Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,271 of 27th September 2019

Republic of Malta

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 27th September, 2018, following a request by Ruth Formosa it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the unknown direct owners and unknown emphyteutae in the acts of the schedule of deposit number 1801/2018 in the names Ruth Formosa vs Deputy Curators and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of a schedule of deposit and concurrent redemption of ground rent filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court, in the names Ruth Formosa, unmarried, employed, daughter of John Formosa and the late Caroline sive Carol née Pace, born in Tal-Pietà and residing in Tas-Sliema (ID 3586M) vs Deputy Curators to represent the unknown direct owners and the unknown emphyteutae on the 26th September, 2018, the applicant Ruth Formosa respectfully submitted:

That the applicant is the owner of the perpetual sub utile dominium of the apartment internally marked as number 7 that is found on the third floor and forms part of the block of apartments without official number with the name Ruskin House in High Street, Tas-Sliema;

That the applicant inherited half undivided share of the said apartment from her mother Caroline sive Carol Formosa who died on the 11th September, 2006, who left as her heirs in equal shares between them the applicant and her sister Sarah Formosa;

Whilst the other undivided share of the said apartment was acquired by the applicant from her sister Sarah Formosa, by means of a contract in the records of Notary Doctor Pierre Attard on the 27th July, 2009, a copy of which is attached and marked as Doc. A;

That Caroline Formosa, mother of the applicant, acquired the apartment de quo by means of a deed in the records of Notary Doctor Patrick Critien dated 4th December, 2002, a copy of the contract is here attached and marked as Doc. B and also a copy of the plan of the apartment in question is being attached and marked as Doc. C;

This apartment is the ordinary residence of the applicant.

According to the contract here mentioned, the apartment de quo is subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent and subgroundrent of €111.80 equivalent to Lm48;

The applicant wishes to avail herself of the option in Article 1501 of the Civil Code Cap. 16 of the Laws of Malta and thus redeem the groundrent and subgroundrent regarding the apartment de quo;

The amount of €111.80 capitalised at the rate of 5% amounts of €2236;

In addition, the amount of €559 that represent rent arrears for the last five years is being deposited;

Thus, the applicant is calling upon this Honourable Court and under its authority is depositing the total amount of €2795, which sum consists of the amount of €2236, this being the price of the redemption of the annual and perpetual groundrent and subgroundrent of the apartment above mentioned whilst the amount of €559 being the rent arrears for the last five years of the same apartment which amount may be freely withdrawn by the respondents in their capacity and this after they would have proved their title in terms of Article 1501(8) of the Civil Code and this after leaving the relative receipt according to law.

Service: 1. Deputy Curators, Law Courts, Valletta

 2. Director Public Registry, Evans Buildings, Triq il-Merkanti, Valletta

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.

You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.

And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Civil Court First Hall, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Silvio Meli, LLD, Doctor of Laws.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 7th December, 2018, following a request by Mark Anthony Borg et it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the unknown owners in the acts of the schedule of deposit number 2321/2018 in the names Mark Anthony Borg et vs Deputy Curators and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of a schedule of deposit and concurrent redemption of ground rent filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court, in the names Mark Anthony Borg (ID 96571M) employed, son of Emanuel Borg and Mary née Scicluna, born in Ħ'Attard and residing in Ħaż-Żabbar and Lucienne Borg (ID 301972M) wife of Mark Anthony Borg, house wife, daughter of the late Joseph Micallef and Lucia née Bugeja born in Tal-Pietà and residing in Ħaż-Żabbar vs Deputy Curators to represent the unknown owners, on the 4th December 2018, the applicants Mark Anthony Borg (ID 96571M) and Lucienne Borg (ID 301972M) respectfully submitted:

That by means of a deed of acquisition in the records of Notary Doctor Sharon Faith Farrugia dated 30th July, 2012, which deed is here attached and marked as Doc. MAB1, the applicants acquired from Claude Licari the maisonette without official number but with the name October situated in Triq Alessio Erardi, Ħaż-Żabbar, including one half undivided and segregated share of the overlying roof and the washroom on top of it with the free airspace of the same portion of the roof and washroom as well as the garage which can accommodate two cars in the semi-basement level, internally marked number 17 forming part of a complex of garages with the entrance without number and without a name and with a common drive-in and ramp which abuts on Triq il-Ġilbiena, Ħaż-Żabbar which complex is in part underneath the maisonette above mentioned;

That by means of a deed of acquisition in the acts of Notary Dr Carmel Gafà dated 15th June, 2005 (here attached and marked as Doc. MAB2) Claude Licari acquired from Lawrence Briffa, Rosaria Briffa, Louiselle Briffa, Marco Millo and Pauline Millo these two properties;

That on the 30th April, 2003, Lawrence Briffa, Rosaria Briffa, Ronald Briffa, Marco Millo and Pauline Millo bought from Joseph Vella, Mary Grace Vella Sant, Giovanna Vella, John Vella, Theresa Agius, Lourdes Galea, Salvina Briffa, Emanuel Vella, Mary Zerafa, Mario Vella, Carmel sive Charles Vella, Doris Zammit, Anna Vella, Carmel Vella, Grazio sive Horace Vella, Anthony Vella, Giuseppe Vella and Raymond Vella by means of a deed of acquisition in the records of Notary Doctor Carmel Mangion (here attached and marked as Doc. MAB3) a divided portion of fabricated land in Ħaż-Żabbar, forming part of the land known as Tal-Biccieni sive ta' Cinciolina in the said area, which piece of land has a facade on Triq Alessio Erardi and also on a new road projected to abut on Triq Alessiuo Erard of the total measurement including the road space on the projected road of about 915msq as subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of Lm0.20 that is €0.47 not revisable and so free and unencumbered;

The present direct owners of the groundrent are not known;

The applicants wish to avail themselves of the option in Article 1501 of the Civil Code and thus redeem this annual and perpetual groundrent of Lm0.20 equivalent to €0.47 capitalised at the rate of 5% according to law, which amounts to €9.32;

The applicants are also depositing the groundrent arrears for these last five years that amounts to €2.35;

Thus, the applicants are calling upon this Honourable Court and under its authority are depositing the total amount of €11.67, this being the price of the redemption of the annual and perpetual groundrent and sub-groundrent burdening the land on which the maisonette and garage de quo were built, and also the arrears, which amount may be freely withdrawn by the respondents who have a right to them according to law after leaving the relative receipt according to law.

Applicants: October, Triq Alessio Erardi, Ħaż-Żabbar

Service: 1. Deputy Curators, Law Courts, Valletta

 2. Director Public Registry, Triq il-Merkanti, Valletta

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.

You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.

And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Civil Court First Hall, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Madam Justice Miriam Hayman, LLD, Doctor of Laws.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Republic of Malta

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court on the 7th December, 2018, following a request by Daniel Theuma et it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the unknown owner in the acts of the schedule of deposit number 2236/2018 in the names Daniel Theuma et vs Deputy Curators and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of a schedule of deposit and concurrent redemption of ground rent filed in the First Hall of the Civil Court, in the names Daniel Theuma, bachelor, son of Ray and Bernardette née Chetcuti, born in Tal-Pietà on the 22nd September, 1988, and residing in Ħal Balzan (ID 450888M) and Rachel Attard, unmarried, daughter of Peter and Simone née Magro, born in Tal-Pietà on the 12th February, 1992, and residing in San Ġwann (ID 106592M) vs Deputy Curators to respresent the unknown owners, on the 5th December, 2018, the applicants Daniel Theuma and Rachel Attard respectfully submitted:

The applicants are the owners of the house with official number 204 Triq il-Kbira (Main Street), Ħal Balzan, with its free airspace and underlying space, and with a well shared in common with premises number 203, and subject to the annual and perpetual groundrent of €1.17, which premises the applicants acquired by means of a deed in the records of Notary Francesca Mifsud of the 15th February, 2018, a copy of which is being here attached and marked as Doc. AB;

The said groundrent is payable to unknown owners represented by deputy curators;

The applicants wish to avail themselves of the option in Article 1501 of the Civil Code Cap. 16 and thus redeem the said groundrent in terms of the same law;

The amount of groundrent of €1.17 capitalised at the rate of 5% amounts to €23.40;

The applicants are depositing the amount of €5.85 representing 5 years groundrent;

Thus, the applicants are calling upon this Honourable Court and under its authority are depositing the total amount of €23.40 as redemption of the annual and perpetual groundrent and the sum of €5.85 representing 5 years groundrent of the same property so that it may be freely withdrawn by the respondents after leaving the relative receipt according to law.

Applicants: Daniel Theuma/Rachel Attard, 68 Paradis, Triq il-Gallina, Il-Kappara, San Ġwann SGN 4115

Service: Director, Public Registry, Valletta

Deputy Curators, Law Courts, Valletta

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of this bann at the entrance of this Superior Court and to summon whosoever wishes to act as curator to appear before this registry within six days and by means of a minute to submit a declaration that he wishes so to act.

You are also ordered to inform each one that if he fails to make this declaration within the stipulated time, the Court will proceed to the selection of Curators of Office.

And after so acting or if you should encounter any difficulty in the execution of this bann, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Civil Court First Hall, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Madam Justice Miriam Hayman, LLD, Doctor of Laws.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given, by the Court of Appeal, (Appeal number 31/19 MCH) (Appeals Planning Authority) by the same Court above indicated, on the 4th September, 2019, in the records of the Application 31/19, in the names Anthony Falzon vs The Planning Authority, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of the respondent Victor Benedek, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Appeal Application, filed, in the Court of Appeal, (Appeals Planning Authority) in the names Anthony Falzon vs The Planning Authority and the party called into the cause Viktor Benedek (Appeal Decided by the Tribunal on 01/08/2019) the applicant Anthony Falzon (ID 0278949M) respectfully pleaded;

Preliminary

That the application/ permit appealed was formally filed by the applicant (party called into the cause Victor Benedek) on the 1st May, 2018.

That the interpellant third party objector) had brought forward an objection in writing to application PA 5060/18, on the 4th July, 2018, by means of which he submitted that he doubted how much Viktor Benedek (the applicant) is truly the owner of the development and brought forward an objection on the substance of the application.

That this permit was approved by the respondent authority by means of a decision published on the 22nd August, 2018.

That the interpellant filed an appeal to the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (The Tribunal) from this decision on the 20th September, 2018, where he premised the following.

First Ground

That according to Article 71(4) of the Planning Act, the applicant is duty bound to certify to the Authority that he is the owner of the site in question or that he has the authorisation of the owner to proceed with such application.

Second Ground

My client's second ground of appeal is that the proposed development severely diminished his rights over the existing staircase and would also negatively impact the current landscape and layout of the apartment block which has been in existence since 1981.

… omissis …

Third Ground

My client would also like to strongly protest at the Planning Authoirity's unlawful behaviour when it outrightly denied him access to the pertinent file, despite the fact that he is also a registered objector.

… omissis …

That the respondent Authority replied in the following manner,

4.4. Comments on appellant's Arguments.

After noting all of appellant's arguments as presented in this request for appeal the Authority disagrees with these arguments and states that the development as proposed does not breach the relevant policies.

First Ground

In reply the Authority primarily notes that applicant had in fact declared that he is the sole owner of the entire site in his application form as submitted to the Authority … omissis … that he strongly suspects that the applicant is not in fact the owner of the site (as declared by him in the Public Application Form).

… omissis …

Second Ground

In reply, the Authority again makes reference to its previous reply.

Third Ground

In reply the Authority cannot agree with appellant's arguments since all 'relevant' plans and documents are made available to the public on the Authority's website, including the 'relevant' details of the Application Form.

4.5 Conclusion

Conclusively the Authority states that whilst taking note of appellant's submitted arguments in this request for Appeal, the Authority notes that there are no sound planning justifications that justify a dismissal of the development planning application.

… omissis …

5. Request

For the above mentioned reasons, the Planning Authority respectfully requests that the Environment & Planning Review Tribunal to confirm the issued permit and to refuse this third party appeal.

… omissis …

That by means of a decision of the 1st Aufust, 2019, the Tribunal rejected the interpellant's appeal whilst confirming the appealed permit PA/05060/18.

That the grievances are clear and manifest.

Grievances

The First Grievance

The First Grievance of the interpellant consists of the fact that only the requisites contemplated in Article 71(4) of the Planning Development Act 2016 (the Act) were not satisfied but from the proof produced before the Tribunal there results that this permit was approved on information which is completely incorrect

However, it appears that both the Authority and The Tribunal are interpreting any dispute linked with this article as simply 'civil rights' regarding which it has no competence.

… omissis …

Thus, the interpellant justly contends that the requisites of Article 71(4) are completely missing as well as that this permit was issued on the basis of incorrect information if not fraudulent in terms of Article 80(1) of the act.

… omissis …

The Second Grievance

The Second grievance is in the sense that the Tribunal avoided the second grievance of the interpellant in a manner which was rather light even under the pretext of 'civil rights' and by explaining that 'Once the development approved is in conformity ' with the relevant planning policies there is nothing to withhold the issuing of the permit in connection with the application being considered.

… omissis …

The Third Grievance

The Third Grievance is in the sense that the interpellant was denied of his right to the best defence as he was completely precluded from acceeding to the file being examined with the exception of detailed plans. This is so much the case that the interpellant had to appeal initially on a mere suspicion that the applicant is not the owner, which suscipion was confirmed as the interpellant was shown Document 34b, for the first time during the third hearing before the Tribunal.

… omissis …

It is the case that Article 19 of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal (Cap 551) permits the parties to make a request to see the acts of the Planning authority at every stage before the sitting of the Tribunal, which request the interpellant infact made, but with respect even this Article itself is in violation of admistrative principles and natural justice including the right to a fair hearing.

… omissis …

Furthermore, and without prejudice to the above the interpellant cannot understand how all the data of the applicant including the major of the docuyments in the application file are all protected under the Act and the Law of Data Protectionb whilst the personal details of the interpellant are all public.

Request

Thus, the interpellant whilst referring to the proof produced and reserves his right to bring forward other proof permitted by law respectfully prays so that this Honourable Court for reasons premises cancels, and revokes the decision of the Tribunal given on the 1st August, 2019, in the names premised and consequently cancel and resvoke the permit PA/05060/18 and this by upholding his grievance and rejecting the pleas of the the Authority.

With costs against the respondents.

Whereas the procedures in writing in the cause before the Court of Appeal, between Anthony Falzon and the Planning Authority and the party called into the cause Viktor Benedek, have been closed, the Court fixed the hearing of the cause on Wednesday sixteenth (16th) of October, 2019, at 9.00 a.m.

Notify: Victor Benedek, 78, 'Mary', Dawret il-Gżejjer, San Pawl il-Baħar

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given, by the Civil Court (Family Section) on the 16th September, 2019, in the records of the letter 82/19 VZ, in the names Joseph Gatt (ID 327970M) vs Anthea Gatt (ID 88081M) the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Joseph Gatt (ID 327970M)in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an application, Letter number 82/19 VZ, in the names Joseph Gatt (ID 327970M) vs Anthea Gatt (ID 88081M) on the 27th May 2019, the applicant Anthea Gatt (ID 88081M) respectfully pleaded:

That the parties had a relationship and from this relationship the minors with the names … omissis … and … omissis … later on called 'the minors' were born;

That the parties were co-habitees in terms of the Cohabitation Act (Cap 571 of the Laws of Malta) at the residence with the address 34, Rosewood, Triq il-Faxxina, Swieqi, which residence was the primary residence of the minors and is registered on the plaintiff;

… omissis …

That the relationship between the parties is no longer possible for reasons imputable solely to the plaintiff;

… omissis …

Thus, for the reasons premised in the application and in the best interest of the minor the applicant respectfully prays this Honourable Court:

1. To order that the care and custody of the minor and the ordinary residence of the same minor is to be in favour of the mother;

2. To fix the adequate maintenance for the minor;

3. To authorise the applicant Anthea Gatt and the minor mentioned to reside at 34, Rosewood, Triq il-Faxxina,m Swieqi , for a reasonable period;

4. To fix the sum representing Financial Aid in terms of article 32 of the Cohabitation Act (Cap. 571 of the Laws of Malta) in view of the circumstances premised in the application;

5.Order that these amounts be directly deducted from the salary.

Saving any other propvision that this Honourable Court deems fit.

Civil Court (Family Section)

The Hon. Mr Justice Antonio G. Vella, LLD

Letter 82/19 VZ

In the names Joseph Gatt vs Anthea Gatt

The Court;

Having seen the application of the 27th May, 2019,

Provides in the first place the following,

That not later that six working days from today the applicant is to present a copy of the FS3 and the P3 and income tax returns and returns of these last three years as well as details regarding the expenses she in incurring in particular with regard to the minors.

Subsequently order that this application together with the documents above refrred to be notified to the respondent with five working days for the reply which is to contain a sworn prospect of his whole income and the details relative to these last three years including a copy of FS3s, P3s, income tax returns and VAT returns for these last three years.

Civil Court (Family Section)

Hon. Mr. Justice Antonio G. Vella

Letter 82/19 VZ in the names,

Joseph Gatt (ID 327970M) vs Anthea Gatt (ID 88081M)

Note of Anthea Gatt (ID 88081M)

By means of which in compliance with the decree of this Honourable Court of the 29th May 2019, she is presenting the following;

Copy of the FS3 of these last three (3) years hereby annexed marked Doc. A1, A2 and A3 respectively;

Estimate of the expenses incurred by the interpellant in regard to the minors … omissis … (15 years old) and … omissis … (12 years old) Doc. B;

Applicant: Anthea Gatt, Flat 4, Binja Ħamrija, Triq il-Ħamrija, Naxxar

Respondent: Joseph Gatt, 34, Rosewood, Triq il-Faxxina, Swieqi

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a Decree of the 25th September 2019 given by the First Hall Civil Court, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according the Article 338 (1) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Chapter 12).

That by application and a Schedule of set-off filed contemporaneously by Bank of Valletta plc C 2833 on the 19th September, 2019, the approval of the said judicial acts is being demanded for the amount of €177,597.80 following judicial sale by auction 105/11 in the names Bank of Valletta plc vs Alfred Zarb (ID 810058M) and Catherine Zarb (ID 714358M) held under the Authority of the said Court on the 12th September, 2019.

According to Article 338 (2) of Chapter 12: Any person who may have an interest and the persons so served shall be allowed the time of twenty days to file an answer stating in detail the reasons for their opposition and the amounts in contestation; and where such opposition is based on a claim against the proceeds of sale an alleged cause of preference, they are to state the amount of such claim and the basis for the preference. Such persons shall with the answer file all relevant evidence to substantiate their opposition.

Marvic Farrugia

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice by the Registry of the Civil Court

(Family Section)

Whereas the plaintiff Stephen Borg (Identity Card number 483578M) filed an application under oath (No 214/19 AL) demanding corrections in the Act of Birth of the late Michael Agius (Identity Card number 0294000L).

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

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

By order of the Court,

Rita Vella Baldacchino

For Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

ARB/C049/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 21st September, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Joe Mifsud, LLD). Compilation number 579/2019 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Kevin Pulis)

Versus

MARKO ACIMOVIC, 40 years, son of the late Senlii and Milojka née Draciojob, born in Uzice, Serbia, on the 5th August, 1979, residing at 153 Tremi, Fl 1, Triq il-Qantar, Swieqi, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 187988A.

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to MARKO ACIMOVIC and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORIZED the said accused to receive the amount authorized by law that does not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro (€13,976.00) per year, after the accused indicates with a note from where they are perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

The Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)

ARB/C050/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 21st September, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (il-Magistrate Dr Joe Mifsud, LLD). Compilation number 581/2019 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Kevin Pulis)

Versus

JASON MICALLEF, self-employed, 24 years, son of Maria Micallef, born in Tal-Pietà, Malta, on the 29th October, 1994, living at Hubbard Flats, Blk 7, Flt 6, Triq Alessandra, Bormla, and holder of Maltese Identity Card bearing number 483194M.

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to JASON MICALLEF and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORIZED the said accused to receive the amount authorized by law that does not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro (€13,976.00) per year, after the accused indicates with a note from where they are perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

The Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)

ARB/C051/2019 – NEW FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 21st September, 2019, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry  (Magistrate Dr Joseph Mifsud, LLD). Compilation number 580/2019 in the case:

The Police

(Inspector Kevin Pulis)

Versus

JOSEPH BORG, taxi driver, 47 years, son of Louis and Antonia née Mifsud, born in Tas-Sliema, Malta, on the 27th September, 1971, residing at Amber Crt, Blk E, P/H 10, Triq Ħal Qormi (Toretta), Santa Venera, and holder of Maltese identity card bearing number 455971M.

ORDERED the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due to or pertaining or belonging to JOSEPH BORG and prohibits the said accused from transferring, pledging, hypothecating or otherwise disposing of any movable or immovable property and this according to Section 22A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap. 101 of the Laws of Malta, and Section 23A of the Criminal Code, Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta.

The Court AUTHORIZED the said accused to receive the amount authorized by law that does not exceed thirteen thousand, nine hundred and seventy-six euro (€13,976.00) per year, after the accused indicates with a note from where they are perceiving this money.

Any person who acts in contravention of the court order mentioned in Section 22A and Section 23A referred to above shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine (multa) not exceeding eleven thousand and six hundred and forty-six euro and eighty-seven cents (€11,646.87), or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding twelve months, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

Any transfer or other disposal of any immovable property made in contravention of the said Court order shall be null and without effect at law.

The Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

On behalf of the Registry of the Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction (Malta)