Joseph Francis Calleja and Delma Fay Calleja, born in Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, resided in Gudja, and died in Tal-Qroqq, Msida, Malta on the 11th May, 2018, aged 53, who held identity card number 447682M.

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 Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 27th November, 2018, Application number 1877/2018, by Sergio D’Ambrogio et whereby they prayed that it be declared open in favour of Sergio D’Ambrogio, son of the decujus in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and as for the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of the three (3) children of the predeceased Beatrice Brockdorff, daughter of the decujus, that is Daniela Borg Brockdorff, Roberta Farrugia Brockdoff and Mark Paul Brockdorff brother and sisters Brockdorff in equal shares between them the succession of Rosaria D’Ambrogio, widow of Elpidio D’Ambrogio, daughter of the late Joseph Schembri and Nikolina Schembri née Curmi, born in Ħal Tarxien, resided in Paola and died in Tal-Pietà on the 18th December, 2017, aged 78, who held identity card number 0698939M.

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 a decree of the 12th October, 2018, in the records of the judicial protest number 239/18 in the names Joseph Ciantar et vs Mabrouk Limited, the First Hall of the Civil Court ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent company Mabrouk Limited in terms of Article 187(5) of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

Judicial Protest

Joseph Ciantar (ID 672240M) and Teresa Ciantar (ID811939M) 

vs

Mabrouk Limited (C 2736)

Judicial Protest of Joseph Ciantar (ID 672240M) and of Teresa Ciantar (ID 811939M)

Who have humbly submitted and protested:

1. The applicants had a disagreement with the respondent company, which disagreement continued for a good number of years and precisely as from the year 1984 to November 2017 when the issue was determined by a final decision of the Maltese Courts;

2. As a result of these legal proceedings, the applicants had their bank accounts frozen as a result of a garnishee order and in addition a hypothec on their residence and namely 6, Triq Fuq Tal-Ħawli, Tal-Ħawli Estate, Birgu, was registered and this for the respondents to safeguard their claims during the time that the proceedings were ongoing in court;

3. After weeks of discussion between the applicants and the respondent, an agreement was reached and the respondents were given the opportunity, as a sign of goodwill by the applicants, to withdraw the sum of money which was due to the same respondents, who from their end had to cancel the hypothecs since they were going to receive all the money due to them. In fact, what has been agreed was accepted by the respondents who have withdrawn the aforementioned sum without any reservation, and in fact they have received the money due to them though they had to proceed to cancel whatever hypothec had been registered;

4. Notwithstanding that the respondent has been solicited a number of times to cancel the aforementioned hypothec, even through its own lawyer, the hypothec was not cancelled as is still registered in the recoreds of Notary John Gambin and this is causing damage to the applicants who are still suffering as a result of this capricious behaviour of the respondents who, after all these years and notwithstanding that they have received the money due, are still tormenting the applicants who are an old couple and who are also undergoing a difficult phase in their life as a result of illness;

5. These damages are being caused solely as a result of the inexplicable behaviour of the respondent and consequently it is being held responsible for all the consequences which are being suffered by the applicants and for any further damage which may be suffered as a result of this behaviour.

Thus the applicants are bringing to the formal attention of this Honourable Court the facts above mentioned and whilst they submit this judicial protest against the respondent, they hold it liable in colpa, dolo et mora for all the effects and purposes of law, and solicits the respondent so that it immediately does all that is necessary and opportune so that it remedies the situation as stated above by immediately cancelling the hypothecs and refrain from making any further vexatious claims for the sole reason to reap more money from the applicants. 

With costs and reserving any other action which may be available to the applicants

Applicants: 6, Triq Fuq Tal-Ħawli, Tal-Ħawli Estate, Birgu

Respondent: Mabrouk Limited, 37, Triq Santa Margerita, Bormla

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 30th October, 2018, of the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 1232/2018, in the names Commissioner for Revenue vs C & C Caterers Ltd et, the following publication for the purpose of service on the respondents was ordered in terms of Article 187 (3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To 

1. C & C Caterers Ltd 

2. Claude Paris

By the present the Commissioner for Revenue of Centre Point Building, Triq Ta’ Paris, Birkirkara, calls upon you in terms of Articles 59 and 66 of Act XXIII of 1998, so that within two (2) days from the service of this act, you pay the amount of €30,383.61 representing the amount due by you in solidum according to the same Act.

With costs and interest according to that act till the date of effective payment

This calling is being made for all intents and purposes of law and particularly, but not exclusively, in order to render executive title which the same interpellant has against you by means of the Notice sent to you.

In default, the interpellant warns you that he will proceed in executing the mentioned executive title which he has against you by means of the opportune garnishee orders.

So much so that you may know how to proceed and to regularise your position.

Notification: 

1. C& C Caterers Ltd – 16, San Michele, Triq G. Despott, San Ġwann

2. Claude Paris – 16, San Michele, Triq G. Despott, San Ġwann

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal of the 19th September, 2018, the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187(5) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

Go plc (C 22334) of Triq Fra Diegu, Marsa MRS 1501, filed a Claim on the 20th August, 2018, whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Il Santo Catering Limited (C 64018) ta’ 230, Triq il-Kunċizzjoni, Msida MSD 1838, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €529.06 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.

With costs and legal interests

The case (Claim number 379/18PA) is deferred on the 15th January, 2019, at 12.30 p.m.

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of an application filed in Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 4th December, 2018, Application number 1913/2018 by Francis Camilleri et whereby they prayed that it be declared open in favour of Francis Camilleri, Alfred Camilleri, Catherine Borg, Rita Scicluna and Mary Grace Farrugia brothers and sisters of the decujus, and this in the quota of one sixth (1/6) undivided share each one of them; and in favour of Gilbert, Dennis, Peter, Evan, Charles and Maria all brothers and sisters Camilleri, children of the late Gaetano, the latter brother of the decujus and this in the quota of one part of thirty six (1/36) undivided share each one of them the succession of Martino Camilleri, bachelor, son of the late Carmelo and Maria née Abela, born in Tal-Pietà, resided in Fgura and died in Tal-Qroqq, Msida on the 23rd August, 2018, aged 64, who held identity card number 0154554M.

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 Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 27th November, 2018, Application number 1878/2018, by Margaret Camilleri pro et noe whereby she prayed that it be declared open in favour of the same Margaret Camilleri, wife of the decujus, in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share and as for the remaining one half (1/2) undivided share in favour of the minors Madeleine and Estelle sisters Camilleri children of the decujus in equal shares between them the succession of Joseph Camilleri, son of Anthony Thomas Camilleri and Maria Fatima Camilleri née Camilleri, born in St Julian’s, resided in Mellieħa and died in Tal-Qroqq, Msida, Malta on the 3rd April, 2018, aged 43, who held identity card number 0061375M.

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 a decree of the 27th August, 2018, given by the Civil Court First Hall in the records of judicial letter number 1831/18, in the names Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals vs International Meats Limited, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent  company International Meats Limited in terms of Article 187(5) Chapter 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To International Meats Limited of N/S Ħandaq Road, Ħandaq Industrial Estate, Ħal Qormi

By the present the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals of Law Courts, Republic Street, Valletta, solicits you so that within four days from the notification of this judicial letter you pay the sum of €120.00 due by you as Registry fees in connection with the law suit in the names:

Express Aluminium Limited vs International Meats Limited (AE) decided on the 2nd March, 2018

 In default the applicant  reserves to  proceed further against you according to law.

So much for your own guidance.

With costs

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 13th March, 2018, handed down by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the records of the judicial letter number 1712/2017 in the names Automated Revenue Management Services Ltd pro et noe vs Sarah Madeleine Caruana, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Sarah Madeleine Caruana in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.

In the Court of Magistrates (Malta) 

To Sarah Madeleine Caruana (ID 9739A) of Blk A2, Flat 1, Triq il-Qawra, St Paul’s Bay

By the present, Automated Revenue Management Services Limited (C 46054) of Gattard House, Triq Nazzjonali, Blata l-Bajda, Malta, in its own name and on behalf of Enemalta plc and Water Services Corporation, notifies you with the attached sworn declaration marked as Document A for all the purposes and effects of Article 466 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and solicits you to pay the amount of €14,265.58, which amount is sure, liquid and due and representing the balance due for the consumption of water and electricity, rent of water and electricity meter, administrative fees, connection and disconnection fees, and/or any other payment according to the electricity supply regulations or water supply regulations together with interest due on the amount according to law, which amount consists of the following:

i. As for bill number 101000063375 for the premises Flat 1, Blk A, Ent 2A, Triq il-Qawra, St Paul’s Bay, which amounts to €8,932.72;

ii. As for bill number 411000042627 for the premises Flat 8B, Tower Manor, Triq Giuseppe Despott, St Paul’s Bay, which amounts to €5,332.86.

Despite several solicitations by the applicant company for the payment of the amount due, you remained in default and did not pay till the day of the filing of this judicial letter. In addition, there is no valid reason for your failure to pay and you never contested the amount due.

This act is being sent to you for all the purposes and effects of law and in default of payment or opposition on your part within the time mentioned in Article 466 Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, the applicant company shall proceed to enforce this credit according to law.

With costs

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 5th October, 2018, in the records of the judicial letter number 2349/18 in the names Multiple Estates Limited vs Malcolm Borg, the First Hall of the Civil Court ordered the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

In the First Hall of the Civil Court

To Malcolm Borg (ID 334478M) of 1, Tal-Bidni Farmhouse, Sqaq il-Ħofra, Trejqet Wied tal-Mazza, Ħaż-Żabbar

By this present Multiple Estates Limited (C 28742) of Fino Buildings, Mrieħel Industrial Estate, Ħal Qormi BKR3000 formally warns you that in the development that you are carrying out on your land in the limits of Marsaskala with the development permit number A00436 of 2017, you bypassed the median line that divides your land from that of the interpellant and so you invaded the land property of the interpellant. The interpellant further warns you that you were already informed of this before you commenced the development but you continued to do so. The interpellant solicits you so that you respect the median line that divides your land and theirs and solicits you to remove any development that you may have carried out on their land illegally and against their wish and solicits you that if this is not done within two days from today it will continue to proceed against you according to law without further notice.

With costs

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 13th March, 2018, handed down by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) in the records of the judicial letter number 1649/2017 in the names Automated Revenue Management Services Ltd pro et noe vs Matilde Vella, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent Matilde Vella in terms of Article 187(3) of Cap. 12.

In the Court of Magistrates (Malta) 

To Matilde Vella (ID 138050M) of Block 1, Flat 8, Bini tal-Gvern, Triq il-Loġġa, Ħamrun HMR 1491

By the present, Automated Revenue Management Services Limited (C 46054) of Gattard House, Triq Nazzjonali, Blata l-Bajda, Malta, in its own name and on behalf of Enemalta plc and Water Services Corporation, notifies you with the attached sworn declaration marked as Document A for all the purposes and effects of Article 466 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta and solicits you to pay the amount of €1,769.47, which amount is sure, liquid and due and representing the balance due for the consumption of water and electricity, rent of water and electricity meter, administrative fees, connection and disconnection fees, and/or any other payment according to the electricity supply regulations or water supply regulations together with interest due on the amount according to law regarding the bill number 101000210801 for the premises Flat 8, Blk 1, Bini tal-Gvern, Ħamrun which amounts to €3,791.63.

Despite several solicitations by the applicant company for the payment of the amount due, you remained in default and did not pay till the day of the filing of this judicial letter. In addition, there is no valid reason for your failure to pay and you never contested the amount due.

This act is being sent to you for all the purposes and effects of law and in default of payment or opposition on your part within the time mentioned in Article 466 Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, the applicant company shall proceed to enforce this credit according to law.

With costs

ALEXANDRA DEBATTISTA

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals