App. Civ. 886/12  
 
1 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
QORTI   TAL-APPELL  
 
IMHALLFIN  
 
S.T.O .  PRIM IMHALLEF SILVIO CAMILLERI  
ONOR .  IMHALLEF TONIO MALLIA  
ONOR .  IMHALLEF JOSEPH AZZOPARDI  
 
Seduta ta’ nhar it-Tlieta 15 ta’ Dic embru 2015  
 
Numru  
 
Rikors  Numru 886/12 SM  
 
Av. Dr Josette Sultana bhala mandatarju specjali ghan -nom  
u in rapprezentanza tal -kumpanija  
V.O.F . VAST GOED B&B  
 
v. 
 
Maray & Grant Limited u  
Raymond Buhagiar  
 
Il-Qorti:  
 
Rat ir -rikors guramentat li l -attrici nomine pprezentat fil -5 ta’ Settembru, 
2012, u li jaqra hekk:  
 
“Illi hi giet appuntata mandatarju specjali tal -kumpanija V.O.F .  
VASTGOED B&B li hija registrata fil -Kingdom of Netherlands , permezz 
tal-prokura hawn annessa u mmarkata Dok ‘A’.  
 
“Illi permezz tas -sentenza tal -Qorti li tinsab fid -distrett ta’ Assen fl -
Olanda wkoll  maghrufa bhala l -Qorti estera, tas -17 ta’ Lulju, 2012, fl -
ismijiet ta’ ‘V.O.F . VASTGOED B&B vs 1 .  MARAY & GRANT LIMITED 
(C39880), 2 .  RAYMOND BUHAGIAR (kopja awtenitka tas -sentenza 
hawn annessa u mmarkata bhala Dok B  flimkien ma’ traduzzjoni 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
2 
 awtentika tas -sentenza awtorizzata u approvata mill -istess Qorti 
immarkata Dok C ), is-socjeta`  intimata giet dikjarata li ghandha tidher 
ghall -kuntratt finali li kien gie ffirmat bejn V.O.F . VASTGOED u 
Raymond Buhagiar li deher ghan -nom tal -kumpanija MARAY  & 
GRANT LIMITED fi zmien ta’ jumejn mid -data tas -sentenza moghtija 
mill-istess Qorti gewwa Assen fil -Kingdom of Netherlands . 
 
“Illi l-Qorti estera sabet li l -intimati naqsu li jidhru ghall -kuntratt.  
 
“Illi l-istess Qorti estera ordnat li Maray & Grant Lim ited kellha tonora l -
kuntratt li ghamel ma’ V.O.F . Vastgoed B&B fi zmien jumejn minn 
notifika ta’ dina s -sentenza liema sentenza hija annessa ma’ dan r -
rikors hekk kif hawn fuq indikat.  
 
“Illi fin -nuqas li Maray & Grant Limited tonora dina l -obbligazzjoni il-
Qorti estera ordnat penali a hamsa u ghoxrin elf ewro (€25,000) ghal 
kull gurnata li Marah & Grant Limited tibqa’ moruza u dina l -penali 
ghandha titla’ sa massimu ta’ miljun ewro (1,000,000.00) flimkien mal -
ispejjez provizorji hekk kif indikati fl -istess sentenza ta’ erbat elef 
hames mija u tlettax -il ewro u sbatax ewro cent (€4,513.17).  
 
“Illi ghal kull bon fini l -esponenti qeghdin jannettu kopja tad -dokumenti li 
gew ipprezentati quddiem il -Qorti estera liema dokumenti huma 
mmarkati bhala Dok D  u t-taduzzjoni tal -istess hija mmarkata bhala 
Dok E , flimkien ma korrispondenza bejn il -partijiet biss ai fini ta’ 
kjarezza stante li skont ir -Regolament tal -Kunsill (KEE) Nru 44/2001 
dwar il -Gurisdizzjoni u r -Rikonoxximent u l -Infurzar ta’ Sentenzi fi 
kwistjonijiet Civili u Kummercjali  dina l -Onorabbli Qorti ma 
ghandhiex gurisdizzjoni li tiddeciedi fuq il -merti tal -istess kaz.  
 
“Illi l-intimata kumpanija hija kumpanija registrata hawn Malta fejn infatti 
ir-registered office  tal-kumpanija Maray & Grant Lim ited hu Cobbles, 
186, St Philip  Street, Birzebbuga u r -rikorrenti nomine tixtieq illi s -
sentenza hawn fuq imsemmija u mmarkata bhala Dok B u t -traduzzjoni 
tal-istess hija mmarkata bhala Dok C, tigi infurzata kontra l-intimata 
skont ir - Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 44/2001 dwar il -
Gurisdizzjoni u r -Rikonoxximent u l -Infurzar ta’ Sentenzi fi 
kwistjonijiet Civili u Kummercjali , kif emendat.  
 
“Illi skont l -Artikolu 31 tar -Regolamenti 44/2001, applikazzjoni tista’ ssir 
f’xi Qorti ta’ kull Stat Membr u ghall -mizuri provizorji, inkluzi dawk il -
mizuri protettivi, li jkunu accessibbli f’dak l -Istat membru fejn qed issir l -
applikazzjoni, anki jekk, that dawn ir -Regolamenti, il -qrati ta’ Stati 
Membri ohra ghandhom il -gurisdizzjoni fuq dik il -kwistjoni.  
 
“Illi ghalhekk skont l -Artikolu 38(1) tar -Regolament 44/2001, 
sentenza moghtija fi Stat membru u ezegwibbli f’dak l -Istat 
ghandha tigi ezegwita fi Stat Membru iehor, meta, fuq l -
applikazzjoni ta’ parti interessata, din tkun giet dikjarata 
ezegwibbli hemmhekk.  
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
3 
  
“Illi tali sentenza hija ezegwibbli ai termini tac -certifikat fil -forma ta’ 
Annex V tal -imsemmi Regolament tal -Kunsill (KEE) Nru 44/2001 
mahrug mit -Tribunal tal -Kingdom of Netherlands, kopja hawn 
annessa u mmarkata Dok G  u t-traduzzjoni tal -istess certif ikat li 
qeghdha tigi hawn annessa u mmarkata bhala Dok H .” 
 
Rat ir -risposta guramentata tal -intimat i li in forza taghha ec cepew: 
 
“1. Illi t-talbiet tar -rikorrenti noe huwa infondat fil -fatt u fid -dritt 
stante illi l -proceduri VOF Vastgoed B&B - v- Maray &  
Grant Ltd u Raymond Buhagiar fl -Olanda ma gewx notifikati 
lill-intimati kif kien gie ampjament spjegat fis -sentenza tas -
17 ta’ Lulju 2012 mid -District Court of Assen u b’hekk imur 
kontra Artikolu 34(2) ta’ EC 44/2001;  
 
“2. Illi minghajr pregudizzju ghas -suespost Raymond Buhagiar 
dejjem agixxa bhala mandatarju tas -socjeta`  Maray & Grant 
Limited u m’huwiex u qatt ma kien azzjonista, direttur jew 
company secretary.  
 
“3. Illi minghajr pregudizzju ghas -suespost is -sentenza tas -17 
ta’ Lulju 2012 mid -District Court of Assen m’huwiex 
enforzabbli kontra Raymond Buhagiar peress li d -
decizjonijiet 5.2, 5.3 u 5.4 huma fil -konfront tas -socjeta`  
intimate Maray & Grant Limited u mhux kontra Raymond 
Buhagiar u b’hekk iz -zewg intimati ma kellhomx l -
opportunita` li jiddef endu wriehom fil -Qorti Olandiza;  
 
Rat is -sentenza li tat il -Prim’ Awla tal -Qorti Civili fil -11 ta’ Dicembru, 
2012, li in  forza taghha iddecidiet il-kawza fis -sens li gej : 
 
“i.  Tirrikonoxxi d -decizjoni moghtija mill -qorti ta’ Assen, Renju tal-
Olanda, datata s -17 ta’ Lulju, 2012, fl -ismijiet “ V.O.F .  Vastgoed B&B ” 
vs 1.  “Maray & Grant Limited ” (C – 39880) 2 .  Raymond Buhagiar;  
 
“ii.  Tiddikjara li d -decizjoni msemmija u ndikata fil -paragrafu precedenti 
hi nfurzabbli u ezegwibbli kontra s -socjeta`  ntimata;  
 
“iii.  Bl-ispejjez kontra l -intimati fuq riferiti .   
 
Dik il -Qorti tat is-sentenza taghha wara li ghamlet is -segwenti 
konsiderazzjonijiet:  
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
4 
  
“Stabbiliet li s -sentenza in dizamina deciza mill -Qorti Distrettwali ta’ 
Assen, l -Olanda, datata s -17 ta ’ Lulju, 2012, hi sentenza regolari 
mahruga minn qorti ta’ Stat Membru tal -Unjoni Ewropea;  
 
“Illi konsegwenza tal -istess, bis -sahha tal -artikoli 31 u 38 (1) tar -
Regolament tal -Kunsill (KE) 4/2001 hu assodat li:  
 
“1.  Applikazzjoni tista’ ssir f’xi Qorti ta’ kull Stat Membru tal -Unjoni 
Ewropea ghall -mizuri provizorji, anke protettivi, li jkunu accessibbli f’dak 
l-Istat Membru fejn qed issir l -applikazzjoni;  
 
“2.  Sentenza moghtija fi Stat Membru tal -Unjoni Ewropea hi ghalhekk 
ezegwibbli fl -Istat Membru l -iehor kif hekk dikjarata skont il -ligi;  
 
“Ikkunsidrat:  
 
“Illi din il -qorti hi sodisfatta li r -rikorrenti nomine:  
 
“1.  Ipprezentat id -dokumenti kollha pertinenti debitament awtentikati u 
fejn m ehtieg, tradotti skont il -ligi;” 
 
“2.  Illi l-imsemmija dokumentazzjoni tissodisfa l -precett impost mir -
Regolament tal -Kunsill (KE) Numru 44/2001 fuq gia` riferit; ” 
 
Rat ir -rikors tal -appell tal -konvenut i li in forza t ieghu , ghar -ragunijiet 
minnhom premessi, talbu illi din il -Qorti jghogobha  tirriforma s -sentenza 
appellata billi tiddikjara illi s -sentenza tad -Distrett ta’ Assent ghas -17 ta’ 
Lulju 2012 mhix enforzabbli f’Malta.  
 
Rat ir -risposta tal -intimati li in forza taghha, ghar -ragunijiet minnhom 
premessi, talbu illi din il -Qorti jghogobha  tikkonferma s -sentenza 
appellata u tiddikjara illi s -sentenza tad -Distrett ta’ Assent tas -17 ta’ 
Lulju 2012 hija enforzabbli f’Malta.  
 
Semgh et lid-difensuri tal -partijiet;  
 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
5 
 Rat l-atti kollha tal -kawza u d -dokumenti esebiti;  
 
Ikkonsidrat:  
 
Illi f’din il -kawza r -rikorrenti V.O.F . VASTGOED B&B qeghda titlob :  
 
(1) ir -rikonoxximent tas -sentenza  moghtija mill -Qorti ta ’ Assen li tinsab 
fir-Renju ta l-Olanda datat a 17 ta’ Lulju 2012 fl -ismijiet  V.O.F . 
VASTGOED B&B v.  1.  MARAY & GRANT LIMITED (C39880) 2 .  
RAYMOND BUHAGIAR ; u  
 
(2) tidd ikjara l -imsemmija sentenza info rzabbli u ezegwibbli kontra s -
socjeta`  intimata.  
 
B’dik is -sentenza u senjatament fil -paragrafi 5.2 sa 5.4 tal-istess 
decizjoni, (ara test I ngliz tas -sentenza a fol.  18 tal -process) wara li s-
socjeta`  intimata Maray and Grant Limited naqset milli tidher giet 
ordnata sabiex:  
 
(i) fi zmien jumejn minn meta tigi notifikata s -sentenza toqghod ghall -
ftehim konkluz ma’ V.O.F . Vastgoed B&B, li permezz tieghu intrabtet li 
tixtri hames appartamenti u thallas gh all-kostruzzjoni taghhom u fin -
nuqqas li thallas penali ta’ hamsa u ghoxrin elf ewro  (€25,000.00) 
kuljum li fih tonqos milli taghmel dan;  
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
6 
  
(ii) l-imse mmija penali giet limitata ghall -massimu ta’ miljun ewro  (€ 
1,000,000.00); u  
 
(iii) li l -istess socjeta`  intimata thallas l -ispejjez tal -proceduri fl -ammont 
ta’ erbat elef hames mija u tlettax -il ewro  u sbatax -il centezmu 
(€4513.17).  
 
Mill-atti jirrizulta illi wara li l -imsemmija sentenza moghtija mill -Qorti 
Distrettwali t a’ Assen, fis -17 ta’ Lulju, 2012, is -socjeta`  rikorrenti bdiet il -
proceduri odjerni permezz ta’ rikors ipprezentat fir -Registru fil -5 ta’ 
Settembru, 2012, li bihom kienu debitament notifikati il -konvenuti 
appellanti fl -24 ta’ Settembru, 2012 (fol . 80 tal -process) .  Mill-atti ma 
jirrizultax li  l-appellanti wara tali notifika tar -rikors promotur, inkluza l -
imsemmija sentenza, ttentaw xi proceduri  fl-Olanda  sabiex jappellaw 
mill-imsemmija sentenza.  
 
Illi peress li s -socjeta`  intimata hija kumpanija registrata Malta, is -
socjeta`  rikorrenti tinvoka  l-Artikolu  38 (1) tar -Regolament tal -Kunsill 
(KE) Numru 44/2001 sabiex sentenza moghtija fi Stat Membru u 
ezegwibbli f’dak l -istess Stat, tigi ezegwita fi Stat Membru iehor, meta 
permezz ta’ applikazzjoni  ta’ parti interessata, din tkun giet dikjarata 
ezegwibbli hemmhekk . 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
7 
  
Illi l-imsemmija sentenza giet dikjarata provizorjament ezegwibbli hekk 
kif fuq imsemmi mill -Qorti tal-Assen u sahansitra inhareg ic -certifikat fil -
forma ta’ Annex V, il-verzjoni Ingliza ezebita  bhala Dok H a fol . 64 tal -
process u dan ai  termini tal-Artikoli 53 u 54 tar -Regolament tal -Kunsill 
(KE) Numru 44/2001.  
 
Illi permezz tas -sentenza datata 11  ta’ Dicembru, 2012, l -Ewwel Qorti 
laqghet it -talba tar -rikorrenti u rrikonoxxiet l -azzjoni intavolata bhala 
valida fil -ligi u konsegwentement : 
 
i. Irrikonoxxiet d -decizjoni moghtija mill -Qorti ta’ Assen, Renju 
tal-Olanda datata 17 ta’ Lulju, 2012, fl -ismijiet V.O.F . Vastgoed 
B&B vs 1 .  Maray & Grant Limited (C -39880) 2 .  Raymond 
Buhagiar;  
ii. Iddikjarat li d -decizjoni msemmija hi nfurzabbli u ezegwibbl i 
kontra s -socjeta`  ntimata;  
iii. Bl-ispejjez kontra l -intimati fuq riferiti.  
 
L-intimati appellaw mis -sentenza u ressqu numru t a’ aggravji li ser jigu 
trattati seriatim.  
 
Qabel xejn, tajjeb jinghad  illi l-materja in ezami hija regolata bl -Artikolu 
825A tal -Kodici ta’ Organizzazzjoni u Procedura Civili (Kap . 12 tal -
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
8 
 Ligijiet ta’ Malta) li jippreskrivi li meta r egolamenti tal -Unjoni Ewropea 
jipprovdu, dwar affarijiet regolati ta ht dak it -Titolu, b’mod li jkun differenti 
milli hemm f’dak it -Titolu, dawk ir-regolamenti g handhom jipprevalu, u d -
disposizzjonijiet fl -imsemmi Titolu g handhom biss japplikaw meta ma 
jkunux inkonsistenti mad -disposizzjonijiet ta’ dawk ir -regolamenti jew 
f’affarijiet li ma jaqg hux fl-ambitu ta’ dawk ir -regolamenti.  
 
Barra minn hek k, il-Legislazzjoni Sussidjarja 12.09 fir -regolamenti 17 
tipprovdi illi b’zieda mad -disposizzjonijiet tal-Artikolu 825A tal -Kodici 
hawn fuq msemmi, id -disposizzjonijiet tar -Regolament tal -Kunsill (KE) 
Nru 44/ 2001 tat -22 ta ' Di cembru 2000 , dwar gurisdizzjon i u 
rikonoxxime nt u ezekuzzjoni ta' sentenzi f 'materji civili u kummercjali 
ghandhom ikomplu jghoddu fil -kwistjonijiet li jaqghu fl -ambitu ta’ dak ir -
Regolament kif pubblikat fil -Gurnal Ufficjali tal -Kommunitajiet Ewropej 
tas-16 ta’ Jannar, 2001.  
 
Ghalhekk  Qorti Maltija mitluba tezegwixxi sentenza ta’ pajjiz  Stat 
Membru fl -Unjoni Ewropeja  trid issegwi r -regoli li johorgu mill -istrument 
legali hawn fuq imsemmi li hu wa enforzabbli f’Malta bhala Stat Membru 
fl-Unjoni Ewropeja .  Dan l -istrument legali, sewwasew  minhabba li huwa 
Regolament, illum jaghmel parti mis -sistema tal -ligijiet ta’ Malta b’effett 
dirett .  Fil-fatt dan il -principju kien ikkostatat mi nn din il -Qorti fis -sentenzi 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
9 
 Opatecka v . Ciantar deciza fis -27 ta’ Jannar, 2006 u  GIE Pari Mutuel 
Urbain (PMU ) v. Bell Med Ltd et . deciza fit -28 ta' Settembru, 2007.  
 
Mhix il -funzjoni tal -Qorti lokali li terga’ tiftah il -mertu tal -kwistjoni deciza 
bis-sentenza ta’ Qorti ta’ Stat Membru iehor (ara sentenza tal -Qorti 
Ewropeja fl -ismijiet Prism Investment BV v . Jaap Anne van der Meer 
C-139/10 deciza 13 t a’ Ottubru 2011) sakemm mhux ghal xi wahda mir -
ragunijiet cirkoskritti taht l -Artikoli  34 u 35 tar -Regolament tal -Kunsill 
(KE) Numru 44 tas -sena 2001 . 
 
L-appellanti qeghdin proprju jibbazaw l -appell taghhom fuq l -Artikolu  34 
(2) tar -Regolament 44/2001 .  Madanakollu, fl -appell taghhom l -
appellanti jaghmlu referenza ghall -parti biss mill -Artikolu  34 (2) fl -
imsemmi  regolament .  Rilevanti ghall -kaz in ezami huwa t -test shih tal-
Artikolu  34 (2) tal-imsemmi regolament, fejn sentenza m’ghand hiex tigi 
rikonoxxuta:  
“2.  where it was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was 
not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with 
an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to 
enabl e him to arrange for his defence, unless the defendant failed to 
commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was 
possible for him to do so ;” (enfasi mizjud)  
 
Trattat issa l-meritu tal -aggravji tal -konvenuti appellanti, da wn fl-ewwel 
lok, jilmenta w mill-fatt li l -ewwel Qorti m’applikatx Regolament tal -Kunsill 
(KE) Numru 44/2001  kif mehtieg , peress li l -intimati qatt ma gew 
notifikati bl -azzjoni quddiem il -Qorti Distrettwali t a’ Assen .  L-appellant i 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
10 
 jghadd u sabiex jis iltu test mis -sentenza t al-Qorti Distrettwali t a’ Assen 
sabiex jenfasizza w dan-nuqqas ta’ notifika  a tenur tal-Artikolu  34 (2) tar -
regolament 44/2001 . 
 
Illi huwa principju enuncjat mill-Qorti tal -Gustizzja Ewrope a li ladarba l -
qofol tal -kontestazzjoni huwa dak taht l -Artikolu 34 (2) tal-imsemmi 
regolament, il -Qrati tal-Istat Membru fejn qieghed jintalab l -ezekuzzjoni 
ta’ sentenza quddiemhom, ghandhom jaghmlu stharrig indipendenti 
dwar jekk l -intimat li kontra tieghu nghatat is -sentenza minkejja in -
nuqqas tieghu li jidhe r, kienx debitament notifikat bid -dokumenti li bihom 
inbdew il -proceduri u jekk in -notifika saritx fi zmien utli li fiha l -intimat 
seta’ jipprepara ghal difiza .  (ara sentenza tal -Qorti Ewrope a fl-ismijiet 
Trade Agency Ltd v . Seramico Investments Ltd (C619 /10) deciza fis -
6 ta’ Dicembru 2012).  
 
Din il -Qorti tosserva l -korrispondenza li ghaddiet bejn il -partijiet esebita 
mill-appellata mar -rikors promotur, partikolarment dik a fol . 53 tal -
process li turi li f’korrispondenza li ghaddiet bejn il -partijiet kien hemm 
diga` hjiel li s -socjeta`  appellata kienet ser tibda proceduri legali fil -
konfront tal-appellanti fin -nuqqas taghhom li joqghodu ghal dak 
miftiehem bejn il -partijiet u li dawn tal-ahhar kienu ben konxji minn dan .  
Inoltre t -test Ingliz tas -sentenza tal-Qorti t a’ Assen a fol . 13 tal -process 
telenka korrispondenza shiha bejn il -partijiet senjatament bejn it -12 ta’ 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
11 
 April, 2012 u 29 ta’ Mejju, 2012 fejn proprju l -appellanti kienu qeghdin 
jigu avzati li ser jittiehdu passi legali fil -konfront taghhom u an ke tal -fatt li 
l-proceduri kellhom jinbdew fl -1 ta’ Gunju, 2012 .  Ghalhekk il -Qorti t a’ 
Assen fost affarijiet ohra rrimarkat li l -appellanti “ buried their heads in 
the sand ”.  Apparti li dawn ir -rizultanzi ma gewx kontestati mill -appellanti 
bl-ebda mod, ma danakollu jibqa’ l -fatt li l -appellanti lanqas ma ttantaw li 
jressqu xi ilment f’dan is -sens permezz t a’ appell quddiem Qorti 
Olandiza.  
 
Illi huwa ritenut ukoll li l -bazi sabiex tigi rifjutata t -talba ta’ rikonoxximent 
u ezekuzzjoni ta’ sentenza fuq id -difiza ta’ nuqqas ta’ notifika kif stipulat 
fl-Artikolu  34 (2) tar -Regolament 44 /2001 huwa suggett ghal tliet 
kundizzjonijiet ku mmulativi:  
 
(i) Li s-sentenza nghatat meta l -intimat naqas li jidher;  
(ii) Li l-intimat ma kienx notifikat bl -atti li bihom inbdew il -proceduri 
kontrih fi zmien utli b’tali mod li seta’ jipprepara d -difiza tieghu; 
u 
(iii) Li l-intimat ma jkunx naqas milli jibda proceduri sabiex 
jikkontesta dik is -sentenza li nghatat fl -iStat Membru 
kkoncernat meta dan kien possibli.  
 
Jekk tonqos wahda minn dawn l -elementi, il -Qorti tal-iStat Membru li fih 
ikun qieghed jintalab ir -rikonoxximent u ezekuzzjoni tal-imsemmija 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
12 
 sentenza m’ghandiex triq ohra ghajr li taghti dak ir -rikonoxximent mitlub .  
Jigifie ri fil-kuntest tal -kaz in ezami anke jekk ghall -grazzja tal-argument 
l-appellanti jsehhilhom li jippruvaw l -ewwel zewg elementi, ma wrew 
ebda raguni l -ghala huma naqqsu milli jikkontestaw jew jappellaw minn 
dik is -sentenza moghtija mill -Qorti Distrettwali ta’ Assen f’Qorti Olandiza 
meta huma gew notifikati bil -proceduri odjerni, f’liema kaz skont  l-
Artikolu  37 tal-istess Regolament 44/2001, il -Qorti ta’ Malta setghet 
tieqaf milli tkompli tisma’ il -proceduri odjerni sakemm jispiccaw dawk il -
proceduri.  
 
F’dan  il-kuntest, il -Qorti tal -Gustizzja Ewropea addottat interpretazzjoni  li 
tmur lil hinn mid -diversi  kuncetti u fl -istess hin tipprova tarmonizzahom .  
Fil-proceduri  fil-kors tal -kawza  Apostolides v . Orams  (C-420/07) 
deciza fit -28 ta’ April, 2009, il -Qorti rriteniet :  
““Article 34(2) of Regulation No . 44/2001, unlike Article 27 (2) of the 
Convention, does not necessarily require the document which instituted 
the proceedings to be duly served, but does require that the rights of 
the defence are effectively respected...Under Articles 34 (2) and 45 (1) 
of Regulation No 44/2001, the recognition or enforcement of a default 
judgement must be refused, if there is an appeal, if the defendant was 
not s erved with the document to enabl e him to arrange for his defence,  
unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge that 
judgement before the courts of the Member State of origin when it was 
possible for him to do so.  
 
“It is clear from the wording of those provisions that a default 
judgement given on the  basis of a document instituting 
proceedings which was not served on the defendant in sufficient 
time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence 
must be recognised if he did not take the initiative to appeal 
against that judgement when i t was possible for him to do so .  
(enfasi mizjud) ” 
 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
13 
 Illi l-istess test kkwotat mill -appellant i fl-appell taghhom  jirreferi ghall -
Artikolu  19.  Dan l -Artikolu  19 huwa dak tar -Regolament tal -Kunsill (KE) 
Numru 1393/2007 (u mhux tar -regolament 44/2001) .  Dan ir -
Regolament jipprovdi ghan -notifika ta’ dokumenti gudizzjarji u 
estragudizzjarji bejn l -Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewro pea u jahseb ghac -
cirkostanzi fejn f’liema kazijiet m’ghandhiex tinghata sentenza fil -kaz ta’ 
nuqqas ta’ notifika meta l -intimat ma jidhirx quddiem il -Qorti li fiha tkun 
saret it -talba gudizzjarja; f’liema cirkostanzi l -Qorti ta’ Stat Membru tista’ 
tghaddi ghas -sentenza minkejja n -nuqqas ta’ rcevuta ta’ certifikat ta’ 
notifika; kif ukoll rimedji li jkollu konvenut meta minkejja li jkun  naqas 
milli jidher , il-Qorti tkun iddeci diet kontra tieghu .  Jigi osservat illi l -Qorti 
Distrettwali t a’ Assen fl -apprezzament tal -provi imwettaq minnha fliet bir -
reqqa t -test tal-Artikolu 19 (1) u (2) tal-imsemmi regolament (ara 
paragrafi 4.2 sa 4.7 a fo l. 16 fit -traduzzjoni bl -Ingliz tal-imsemmija 
sentenza) fil -kuntest tal -kaz quddiemha . 
 
Dik l-istess Qorti ta’ Assen ghalkemm ikkonstatat in -nuqqas ta’ notifika 
kif jipprovdi l -istess regolament  1393/2007, madankollu mi nhabba t-
talba tal-interess urgenti m aghmula mis -socjeta`  rikorrenti  a tenur tal-
Artikolu  19 (3) tal-imsemmi regolament, iddecidiet li tipprocedi bl -
evalwazzjoni tat -talba tar -rikorrenti sabiex tordna “any provisional or 
protective measures” u dan wara li qieset id -diversi tentattivi ta’ notifika, 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
14 
 kif ukoll il -korrispondenza kollha li ghaddiet bejn il -partijiet dwar l -
ezekuzzjoni tal-imsemmi ftehim . 
 
Din il -Qorti t osserva wkoll li l -imsemmi Artikolu  19 (4) jipprovdi s -
segwenti:  
“4.   When a w rit of summons or an equivalent document has had to be 
transmitted to another Member State for the purpose of service under 
the provisions of this Regulation and a judgment has been entered 
against a defendant who has not appeared, the judge shall have the  
power to relieve the defendant from the effects of the expiry of the time 
for appeal from the judgment if the following conditions are fulfilled:  
 
“(a) the defendant, without any fault on his part, did not have 
knowledge of the document in sufficient time  to defend, or knowledge 
of the judgment in sufficient time to appeal; and  
 
“(b) the defendant has disclosed a prima facie defence to the action 
on the merits.  
 
“An application for relief may be filed only within a reasonable time after 
the defendant has k nowledge of the judgment.  
 
“Each Member State may make it known, in accordance with Article 
23(1), that such application will not be entertained if it is filed after the 
expiry of a time to be stated by it in that communication, but which shall 
in no case be less than one year following the date of the judgment .” 
 
Dan it -test tal-Artikolu  qieghed jigi citat in vista tal-ilment tal-appellanti li 
n-nuqqas ta’ notifika valida hija marbuta ma’ ilment iehor tieghu u cioe ` li 
l-konvenut ghandu jkollu zmien suffic jenti sabiex jipprezenta d -difiza 
tieghu .  Issa minn ezami kemm tal-Artikolu  34 (2) tar -regolament 
44/200 1, kif ukoll ezami tal-Artikolu  19 (4)  tar-Regolament tal -Kunsill 
(KE) Numru 1393/2007 , hawn fuq citat,  jirrizulta bl -aktar mod car li l -
imsemmija zewg regolamenti joffru rimedju ghal konvenut li kontra 
tieghu tkun inghatat decizjoni in absentia  jekk huwa jkollu lanjanza ta’ 
din in -natura , li ma giex notifikat fi zmien utli sabiex jiddefendi lilu nnifsu 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
15 
 kontra l-azzjoni migjuba kontra tieghu , dan dejjem sakemm l -intimat ma 
jkunx naqas milli jibda proceduri biex jattakka s -sentenza meta dan kellu 
c-cans u skont  l-ahhar regolament hawn fuq citat li juri li prima facie 
ghandu difiza x’iressaq ukoll fil -mertu .  Mill-atti tal -kaz jirrizulta li 
ghalkemm l -appellanti kienu notifikati bis -sentenza f’anqas minn xahrejn 
minn mindu inghatat is -sentenza originali permezz tal -proceduri odjerni,  
madanakollu kif tajjeb tirrileva s -socjeta`  appellata u mill-atti ma jidhirx l i 
l-appellanti ghamlu xi tentattiv sabiex huma stess jirrimedjaw ghal dan l -
ilment taghhom , permezz t a’ appell appozitu quddiem il -Qorti tal-Olanda 
u ghalhekk tali aggravju fil-kuntest tal -Artikoli  hawn fuq imsemmija, 
m’ghandux jintlaqa’ . 
 
Fuq l -istess aggravju, l -appellanti jsostnu li s -sentenza tas -17 ta’ Lulju 
2012 tista’ ghalhekk tigi biss infurzata fl -Olanda .  Din il -Qorti ma tistax 
taqbel ma ’ dan l -argument ghaliex imur kontra l -principju baziku sancit 
bl-Artikolu  33 tar -regolament 44/2001, li kif rajna qabel jaghmel parti mil -
ligi Maltija.  
 
Illi t-tieni aggravju tas -socjeta`  appellanti huwa fis -sens li l -ewwel Qorti 
m’ghamlitx apprezzament  tajjeb tal -provi sta nte li s -sentenza ma gietx 
notifikata lill -appellanti .  Huma jissottomettu li ma gewx debitament 
notifikati bis -sentenza tas -17 ta’ Lulju, 2012, u ghalhekk m’ghandhiex 
tigi info rzata peress illi huma jikkontendu li l -ewwel kellhom jigu notifikati 
bis-sentenza u wara jumejn li ma jottemprawx ruhhom biss , setghu l-
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
16 
 appellati jipprocedu bir -rikors odjern ghall -infurzar tas -sentenza, u 
ghalhekk jimplikaw li ma kienx bizzejjed li s -sentenza in -ezami tigi 
annessa mar -rikors promotur ghall -fini ta’ notifika tas -sentenza .  Minn 
dan l -ilment qieghed jinftiehem illi l -appe llanti qeghdin jaghmlu referenza 
ghall -Artikolu  256 (2) tal -Kodici t a’ Organizzazzjoni u Procedura Civili li 
jipprovdi li Titoli Ezekuttivi li mhumiex elenkati fl -Artikolu  ta’ qabel jistghu 
jigu ezegwiti wara jumejn li ssir sejha ghall -hlas b’att gudizzjar ju. 
 
Madan akollu r-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Numru  44/2001 ma jehtieg 
ebda forma lita` hlief dawk kontemplati fl -Artikolu 53 tal-istess 
regolament, li kif rajna huwa direttament applikabli f’pajjizna u li mill -atti 
jirrizulta li s -socjeta`  appellata ottemp erat ruhha ma’ dak mehtieg fl -
imsemmi artikolu .  Kif inghad qabel  ukoll, il -Kodici t a’ Organizzazzjo ni u 
Procedura Civili stess tistabilixxi li f’kaz ta’ nuqqas ta’ konsistenza bejn 
iz-zewg ligijiet,  dawk i l-provvedi menti li johorgu mir -Regolament tal-
Kunsill (KE) Numru  44/2001 ghandhom jipprevalixxu . 
 
Dan il -punt kien suggett ta’ kaz iehor quddiem il -Qorti tal -Gustizzja 
Ewropea  fl-ismijiet ASML Netherlands BV v . Semiconductor Industry 
Services GmbH (SEMIS)  (C – 283/05), deciz 14 ta’ Di cembru, 2006, 
kien ritenut illi : 
“20.  By contrast, Article 34 (2) of Regulation No 44/2001 does not 
necessarily require the document which instituted the proceedings to 
be duly served, but does require that the rights of the defence are 
effectively respec ted. 
 
“21.  Finally, Article 34 (2) provides an exception to ground for refusal 
of recognition or enforcement of a judgement, that is to say, in the case 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
17 
 where the defendant has failed to commence proceedings to challenge 
the judgement when it was possible  for him to do so. .. 
  
 “... ... ...  
 
“43.  It is service of the document instituting proceedings and the 
default judgement, as provided for in Article 34 (2), in sufficient time 
and in such a way as to enable the defendant to arrange for his 
defence which afford him the opportunity to ensure that his rights are 
respected before the courts of the State in which judgement was given.  
 
“44.  Therefore, the broad logic of Regulation 44/2001 does not require 
service of a default judgement to be subject to c onditions more 
stringent than those provided for in Article 34 (2) as regards service of 
the document instituting proceedings.”  
 
Illi kif rilevat qabel, ghalkemm l -appellanti jilmentaw dwar in -nuqqas ta’ 
debita notifika u nuqqas ta’ zmien utli biex iressqu  difiza quddiem il -Qorti 
Olandiza, meta l -istess appellanti kienu debitament notifikati bis -
sentenza tal -Qorti Olandiza perme zz tal -proceduri odjerni, ma tte ntaw 
iressqu ebda appell f’dan is -sens quddiem il -Qorti Olandiza .  
Ghaldaqstant anke fir -rigward ta ’ dan l -ilment, huwa ritenut illi l -ewwel 
Qorti kienet korretta fl -apprezzament taghha tal -provi quddiem ha. 
 
It-tielet aggravju tal-appellanti huwa fis -sens li l -infurzar tal-imsemmija 
sentenza ma jistax isir fil -konfront tal-appellant Raymond Buhagiar 
stante li ghalkemm il -Qorti Distrettwali t a’ Assen sabet liz -zewg 
appellanti “ to be in default through non appearance”, fil-paragrafi 5.2 sa 
5.4 tal-istess sentenza ordnat lis -socjeta`  Maray &  Grant Limited sabiex 
toqghod ghall -kuntratt u li fin -nuqqas thallas il -penali .  L-appellanti 
Buhagiar jkompli billi jsostni li huwa ma kellu ebda ftehim mas -socjeta` 
appellata u konsegwentement  ghandu jigi ezonorat mill -infurzar u 
App. Civ. 886/12  
 
18 
 ezekuzzjoni tal-istess s entenza .  Illi din il -Qorti ghalkemm taqbel ma’ din 
is-sottomissjoni, tirrileva li kemm ir -rikors promotur permezz tat -tieni 
talba jitlob l -infurzar u l -ezekuzzjoni tas -sentenza kontra s -socjeta`  
intimata, kif ukoll is -sentenza tal-ewwel Qorti iddikjarat l i d-decizjoni 
msemmija hija nfurzabbli u ezegwibbli biss kontra s -socjeta`  intimata u 
konsegwentement isegwi illi l-ewwel Qorti kienet korretta fil -gudizzju 
taghha u ghalhekk mhux il -kaz li l -imsemmija sentenza tigi revokata jew 
riformata . 
 
Ghaldaqstant, g har-ragunijiet premessi, tiddisponi mill -appell interpost 
mill-konvenuti billi tichad  l-istess, filwaqt li  tirrikonoxxi s -sentenza tal -
Qorti Distrettwali t a’ Assen , fir-Renju tal-Olanda,  tas-17 ta’ Lulju, 2012 fl -
ismijiet  V.O.F . Vastgoed B&B v.  1. Maray & Grant Limited (C -39880) 2 . 
Raymond Buhagiar  u tiddikjaraha l -istess sentenza inforzabbli u 
ezegwibbli kontra s -socjeta`  konvenu ta Maray & Grant Limited (C -
39880) . 
 
L-ispejjez kollha ta ’ din i l-kawza, in kluzi dawk in prim istanza, jithallsu 
mill-intimati.  
 
 
Silvio Camilleri   Tonio Mallia    Joseph Azzopardi  
Prim Imhallef   Imhallef    Imhallef  
 
 
 
 
Deputat Registratur  
df