Mur Lura
Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 19,272 of 27th June 2014
01/01/2014
Notice 1021
1021By means of a decree of the 30th May, 2014 delivered by the Court of Magistrates (Malta), in the records of the judicial letter number 378/14, in the names Malta Resources Authority vs Sharon Tonna, it was ordered that the following publication for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent in terms of Article 187 (3) of Cap. 12.
By means of a judicial letter filed in the Courts of Magistrates (Malta), against Sharon Tonna (ID 329171M), of1, Bella Vista, Triq Orlando, Żabbar, Xgħajra, on the 14th February, 2014 Malta Resources Authority, of Millenia, Level 2, Aldo Moro Road, Marsa, for the purposes of Article 466 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, notifies you with the attached sworn declaration marked as Document A, and calls upon you so that within ten (10) days you pay the sum of €2,369.64, which amount is due by you as a final and conclusive liquidation for payment of arrears for licence rights bearing reference SP 149 for the swimming pool in the premises 1, Belle Vista, Triq Orlando, Żabbar, Xgħajra, in terms of Chapter 244 of the Laws of Malta,and of the subsidiary legislation 244.01.
In default of payment or opposition on your part according to the aforementioned Article 466, the applicant Authority will proceed to issue executive warrants against you according to law.
With costs of this act.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1022
1022By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 27th January, 2014 Application number 77/2014 by Emanuela Abela, Carmelo Abela, son of Paolo Abela and Francesca née Muscat, born and residing in Ħal Qormi, holding identity card number 200135(M), was Interdicted by means of a decree given on the 23rd May, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1023
1023By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 23rd May, 2014 Application number 477/2014 by Giorgia, sive Georgina Briffa and others, whereby they prayed that it be declared open in favour of the same Giorgia, sive Georgina Briffa, wife of the decujus, and this in the quota of one half (1/2) undivided share, and in favour ofKirstin Galea and Bernice, sisters Briffa, children of the decujus, and this in the quota of one fourth (1/4) undivided share each one of them, the Succession ofJoseph Briffa, son of John Briffa and Carmela née Caruana, born and resided in Qormi, and died in Tal-Qroqq, limits ofImsida, on the 28th December, 2013 aged 54, intestate, holding identity card number 537859(M).
Wherefore any person who considers to have an interest in the matter is hereby called upon to appear before the said Court, and to bring forward his objections hereto by a minute to be filed within fifteen days from the posting of the banns and notices according to law.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1024
1024By means of an application filed in the Civil Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction Section, on the 28th November, 2013 Application number 1162/2013 by Richard McBryde, Edith Gertrude Fenech, widow of Peter Charles McBryde and Domenico Fenech, holding identity card number 500927(M), was Interdicted by means of a decree given on the 21st May, 2014.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Court and Tribunals
Notice 1025
1025By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 2nd June, 2014 the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Executive Services Limited (C 6533), of183/2, Triq il-Kostituzzjoni, Mosta, filed a Claim on the 13th February, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Alessandro Bianchi (ID 450865M), of Melita Mansions, Flat 5, Triq il-Knisja, Sliema, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €743.40, which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With cost and legal interest.
The case (Claim Number 100/14NHV) is deferred for the 7th July, 2014 at 12.05 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1026
1026By a decree of the Small Claims Tribunal, of the 6th June, 2014 the publication of the following extract was ordered for the purpose of service in terms of Article 187 (3) of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).
Executive Services Limited (C 6533), of183/2, Triq il-Kostituzzjoni, Mosta, filed a Claim on the 13th February, 2014 whereby they asked the Tribunal to condemn Mary Magdalena Sultana (ID 584676M), of Belfiore Cart, Flat 4, Triq San Massimiljanu, San Pawl il-Baħar, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €1,534 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With cost and legal interest.
The case (Claim Number 99/14YMS) is deferred for the 3rd July, 2014 at 12.30 p.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1027
1027By means of a decree given on the 10th June, 2014 by the Constitutional Court, in the records of the Application number 29/10, in the names The Police vs Ellul Sullivan Carmel, sive Charles et, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Patrick Pellegrini and other parties in the cause which may not be notified, and this in terms of Article 187 (3) et. seq. and 187 (5) of Cap. 12.
By means of an Appeal Application filed in the Constitutional Court, Constitutional Reference Number 29/10,The Police (Assistant CommissionerLawrence Cauchi vs Carmel, sive Charles Ellul Sullivan, Patrick Pellegrini and Sebastian Dalli), the applicant Sebastian Dalli (ID 769956M) respectfully pleaded:
That he had asked before the Court of Magistrates(Malta) as a Court of Criminal Judicature to refer to the Civil Court First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction), inorder that it declares that when the Court of Magistrates decided that it was not going to hear the proof a new when the adjudicator had changed was going to violate the right of the applicant as sanctioned by Article 6 (1) of the European Convention regarding Human Rights and Article 39 of the Constitution of Malta, and that Court by its decree of the 14th April, 2013 had upheld his demand.
That the Commissioner of Police and the Attorney General in their reply filed on the 27th April, 2010 pleaded the following:
1. That in the first place, this Honourable Court is to abstain from hearing the case in terms of the proviso of Article 46 of the Constitution and Article 4 of Cap. 319 of the Laws of Malta, since there was an effective remedyto the applicant’s demand, which remedy the applicants have already used but with a negative outcome to them.It is also stated that the applicants still have another remedy to their disposition ...omissis...thus this Honourable Court is to abstain from hearing the cause.
2. That in the first place also and without prejudice to the above,this action is untimely for the same reason explained in the first paragraph.
3. That in the first place and without prejudice to the above in so far as the point regarding, which reference is being made and namely whether the presiding Magistrate in the ongoing criminal procedures against the applicant is to hear all the proof brought forward a new. It is a point which was already decided by the highest competent Court with a negative outcome.
...........omissis...........
4. That in the first place also and without prejudice to the above in so far as the constitutional procedure is being used to prolong the criminal procedures against the applicant uselessly, the applicants submit that this behaviour is abusive and the Court is to declare it so.
5. That as regards the merit there is no violation of the right of fair hearing in regard to the applicant nor under the Constitution nor under the Convention.
6. That the applicants submit that Maltese Jurisprudence and that of the European Courtteaches us that in order that it be examinedwhether there is a violation of the right to a fair hearing in criminal procedures, those procedures have to be examined as a whole and not broken down in particular moments and parts.
...........omissis...........
7. That in each case, the applicants submit that the right to a fair hearing does not include the right that the case be all heard by the same adjudicator.In the judgement ‘Pitkanen vs Finland’, the European Court did not find a violation for Article 6 when all the sittings whereby the witnesses were heard were presided by different adjudicators, but all the sittings were recorded on video or transcribed.
...........omissis...........
That on the 28th March, 2011 the First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction), declined to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction, butin virtue of its judgement in the names premised, the Court of Appeal on the 19th April, 2012 revoked that judgement and sent back the records to that Court(First Hall Constitutional Jurisdiction).
That on the 23rd October, 2013 the First Hall Civil Court by means of a judgement given in the names premised, decided by upholding all the pleas raised by the respondents, and rejected the applicant’s demand, and it is thus for this reason that this humble appeal is being filed.
The applicant feels aggrieved by this judgement, and this because he believes that his right to a fair hearing is being violated.
...........omissis...........
It is stated in a few words that the applicant is alleging that in the procedures mentioned before the Court of Magistrates (as a Court of Criminal Judicature), his fundamental human rights were violatedbasicallybecause during the courseof procedures that he was passing through the adjudicator had changed various times (in their case the Magistrate), who is hearing the case, and thus it can never be stated that the adjudicator has lived the proceedings.
...........omissis...........
That the applicants are basing their demands on Article 39 of the Constitution and Articles 6 (1) and under Article 4 of Protocol 7 of the European Convention.
That Article 39 states thus:
39 (1) Whenever someone is accused with a criminal offence he has once the charge is not withdrawn to be given a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an indipendent and impartial Court set up by law.
..........omissis............
(3) Except by agreement between all the parties, all the procedures of every Courtand the procedures regarding the existence, or extension of the rights and civil obligations of a person before a competent judicial authority including the delivery of the judgement of that Court or other authority are to be held in public.
That Article 6 (1) mentioned states that:
(1) In the decision of civil rights and obligations, and a criminal offence against him, everybody is entitled to an impartialand public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal set up law.
................omissis...............
The respondent before the Court of First Instance refers to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the cause ‘Imbroscia vs Switzerland’, whereby it was stated that:
...........omissis...........
That the applicant is sad to note that the Court of First Instance did not give any explanation or justification why in effect it was rejecting his demand.
...........omissis...........
The Court of First Instance concluded that the applicants shall not have their right to a fair hearing violated when it is being alleged that the adjudicator that shall give judgementhas not heard the proof himself because it is of the opinionthat it has available the minutes and evidence transcibedbefore it, and thus can make an appreciation of it. With all respect, this is not argument because it is necessary in the Criminal Court that the evidence be heard viva voce so that the adjudicator is in a position to judge of his own will the intention of every witness.
...........omissis...........
It is also stated that the Court of First Instance declared that it is desirable that the adjudicator hear the cause a new from the beginning till the end this is not always possible. The Court agrees with this assertion such as when in those circumstances the Magistrate is sick and cannot continue his duties, or when the adjudicator dies or is appointed a Judge and thus the cause is to be assigned to another adjudicator. In these circumstances also however,the adjudicatorwho receives the records for continuation shall have to see whether the partieshave an objection to continuethe hearing of the proof, or whether they want that the proofbe heard from the beginning. This was the reasoningof the Court of Criminal Appeal in the judgement The Police vs Joseph Bartolo, decided on the 9th September, 1999. The Judge in this judgement of the 9th September, 1999 had revoked the judgement given by the Court of Magistrates as a Court of Criminal Judicature, and sent back the records of the cause to that same Court to hear the proof according to law.In this case, the Magistrate who had delivered judgement had not heard the proof himself, but had relied exclusively on that heard by another adjudicator and was transcibed.
...........omissis...........
The Court of Magistrates as a Court of First Instance is bound to hear in Court and viva voce (Art. 646 (1) of Cap. 9), the evidence brought forward by the prosecution as well as by the defence ...omissis... In order that this criteria can be applied,it is evident that the Magistrate is to hear himself and see the witness testify before his own eyes. The law itself provides for certain exceptions whereby the adjudicator even in the Court of Magistrates as a Court of First Instancecan rely on depositions brought in writing such as for example in the case of Doctors’ certificates accompanied by an affidavit (Article 646 (7) of Cap. 9 of the Laws of Malta). However, the rule is that an adjudicator in First Instance is to hearthe evidence so that he be truly in a position to give judgement according to law. Here, the applicant refers to another judgement given by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the names the Police vs Bartolomeo Micallef, decided on the 23rd July, 1999.
Thus,the applicant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court,cancels and revokes the judgement given by the First Hall Civil Court, in the names premised on the 23rd October, 2013 and uphold the reference made to it.
With costs against the respondents.
Whereas the written procedures in the cause before the Constitutional Court between the Police (Assistant Commissioner Lawrence Cauchi vs Carmel, sive Charles Ellul Sullivan, Patrick Pellegrini and Sebastian Dalli), have been closed the Court fixed the hearing of this cause on Monday, third (3rd) of March, 2014 at 9.30 a.m. and deferred to the 30th June, 2014 at 9.30 a.m.
Applicant: 16, Papillon, Triq l-20 ta’ Jannar, Qormi.
Respondent: PatrickPellegrini, 48, Block D, Flat 5, Triq Pierre Muscat, Rabat (Malta).
Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1028
1028By a decree of the Court of Magistrates (Malta), of the 29th January, 2014 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).
Double R Meats Co Ltd (C 21340), of 14, Spencer Hill, Marsa, filed a Claim on the 13th November, 2013 whereby they asked the Court to condemn Palm Court Limited (C 2677), of Tamar Street, Qawra, and/or Silverstone Court, Flat 3, Triq Giuseppe Calì, Għargħur, to pay the plaintiff company the sum of €4,515.29 which amount is due to the plaintiff company.
With costs and legal interests.
The case (Notice Number 377/12CSH) is deferred for the 2nd July, 2014 at 9.00 a.m.
Alexandra Debattista
For the Registrar Civil Courts and Tribunals
Notice 1029
1029By a decree given by the Civil Court First Hall, on the 23rd June, 2014 on the application of Portelli Michael, Wednesday, 23rd July, 2014 at half past nine in the morning (9.30 a.m.), has been fixed for the Sale by Auction to be held at AT10, Industrial Estate, Attard, of the following items seized from the property of Ciantar Miriam.
Bedroom furniture, kitchen furniture, two sofas, glass table, microwave, oven, fridge freezer, steamer, convection oven, stereo, DVD, television, tables, chairs, units,frames and other objects.
N.B. The said objects will be sold as described in the acts of the judicial sales 10/14.
Rudolph Marmarà
For the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals