Court Notices published in Govt. Gazette No. 20,633 of 28th May 2021

By means of a decree given by the Constitutional Court, on the 3rd May, 2021, in the records of the Application in the names Marilyn Tanti vs Joseph Vella et, Application 57/2020, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Therese Vella, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By mean of an Application, filed, in the Constitutional Court, Constitutional Reference number 57/2020, Marilyn Tanti vs Joseph Paul Vella and by decree of the 25th June, 2020, the records of the cause were transferred in the name of his wife Theresa Vella as his heir and this following the death of her husband the applicant and State Advocate, the applicant State Advocate respectfully pleaded,

That this Appeal is being filed following the decision of the Honourable First Hall Civil Court (Constitutional Court) in the names premised on the 29th September, 2020, where the following was decided,

'Thus the Court replies to the query made to it by the Court of Appeal, (Inferior Jurisdiction) on the 23rd December, 2019, by,

Declaring that Article 5(3) (b) of the Housing Decontrol Ordinance (Cap. 158) violates the fundamental right of the applicant to the enjoyment of her property in terms of Article 37 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 1 of the First Protocoll of the First Schedule of Act Number XIV of 1987 as it does not provide for the possibility that the landlord requires permission from the Board to go and live in it under the conditions that are mentioned in Article 9(b) of the Reletting of Urban Property (Regulation) Ordinance,

Declare that the respondents cannot continue to rely anymore on the provisions of Article 5(3) (a)and (b) of Cap. 158 of the Laws of Malta,

Order the Registrar to send back the records to the Referring Court so that the said Court can dispose of the case according to that judgement,

2. That the interpellant felt aggrieved with the decision in the names premised given on the 29th September, 2020, and is filing this humble appeal from the said decision,

3. That the grievance of the interpellant is clear and manifest and consists in the following,

The Honourable First Court was mistaken when it found a violation of Article 37 of the Constitution and the First Article of the First Protocoll of the European Convention,

4. That the interpellant upholds that the Court of First Instance was mistaken … omissis … as in its exercise the Court considered Article 5(3) (b)in a vacuum without considering Cap 158 in its totality especially in the light of recent amendments introduced by means of Act XXV11 of 2018, in virtue of which there came into force Article 12b of Cap. 158.

5. The interpellant upholds that although Cap. 158 does not provide for the possibility of the taking back of the premises in case of necessity for personal use, with the introduction in force of Article 12B there was created in the law a balance between the interests of the owners and those of the lessees, which balance satisfies the element of proportionality that is necessary so that there is no violation of he fundamental rights related with property.

6. Thus, today since the introduction in force of Act XXV11 of 2018, forward, in the humble opinion of the interpellant it cannot be said that the principle of proportionality is being violated and this notwithstanding the fact that the tacking back of the premises for personal use cannot be demanded.

 … omissis …

7. In he light of the above the interpellant upholds that with the introduction of Act XXV11 of 2018, in virtue of which there came into force Article 12 B of Cap 158, there was addressed the question of lack of proportionality and thus although Article 5(3) (b) does not give the automatic possibility of the taking back of the premises in the case of need for personal use Cap. 158 is giving the owner other rights which bring about that the element of proportionality required by Article 37 of the Constiution and Article 1 of the First Protocoll of the European Convention is still satisfed,

8. That the interpellant upholds also that the fact alone that the particular regime gives the possibility of taking back the premises for particular reasons which is not found in the other regime, does not amount to a violation of the fundamental rights of the applicant,

9. Thus and in view of the premised in the humble opinion of the interpellant this grievance should be upheld.

Thus, for the reasons above brought forward the interpellant appellant whilst referring to all the records of the cause to the proof and all the submissions brought forward by him before the Honouable Fiurst Court and whilst reserving the right to proudce all the other proof due to him according to law at this stage prays with respect this Honourable Constitutional Court, to cancel revoke and annul the judgement appealed given by the Honourable First Court Civil Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) on the 29th September, 2020, in the cause in the names premised and instead decide that Article 5(3) (b) of the Housing Decontrol Ordiance(Cap. 158) does not violate the fundamental right of the landord to enjoyment Article 37 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 1 of the First Protocoll of the First Schedule of Act Number XIV of 1987, because contrary to Article 9(b) of the Reletting of Urban Property Regulation Ordinance (Cap. 69) it does not provide for the possibility that the landlord asks the Rent Regulation Board not to renew the lease as requiring the premises to live in it under the conditions mentioned in the same dispositions with costs of both instances against the appellant applicants.

Appellant: State Advocate, Office of the State Advocate, 16, Casa Scaglia, Triq M.A. Vassallo, Valletta

Notify: Therese sive Tessie Vella, 102, Triq Fleur-de-Lys, Birkirkara

Adv. Frank Portelli. LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

It is hereby notified that by an application filed in the Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Voluntary Jurisdiction, on the seventh (7th) of May of the year two thousand and twenty one (2021) (Application number 51/2021BS) Adrian sive Adriano Camilleri et requested the opening of the Succession of Giuseppa sive Josephine Camilleri née Falzon, widow of Anthony Camilleri, daughter of the late Andrea Falzon and Maria Giovanna Falzon née Sultana, born and used to reside in Nadur, Gozo, died in Rabat, Gozo, on the twenty second (22nd) of December of the year two thousand and twenty (2020), that her heritage was superseded by her six (6) alive children and therefore Adrian, Dorothy, Joseph, Miriam, Yvonne and Lino as to equal and undivided shares between them, that Frankie known as Francis Camilleri, pensioner and bachelor, son of the late Anthony Camilleri and Josephine Camilleri née Falzon, born and used to reside in Nadur, Gozo, died on the twelfth (12) of March of the year two thousand and twenty (2020) in Rabat, Gozo, intestate, which opening of succession of Giuseppa known as Josephine Camilleri née Falzon is to be made in favour of Adrian known as Adriano Camilleri as to one sixth (1/6) undivided share, in favour of Dorothea known as Dorothy Camilleri as to one sixth (1/6) undivided share, in favour of Joseph Camilleri as to one sixth (1/6) undivided share, in favour of Miriam known as Maria Carmela Borg née Camilleri as to one sixth (1/6) undivided share, in favour of Yvonne known as Ivonne Camilleri née Camilleri as to one sixth (1/6) undivided share, in favour of Carmel known as Lino Camilleri as to one sixth (1/6) undivided share.

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.

Dorianne Cordina

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

ARB/C028/2021 – VARIATION OF SEIZING AND FREEZING ORDER

IT IS BEING NOTIFIED that by a decree dated 11th May, 2021, given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Natasha Galea Sciberras, LLD). Compilation Number 263/2021, in the case:

The Republic of Malta

Versus

PROGRESS PRESS COMPANY LIMITED, incorporated on the 26th April, 1966, with Maltese registration number C 307 and registered address at Times of Malta, Triq l-Intornjatur, Zone 1, Central Business District, Birkirkara;

MICHAEL RIZZO;

AND

CLAUDE LICARI.

The Court APPOINTS Mr Stephen Paris for the administration of the company mentioned whilst ensuring at all times the determination of the source of the funds being used and/or received, and in his capacity pay creditors, salaries and receive payments on behalf of the accused companies.

This variation is being published in terms of Section 5 (3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Cap. 373 of the Laws of Malta and Article 36 (4) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, Cap. 621 of the Laws of Malta, following a seizing and freezing order which decree was given by the Court of Magistrates (Malta) as a Court of Criminal Inquiry (Magistrate Dr Charmaine Galea, LLD) on the 29th April, 2021, which was published in the Government Gazette on the 4th May, 2021, where the court ordered the attachment in the hands of third parties in general of all moneys and other movable or immovable property due or pertaining or belonging to PROGRESS PRESS COMPANY LIMITED.

Acting Director, Asset Recovery Bureau

By means of a decree given, by the Court of Appeal (Superior Appeals) in the records of the Application number 11/2021, on the 24th February, 2021, in the names Zvetlana Maria Farrugia vs Tamas Krisztian Fodor, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the respondent Tamas Krisztian Foder,in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of an Application, filed in the Court of Appeal, Superior Appeals, Application number 11/2021, in the names Zvetalana Maria Farrugia vs Tamas Krisztian Fodor, on the 26th January, 2021, the applicant Zvetlana Maria Farrugia (ID 394585M) in terms of the Marriage Act Cap. 255 of the Laws of Malta respectfully pleaded:

1. That they were married by Civil rite in the Public Registry and by Catholic rite in the Chapel in the House of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Parish of Santa Venera, on the 8th July, 2017;

2. That their marriage was annulled by the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Malta First Instance, by means of a definitive judgement issued on the 30th October, 2020;

3. That on the 28th November, 2020, there was issued an Executive Decree from the Metropolitan Tribunal of Malta, which is being hereby annexed marked C;

4. That in terms of the dispositions of Article 23 and 24 of Cap. 255 of the Laws of Malta, the judgement given by the Regional Tribunal of the 30th October, 2020, can be registered.

Thus, the interpellant respectfully prays that this Honourable Court in terms of Article 23 and 24 of the Marriage Act Cap. 255 of the Laws of Malta register the said definitive judgement of the Regional Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Malta.

Notify Respondent: 31, 'Josias' Triq tal-Imwiegel, Siġġiewi

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

Banns for Curators

Republic of Malta

To the Marshall of the Court

By means of a decree given by this Court, on the 13th May 2021, following a request of Mark Arcidiacono et it was ordered that deputy curators be chosen to represent the absent Esther Robinson in the records of Appeal number 2193/00 in the names Capua Palace Limited vs Erminia Arcidiacono et noe and in the other relative and subsequent acts.

By means of an Application, filed in the Court of Appeal, in the names Capua Palace Limited vs Erminia Arcidiacono and by means of a decree of the 15th March, 2005, Dr Leslie Cuschieri was nominated curator ad litem of the respondent Erminia Arcidiacono who died during the proceedings and by a decree of the 30th July, 2013, Mark Arcidiacono, Esther Robinson, Aldo Arcidiacono, Tania Ragonesi and Renato Arcidiacono as heirs of the same Erminia Arcidiacono were called into the suit instead of Dr Leslie Cuschieri, on the 14th July, 2014, the applicant Boris Arcidiacono (ID 484344M) requested with respect:

This is a third party appeal in terms of Article 236 of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta which is being filed by the applicant Boris Arcidiacono who was never a party in this instance but has an interest in terms of law and as will be explained later in this appeal;

By means of a writ of summons filed by the plaintiff company Capua Palace Limited on the 29th September, 2020, the plaintiff company claimed that the defendant was a debtor of the plaintiff company of sums due for professional fees, medical services and hospitalisation, consultations, pathology and physiotherapy services and other services, although the defendant was repeatedly solicited to pay, she remained in default and requested that the First Honourable Court liquidate the amount due to the plaintiff company now respondent in this appeal and order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff company the amount liquidated due for medical and hospital services, consultations, pathology and physiotherapy services and other services, with costs and interest and with reservation of every right at law.

By a judgement given on the 30th June, 2014, by the first Honourable Court that Court decided the case by “dismissing the defendants' defences and accepting the plaintiff's requests by liquidating the sum due of €11,499.70 and ordered the defendants to pay this sum to the plaintiff company with interest starting from today. The costs were also awarded against the defendants".

Thus in view of the above the applicant, whilst referring to the evidence already produced as well as to further evidence which may be produced at this stage, respectfully requests that this Honourable Court to cancel, revoke and annul the judgment from which an appeal is being entered in the aforementioned names handed down by the First Hall of the Civil Court on the 30th June, 2014, and as a consequence accepts the grounds of appeal as set out in this appeal application and rejects the demands of the plaintiff company, now respondent in this appeal, with costs of both stages against it.

Applicant: Boris Arcidiacono, 116, Flat 4, Triq it-Torri, Tas-Sliema

Notification: Esther Robinson, Orchard House, 16 Orchehill Avenue, Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, SL9 8QF, United Kingdom

Deputy Curators: Law Courts, Valletta

The appeal in the names Capua Palace Limited vs Erminia Arcidiacono et noe Application number 2193/2000 is postponed for hearing for the 10th June, 2021, at 9.00 a.m.

You are therefore ordered to affix an official copy of these banns 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 these banns, you are to inform forthwith this Court.

Given by the Court of Appeal, above mentioned, with the witness of the Hon. Mr Justice Gianninu Caruana Demajo, Doctor of Laws.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 6th May, 2021, the Courts of Magistrates (Malta) ordered the publication of the following extract for the purpose of effecting service on the respondent All Needs Limited in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12).

By means of an application in the records of the notice Number 72/2019 filed on the 18th February, 2021, in the names Metalfe2 S.R.L. vs All Needs Limited et, Patrick Baldacchino (ID 173373M) respectfully submits:

That at the sitting of the 11th February, 2021, and after the conclusion of the evidence by the parties in relation to the preliminary pleas, during the oral submissions of the preliminary pleas, it has been suggested and declared by the legal representatives of the applicant company Metalfer2 S.R.L., that the contract Doc. PB1 filed with the reply of Patrick Baldacchino, that is the contract of works signed between All Needs Limited and Patrick Baldacchino, was not signed between the parties and that therefore since the legal counsel of the applicant company had only one signature, this contract was null;

However, upon a closer look at Doc. PB1 filed with the reply of Patrick Baldacchino (pages 12-13-14) shows that this contract was indeed signed and initialed by both parties, but the signature of Mark Camilleri on behalf of All Needs on page 3 and his initials on the same document, are almost invisible as a result of the scan and the photocopying of the document;

That this possibly led the applicant's lawyers to claim that the document was not signed by both parties;

However look at pages 1 and 2 of the same document (pages 12-13) especially in the version of the original reply filed by the applicant which is clear) shows that the initials of two persons that is Patrick Baldacchino and Mark Camilleri are clear;

That due to the fact that this document is only a scanned copy of the document, it is not of the best possible quality and may cause confusion and doubt about the authenticity of the document, the applicant retrieved, after a lot of research, the clearest copy of the documents showing initials and signatures in the same places as Doc. PB1 but in a clearer and better quality;

That this document is being attached as Doc. X to this application;

That although the applicant understands that the evidence on the defences is concluded and further oral submissions were made, the same applicant is of the view that the filing of this document is being done in the interest of justice and in accordance with the principle set out in Article 559 of Cap. 12 which provides that: “559. In all cases the court shall require the best evidence that the party may be able to produce";

That although this document is not a new evidence, but a clearer version of the same document that has already been presented (pages 12-14) in each case Article 204(1)(b) of Cap. 12 even allows the applicant to present new evidence, even when the trial would have already been closed:

204(1)(b) When the trial of the cause is closed, no further evidence shall be allowed, except for just cause and by leave of the court.

Therefore in view of the above, and in terms of Articles 559 and 204(1)(b) of Cap. 12, the applicant humbly requests that this Honourable Court, prior to any opportune statement, orders that the applicant is given the permission by the Court to present a clearer copy of the same document already filed in the acts as Doc. PB1 (pages 12-14) (now marked as Doc. X).

Notification: All Needs Ltd, Vincenti Buildings, 25/25, Triq id-Dejqa, Valletta

In the Court of Magistrates (Malta)

Magistrate Dr Charmaine Galea

In the acts of the Notice number 72/2019

The Court,

Saw the application of Patrick Baldacchino filed on the 18th February, 2021,

Orders the notification to the company Metalfer2 S.R.L. and the company All Needs Limited who have five (5) days to reply,

It reserves its further judgment accordingly.

The case in the names Metalfer2 S.R.L. vs All Needs Limited is postponed for hearing for the 8th June, 2021, at 10.00 a.m.

Alexandra Debattista

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree given, by the First Hall Civil Court, on the 15th April, 2021, in the records of the Sworn Application, in the names Indis Malta Ltd (C28965) vs Sebastian Bonnici, Application Number 254/2021 JVC, the following publication was ordered for the purpose of service of the defendant Sebastian Bonnici, in terms of Article 187(3) et sequitur of Cap. 12.

By means of a Sworn Application, filed, in the Civil Court First Hall, in the names Indis Malta Ltd (C28965) vs Sebastian Bonnici (ID 707054M) on the 22nd March, 2021, the interpellant company Indis Malta Ltd (C28965) asked this Honourable Court,

1. To hear this cause without proceeding to a hearing in terms of Article 167 et sequitur of Cap. 12 of the Laws of Malta, order the respondent so that within a short and peremptory period that shall be fixed by this Honourable Court he vacates from the factory MRH002G, in the Industrial Area of Imrieħel, and release the free and vacant possession in favour of the interpellant company.

With costs, against the respondent summoned so that a reference to his evidence be made and saving any other action due to the respondent according to law as demanded in the application.

The Sworn Application in the names Indis Malta Ltd (C 28965) vs Sebastian Bonnici, Application number 254/2021 JVC, has been deferred for hearing to the 9th June, 2021, at 9.05  a.m.

Notify Defendant: 50, Swan, Triq il-Ħelsien, Ħal Qormi

Adv. Frank Portelli, LLD

For the Registrar, Civil Courts and Tribunals

By a decree given on the 14th May, 2021, by the Civil Court First Hall, the Court ordered that the extract hereunder mentioned be published for the purpose of service according to Article 187(3) of the Code of Organization and Civil Procedure (Cap. 12):

By decree given by the Civil Court, First Hall, on 19th May, 2021, on the application of J. Zammit Limited (C37945), Wednesday, 14 July, 2021, at ten o'clock in the morning (10.00 a.m.) has been fixed for the Sale by Auction, to be held at number fifty five (55) J&J Boatyard, Triq ta' Għadmija, Mqabba, of the following items seized from the property of Drazinic Jakov Antun (ID 52120A) and Catherine Louise Drazinic (ID 25508L) .

Vehicle of the make Suzuki Swift registration number BCC591 and chassis number ZC71S437516.

N.B. The vehicle will be sold as described in the acts of Judicial Sale file number 2/2021.

Gaetana Aquilina

For the Registrar of Civil Courts and Tribunals

Notice in terms of article 495A of the Civil Code

Issued by the Court of Magistrates (Gozo)

Superior Jurisdiction, General Section

Application number: 35/2021 BS

Application in terms of Article 495A of the Civil Code

Francis sive Frank Tabone, identity card number 18166G; Jane Tabone, identity card number 5665G; Michelina Galea, identity card number 25953G; Filomena Attard, identity card number 62751G; Emanuel Tabone, identity card number 11455G; George Tabone, identity card number 16058G; and Sister Maria Rosa (Giorgia) Tabone, identity card number 68150G, Tabone brothers.

Maria Assunta Spiteri, identity card number 36762G; Raymond Spiteri, identity card number 489962G in his name and as attorney for foreigners Filomena Galea, Carmel Rapa, Vitale Rapa, Mary Xerri, Helen Rapa, Francis Rapa, Loretta Xuereb, Savior Rapa and John Rapa, Rapa brothers; as well as trustees of Brian Rapa, Joseph Rapa, and Christopher Rapa, Rapa brothers, sons of the deceased Julian Rapa.

vs

Maria wife Anthony Spiteri, and for any interest Jospehine wife Dominic Formosa may have.

1. That this present application relates to the following property: a divided part of the tenement with the number 8, 9 and 10 and nine other unnumbered doors, in Triq il-Kalkara tal-Gir, Munxar, Gozo, which part divided by the same premises is bounded on the south by the same road, on the north by Kalanc Attard estates and on the east by Sciberras family estates another more accurate and correct, as is better identified in yellow on the plan annexed to a contract in the deeds of Notary Christian Zammit of the 19.11.2010.

2. That this property had originally been assigned by way of division to the applicant Maria Assunta Spiteri together with her sister Filomena Bugeja in a share of one third undivided, to the Rapa brothers sons of the deceased Carmela née Bugeja and cioè Filomena Galea, Carmel, Vitale, Mary Xerri, Helen, Francis, Julian, John, and Loretta Xuereb brothers Rapa in a share of another undivided third and to Rose widow of Dionisio Tabone in a share of another undivided third by virtue of contract in the deeds of Notary Christian Zammit of 19.11.2010;

3. That Filomena Bugeja subsequently transferred her share to her sister Maria Assunta Spiteri and Raymond Spiteri;

4. That Julian Rapa died on the 18th February, 2015, and was inherited by his three brothers Rapa, Brian, Joseph and Christopher;

5. That the said Rosa Tabone died on the 8 of March, 2014, and regulated her succession by virtue of a will in the deeds of Notary Paul George Pisani of the 17th December, 2010, by which she left as her children the nine brothers Francis sive Frank Tabone, Jane Tabone, Michelina Galea, Filomena Attard, Emanuel Tabone, George Tabone, and Sister Maria Rosa (Giorgia) Tabone, the applicant, and the respondents Maria Spiteri and Josephine Formosa;

6. However, according to an official letter sent by her on 2 March, 2021, Josephine Formosa expressly stated that she must be paid the share reserved for her by law on her mother's inheritance and therefore her inheritance devolved in favor of the eight other brothers;

7. That by virtue of an agreement signed before Notary Ayrton Buhagiar on the 1st of May 2021, all the applicants undertook to sell the share owned by them in this property – viz. two thirds, together with seven parts of another eight out of the other one third undivided shares, to Michael Pace Gasan for the price of six hundred and fifty thousand euros (€ 650,000) payable as agreed;

8. That therefore only the respondent Marija Spiteri remained who did not accede to this agreement. That this respondent has a minimal share of one-eighth of one third undivided (1/8 of 1/3) of this property;

9. That the applicants believe that the price originally agreed in the agreement of 1 May, 2021, is an advantageous one considering the measurement of this premises, and the state in which the building is located, as well as the locality in which it is located, and all the circumstances relating to these premises;

10. That the applicants are notifying this application to Josephine Formosa solely so that she may be informed of what is happening as she herself has stated that she only wants the share reserved on her mother's inheritance;

Accordingly, the applicants respectfully request that this Honorable Court please, after the publication of this application in the Government Gazette and in another local newspaper in terms of article 495A of Cap. 16;

1) declare that the price as well as the conditions originally proposed for the sale of all the applicant's share of the immovable property described above to Michael Pace Gasan is fair and appropriate and that the same price and conditions must apply for the sale due to the respondent Marija Spiteri from this same premises;

2) approve the proposed sale, and order the publication of the deed of sale as well for the share pertaining to the said Maria Spiteri, on a day, time and place to be fixed and therefore appoint to the Notary Ayrton Buhagiar to publish the deed of sale, with the intervention of Deputy Curators in order to represent any defaulters on that deed.

The application is appointed for hearing for Friday, 9th July, 2021, at 8.30 a.m.

Dorianne Cordina

For the Registrar, Gozo Courts and Tribunals

By means of a decree of the 25th of May, 2021, given on an application of Joseph Vella, filed on the 1st of July, 2019, in the records of application number 1105/2019 wherein it was ordered the publication of the inventory of the estate in possession of Joseph Vella of the late Maria Meli (ID 589424M), widow of Arturo Meli, daughter of the late Nazzareno Grima and Victoria née Psaila, born at Paola and died on the 17th of October, 2018, aged 94 years.

This publication is going to be held on Friday the 18th of June, 2021, at half past five (1730) at 94, Independence Avenue, Mosta, under the ministry of Notary Dr Carmel Gafà.

Carmen Scicluna

For the Registrar, Civil Court and Tribunals