Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 1 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  
 
MALTA  
 
QORTI TA' L -APPELL  
 
 
S.T.O. PRIM IMHALLEF  
VINCENT DE GAETANO  
 
ONOR. IMHALLEF  
ALBERT J. MAGRI  
 
ONOR. IMHALLEF  
TONIO MALLIA  
 
 
 
Seduta tat -28 ta' Settembru, 2007  
 
 
Appell Civili Numru. 224/2006/1  
 
 
 
 
GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU)  
 
v. 
 
Bell Med Ltd (C 26412) u  
Computer Aided Technologies Ltd (C 18050)  
 
 
Il-Qorti:  
Rat ir -rikors ipprezentat fil -Prim Awla tal -Qorti Civili fis -27 
ta’ Lulju 2006 minn Dr. Brigitte Zammit bhala mandatarja 
specjali tas -socjeta` estera GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain li tghid 
hekk:  
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 2 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  “1. Illi permezz ta’ sentenza moghtija fl -14 ta’ 
Gunju, 2006 (kopja originali bl -ilsien Franciz u traduzzjoni 
ufficjali bl -ilsien Ingliz annessi hawnhekk u mmarkati 
rispettivament bhala Dok B1 u Dok B2 ), il-Qorti ta’ l -
Appell ta’ Parigi, Franza ikkonfermat sen tenza moghtija 
fit-2 ta’ Novembru 2005 mit -Tribunal de Grande Instance  
ta’ Parigi, Franza fl -ismijiet GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) 
vs Bell Med Limited (C26412) u Computer Aided 
Technologies Limited (C18050), u iddeciediet inter alia  s-
segwenti (f’pagna 7 t as-sentenza Dok B2 ): 
 
“… 
 
“Dismisses the claims of the appellant companies;  
 
“Upholds the order under attack except as concerns the 
amount of the provision;  
 
“Orders Computer Aided Technologies Limited and Bell 
Med Limited jointly and severally to pay GIE Pari Mutuel 
Urbain a provision of 210,000 euros;  
 
“Orders Bell Med Limited and Computer Aided 
Technologies Limited to pay GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain 
50,000 euros under Article 700 of the New French Code 
of Civil Procedure;  
 
“Orders Computer Aided Technologies Limited and Bell 
Med Limited to pay the costs of the appeal that may be 
recovered according to the provisions of article 699 of the 
New French Code of Civil Procedure.  
 
…”. 
 
“2. Illi f’materji civili u kummercjali ai termini ta’ l -Artikolu 
1 tar -Regolament  44/2001 dwar il -Gurisdizzjoni u r -
Rikonoxximent u l -Infurzar ta’ Sentenzi f’Materji Civili u 
Kummercjali1, huma d -disposizzjonijiet ta’ dan ir -
Regolament li jirregolaw l -infurzar ta’ sentenzi moghtija 
minn qrati ta’ Stati Membri ta’ l -Unjoni Ewropeja.  
                                                           
1 OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p.1  
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 3 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja   
Fi kliem l -Artikolu 1 tar -Regolament 44/2001:  
 
“This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial 
matters whatever the nature of the court or tribunal ”.  
 
“3. Illi dan il -principju li r -Regolamenti Ewropej 
ghandhom effett dirett fl -Istati Membri ta’ l -Unjoni 
Ewropeja u jikkostitwixxu parti mill -legislazzjoni ta’ l -istess 
Stati Membri huwa principju baziku tal -ligi ta’ l -Unjoni 
Ewropeja. L -Artikolu 249 tat -Trattat ta’ l -Unjoni Ewropeja 
jghid hekk:  
 
“… A regulation shall have general application. It shall b e 
binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member 
States…”  
 
“4. Illi dan il -principju huwa inoltre ribadut fl -Att ta’ 
l-Unjoni Ewropeja (Kap. 460 tal -Ligijiet ta’ Malta), li fl -
Artikolu 3 jghid hekk:  
 
“(1) Mill -Ewwel ta’ Mejju 2004, it -Trattat u atti ezistenti u 
futuri adottati mill -Unjoni Ewropea ghandhom jorbtu lil 
Malta u ghandhom ikunu parti mill -ligi domestika taghha 
taht il -kondizzjonijiet stipulati fit -Trattat.  
 
“(2) Kull disposizzjoni ta’ ligi li mid -data msemmija tkun 
inkompatibbli m a’ l-obbligazzjonijiet ta’ Malta taht it -Trattat 
jew li tidderoga minn xi dritt moghti lil xi persuna bit -Trattat 
jew tahtu ghandha, safejn dik il -ligi tkun inkompatibbli ma’ 
dawk l -obbligazzjonijiet jew safejn tkun tidderoga minn 
dawk id -drittijiet, tkun bla effett u ma tkunx tista’ tigi 
infurzata.”  
 
"Inoltre, l -Artikolu 4(1) ta’ l -istess Att jghid hekk:  
 
"Dawk id -drittijiet, setghat, responsabbiltajiet, obbligi u 
restrizzjonijiet li minn zmien ghal zmien jinholqu jew 
johorgu minn jew taht it -Trattat, u d awk ir -rimedji u 
proceduri kollha li minn zmien ghal zmien ikun hemm 
provdut dwarhom bi jew taht it -Trattat, li skond it -Trattat 
ghandhom, minghajr ebda htiega ohra ta’ ghemil ta’ ligi , 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 4 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  jinghataw effett legali jew jintuzaw f’Malta, ghandhom jigu 
rikonoxxut i u jkunu legalment invokabbli, u jigu infurzati, 
permessi u mharsa bhala tali. ” (enfazi mizjuda)  
 
“5. Illi Artikolu 38(1) tar -Regolament 44/2001 jghid 
hekk:  
 
“A judgment given in a Member State and enforceable in 
that State  shall be enforced in another Member State 
when, on the application of any interested party, it has 
been declared enforceable there ”.  (enfazi mizjuda)  
 
“6 Illi ghalhekk, sentenza li l -infurzar taghha jkun qed 
jigi mitlub ai termini tar -Regolament 44/2001 ghandha (a) 
tikkwalifika bhala  “sentenza” ghall -finijiet ta’ l -Artikolu 32 
ta’ l-istess Regolament; u (b) tkun enfurzabbli fl -Istat 
Membru li fih tkun giet moghtija, f’dan il -kaz fi Franza.  
 
“7 Illi ghall -finijiet tar -Regolament 44/2001, il -kelma 
“sentenza” (“ judgment ”) hija definita m ill-Artikolu 32 ta’ l -
imsemmi Regolament 44/2001 bhala:  
 
“any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member 
State, whatever the judgment may be called, including a 
decree, order, decision or writ of execution, as well as the 
determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the 
court ”. 
 
“Is-sentenza li s -socjeta` rikorrenti qed titlob hawnhekk illi 
tigi enfurzata minn din l -Onorabbli Qorti ( Dok B1, B2 ) 
tikkwalifika bhala “ judgment ” ai termini ta’ din id -
definizzjoni.  
 
"8. Illi, kif gia’ citat f’para grafu 1 ta’ dan ir -rikors, il -
Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ Parigi taghmilha cara illi “ … (it) 
(u)pholds the order under attack except as concerns the 
amount of the provision; … ” (f’pagna 7 tas -sentenza Dok 
B2), liema “ order ” (u cioe` is -sentenza ta’ l -Ewwel Ista nza 
(Tribunal de Grande Instance ) ta’ Parigi – traduzzjoni 
ufficjali bl -ilsien Ingliz annessa hawnhekk u mmarkata 
Dok C ) ghamlitha bic -car li tali sentenza ghandha tkun 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 5 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  “…served by way of interim enforcement ipso jure ” 
(f’pagna 13 tas -sentenza Dok C ).  
 
“Ghalhekk huwa car illi s -sentenza hija enfurzabbli fi 
Franza.  
 
“9. Illi skond Artikolu 39(1) tar -Regolament 44/2001, ir -
rikors ikkontemplat mill -Artikolu 38(1) (citat f’paragrafu 5 
ta’ dan ir -rikors), ghandu jigi maghmul fil -qorti kompetenti 
indikata fit -tieni Anness tar -Regolament 44/2001. Skond 
dan l -imsemmi Anness tar -Regolament 44/2001, il -qorti 
kompetenti fil -kaz ta’ Malta hija l -Prim’Awla tal -Qorti Civili.  
 
"Inoltre, skond l -Artikolu 40(1) tar -Regolament 44/2001, 
hija l -lex fori  li ghandha tirregola l-procedura li wiehed 
ghandu jsegwi meta jaghmel tali rikors. Fi kliem dan l -
Artikolu 40(1): “the procedure for making the application 
shall be governed by the law of the Member State in 
which enforcement is sought ”.  
 
“L-Artikoli dwar l -infurzar ta’ sente nzi moghtija minn qrati 
ta’ pajjizi barra minn Malta, kontenuti taht Titolu V tal -
Kodici ta’ l -Organizzazzjoni u Procedura Civili (Kap. 12 
tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta) (“KOPC”), huma ghalhekk applikabbli 
ghall -kaz odjern.  
 
“10. Illi l-Artikolu 826 tal -KOPC jgh id hekk:  
 
“is-sentenzi moghtija minn qorti kompetenti ta’ pajjiz barra 
minn Malta, u li jkunu saru gudikat, jistghu jigu ezegwiti 
mill-qorti kompetenti ta’ Malta, bhas -sentenzi moghtija 
f’Malta, fuq citazzjoni b’talba biex tigi ordnata l -
ezekuzzjoni ta’ da wk is -sentenzi .” (enfazi mizjuda).  
 
“11. Illi skond l -Att XXII tas -sena 2005, li dahal in 
vigore fil -15 ta’ Jannar 2006, il -kelma “citazzjoni” fl -
imsemmi Artikolu 826 tal -KOPC giet sostitwita bil -kelma 
“rikors”.  
 
“Ghalhekk qieghed isir dan ir -rikors.  
 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 6 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  “12. Illi inoltre l -Artikolu 40(3) tar -Regolament 44/2001 
jipprovdi illi d -dokumenti li ghalihom jaghmel referenza l -
Artikolu 53 ta’ l -imsemmi Regolament ghandhom jigu 
annessi ma’ rikors ghall -infurzar ta’ sentenza moghtija 
minn qorti ta’ Stati Membri ta’ l -Unjoni Ewropeja.  
 
“13. Illi l-Artikolu 41 tar -Regolament 44/2001 jghid hekk:  
 
“The judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately 
on completion of the formalities in Article 53  without any 
review under Articles 34 and 35. The party against whom 
enforc ement is sought shall not at this stage of the 
proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the 
application ”. (enfazi mizjuda)  
 
"14. Illi skond Artikolu 53 ta’ l -imsemmi Regolament, is -
segwenti dokumenti qeghdin jigu annessi ma’ dan ir -
rikors:  
 
"i) Anness immarkat “ Dok B1 ” – kopja legali tas -
sentenza moghtija fl -14 ta’ Gunju, 2006 mill -Qorti ta’ l -
Appell ta’ Parigi, Franza, li s -socjeta` rikorrenti qieghda 
titlob li tigi infurzata kontra s -socjetajiet intimati permezz 
ta’ dan ir -rikors;  
 
"ii) Anness  immarkat “ Dok B2 ” – traduzzjoni ufficjali 
tas-sentenza immarkata Dok B1, bl -ilsien Ingliz, liema 
traduzzjoni hija certifikata minn traduttur ikkwalifikat u 
rikonoxxut fi Franza, skond ma hu rikjest mill -Artikolu 
55(2);  
 
"iii) Anness immarkat “ Dok D ” – ic-certifikat mahrug mill -
Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ Parigi, Franza, kif rikjest mill -Artikolu 
54. 
 
"15. Illi inoltre jidher bic -car mic -citat Artikolu 41 ta’ l -
imsemmi Regolament 44/2001 illi s-socjetajiet intimati 
m’ghandhom l -ebda dritt u mhuwiex ammess li ja ghmlu 
sottomissjonijiet ta’ kwalunkwe tip f’dan l -istadju tal -
process  ghall -infurzar tas -sentenza tal -Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ 
Parigi, Franza ( Dok B1, B2 ). 
 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 7 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  "16. Illi in vista tal -premess, is -socjeta` rikorrenti bir -
rispett titlob lil din l -Onorabbli Qorti s abiex minnufih 
tiddikjara li s -sentenza tal -Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ Parigi, 
Franza ( Dok B1, B2 ) ghandha tigi enfurzata kontra s -
socjetajiet intimati ai termini tar -Regolament 44/2001, kif 
sottomess hawn fuq, taht kwalunkwe provvediment illi din 
l-Onorabbli Qorti joghgobha taghti.  
 
“Bl-ispejjez kontra s -socjetajiet intimati.”  
 
Rat id -decizjoni moghtija mill Prim Awla tal -Qorti Civili fit -
28 ta’ Lulju, 2006, li in forza taghha ordnat l -esekuzzjoni 
tas-sentenza moghtija mill -Cour d’appell de Paris fl -14 ta’ 
Gunju, 2006, fil -kawza fl -ismijiet GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain 
versus Bell Med Limited et.;  
 
Rat ir -rikors ta’ l -appell tal -4 ta’ Settembru 2006 tas -
socjetajiet intimati li, ghar -ragunijiet hemm premessi, talbu 
li din il -Qorti joghgobha tirrevoka d -digriet tal -Prim Awla 
tal-Qorti Civili tat -28 ta’ Lulju 2006 li biha ddikjarat li d -
decizjoni tal -Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ Parigi tal -14 ta’ Gunju 
2006 fl -ismijiet GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain vs Bell Med Ltd et 
(Numru 05/22459)  ghandha tigi infurzata ai termini tar -
Regolamenti  44/2001, u konsegwentement tiddikjara li l -
istess decizjoni tal -Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ Parigi tal -14 ta’ 
Gunju 2006 fl -ismijiet GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain vs Bell Med 
Ltd. et. (Numru 05/22459)  ma tistax tigi rikonoxxuta u jew 
enfurzata ai termini tar -Regolame nti ghar -ragunijiet fuq 
esposti.  
 
Rat ir -risposta tar -rikorrenti nomine li, ghar -ragunijiet 
hemm premessi, talbet ic -cahda bl -ispejjez ta’ l -appell 
interpost mis -socjetajiet intimati;  
 
Rat il -provvediment li tat din il -Qorti fis -26 ta’ Gunju, 2007 
li perme zz tieghu cahdet it -talba ghal referenza 
pregudizzjali;  
 
Rat l-atti kollha u d -dokumenti esebiti;  
 
Semghet lid -difensuri tal -partijiet;  
 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 8 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  Ikkunsidrat;  
 
Illi f’dawn il -proceduri s -socjeta` rikorrenti qed titlob l -
esekuzzjoni f’Malta ta’ sentenza moghtija mil l-Qorti ta’ l -
Appell f’Parigi li in forza taghha giet kanonizzata kreditrici 
taz-zewg socjetajiet intimati.  Din it -talba saret ai termini 
tal-Council Regulation (EC) numru 44/2001.  In linea 
preliminari is -socjetajiet appellanti issollevaw l -eskluzzjoni 
tar-Regolament ghall -kaz odjern a tenur ta’ l -Artikoli 1(1) 
ta’ l-istess Regolament, stante li hawn si tratta ta’ materja 
amministrattiva.  
 
Din il -Qorti ser tibda biex tikkonsidra dan l -ewwel ilment.  
 
L-Artikolu 1(1) tar -Regolament jipprovdi illi “This 
Regu lation shall apply in civil and commercial matters 
whatever the nature of the court or tribunal.  It shall not 
extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or 
administrative matters”.  
 
Kif qalet din il -Qorti diversament komposta, fil -kawza 
b’materja simili d eciza fid -9 ta’ Jannar, 2007, fl -ismijiet 
“GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain v Zeturf Ltd.  (rikors numru 92/06):  
“.... dak li huwa importanti ghad -determinazzjoni tal -
kwistjoni jekk, fil -kaz de quo , hux qed nitkellmu dwar “a 
civil (or) commercial matter” jew dwar “(a n) administrative 
matter(s)”, huwa li wiehed jara x’poteri ezattament parti 
jew ohra ezercitat.  Jekk dawn il -poteri jkunu differenti jew 
superjuri minn dawk normalment applikabbli bejn persuni 
privati fir -relazzjonijiet ta’ bejniethom fil -kamp tad -dritt 
privat, il -kwistjoni ma tkunx tista’ verament titqies bhala 
wahda civili jew kummercjali.  Jigi pprecizat li t -tieni parti 
ta’ l-Artikolu 1(1) tghid li r -Regolament “...shall not extend, 
in particular , to revenue, customs or administrative 
matters” (sottoli near ta’ din il -Qorti), lokuzzjoni li tindika li 
materji fiskali, doganali w amministrattivi huma wkoll  (“in 
particular”) eskluzi, izda dak li hu importanti hu li jigi 
determinat posittivament jekk il -materja hix wahda civili 
jew kummercjali, cioe` li taqa ’ fl-ambitu tad -dritt privat a 
differenza tad -dritt pubbliku.  Il -ktieb European Civil 
Practice , hawn aktar ’l fuq citat, l -awturi, wara li jghaddu 
in rassenja disa’ sentenzi tal -Qorti Ewropea (inkluza 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 9 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  Steenbergen v. Baten ), jaghmlu s -segwenti 
osservazzjon i: 
 
“It is apparent from these decisions that, on the 
current state of the cases, it is not sufficient to 
exclude a case from the scope of the Brussels -
Lugano regime that the action is one brought by or 
against a public body acting in the exercise of its 
public law powers.  It is necessary to go further and 
consider whether the rights and duties of the public 
body are those whcih are conferred on it as such, that 
is, whether they go beyond those which apply to 
private persons .  If they are rights and duties  which 
would attach to private persons, the claim is not 
thereby excluded from the scope of the regime.  This 
is true even if the public body’s conduct was 
governed by rules which, as a matter of domestic law, 
are regarded as public law, and irrespective o f 
whether in the state where the public body is 
constituted, those rights and obligations would be 
justiciable before administrative courts rather than 
the ordinary courts.”2”  (sottolinear ta’ din il -Qorti)”.  
 
Dik l -istess Qorti, wara li ghamlet analizi u  studju tal -
materja involuta, fid -dawl tal -funzjoni specjali li ghandha s -
socjeta` rikorrenti, ikkonkludiet li:  
“Is-socjeta` appellata, ghalhekk, agixxiet fil -kaz de quo  fil-
Qrati Francizi mhux fl -ambitu tad -dritt privat li jirregola n -
negozju, civili jew kummercjali, bejn persuni privati, izda fl -
ambitu tad -dritt pubbliku biex tittuleta monpolju fl -interess 
ta’ l’ordre public francais .  Isegwi necessarjament, 
ghalhekk, li l -materja tad -decizjoni tal -Qorti ta’ l -Appell ta’ 
                                                           
2 P. 345, para. 12.021.  Ara wkoll Jaffey on the Conflict of Laws  (2nd. Ed.) 2005, OUP, 
p. 190 -191): “The difficulty with requiring the public authority to be acting in the 
exercise of its powers, before the matter can be excluded  from the Convention, is 
that it is often hard to tell whether a public authority is acting in a private capacity 
or in the exercise of its powers. In Netherlands State v. Ruffer  the Court of Justice 
held that a public authority, in this case the Dutch Sta te, was acting in the exercise of 
its powers in respect of a public waterway when it sought to recover from a German 
shipowner the costs of removing a wreck, even though under Dutch law (the Dutch 
courts being seised of the matter) the action was classifie d as one in tort. The case 
was concerned with a community concept and it would therefore be inappropriate to 
allow Dutch law to classify it according to domestic criteria…”.  
 
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 10 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  Parigi tal -4 ta’ Jannar 2006, ghal kemm formalment jew 
apparentement ta’ natura civili jew kummercjali, fir -realta` 
taqa’ fl -ambitu tad -dritt pubbliku, u ghalhekk hija 
espressament eskluza mill -operat tar -Regolament 
44/2001 in vista ta’ dak li jipprovdi l -Artikolu 1(1) ta’ l -
istess regolame nt, aktar ’l fuq imsemmi.”  
 
Din il -Qorti, kif issa komposta, regghet ezaminat il -
kwistjoni u ma tarax li ghandha tbiddel il -posizzjoni li 
hadet fil -konfront tas -socjeta` rikorrenti u l -funzjoni taghha.  
Jista’ jkun li l -kumpaniji tat -tigriji fi Franza “are  considered 
private corporations”, u jista’ jkun ukoll li s -socjeta` 
rikorrenti ma hijiex “a government authority”, pero`, hu car 
li din tirregola materja ta’ ordni pubbliku, u giet moghtija 
b’ligi funzjoni regulatrici u poter li tohrog licenzji ghal min 
irid jorganizza sistema ta’ imhatri fuq tigrijiet ta’ zwiemel fi 
Franza.  Fl -esercizzju tal -funzjonijiet taghha timmanifesta 
poteri publici konsistenti fil -kontroll u regolamentazzjoni ta’ 
attivita` konnessa ma’ imhatri fuq tigrijiet taz -zwiemel.  Kif 
gie m uri, ghandha “status” imhares minn tlett ministri 
governattivi, u kif anke ammettiet ix -xhud espert tas -
socjeta` rikorrenti, il -Professur Horatia Muir Watt, “there is 
a strong state interest in supervising horse betting 
activities”.  Dan jikkonferma li haw n si tratta ta’ socjeta` li 
l-iskop primarju taghha huwa li tittutela il -public policy  
Franciza fir -rigward ta’ l -imhatra fuq tlielaq taz -zwiemel.  
L-agir taghha f’dan il -kaz kien fil -kuntest ta’ dan il -poter .  
Kif spjega ix -xhud espert tas -socjetajiet app ellanti, l -
Avukat Andre` Meillassoux, is -socjeta` rikorrenti hija “a 
special body to carry out a public mission”, ghal liema 
missjoni is -socjeta` rikorrenti appellata nghatat monopolju.  
 
L-ewwel aggravju tas -socjetajiet intimati jimmerita, 
ghalhekk, li jku n akkolt.  
 
Isegwi wkoll li mhux mehtieg li din il -Qorti tezamina l -
aggravji l -ohra tas -socjetajiet appellanti u 
konsegwentement thassar u tirrevoka d -decizjoni tal -Prim 
Awla tal -Qorti Civili tar -28 ta’ Lulju 2006 li biha ddikjarat li 
d-decizjoni tal -Qorti ta’ l-Appell ta’ Parigi tal -14 ta’ Gunju 
2006 fl -ismijiet GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain v. Bell Med Ltd 
et (numru 05/22459)  ghandha tigi enfurzata ai termini tar -
Kopja Informali ta' Sentenza  
Pagna 11 minn 11 
Qrati tal -Gustizzja  Regolament 44/2001 u konsegwentement tichad it -talba 
kif dedotta fir -rikors ta’ GIE Pari Mutuel Urbai n tas -27 ta’ 
Lulju 2006.  L -ispejjez, kemm ta’ dana l -appell kif ukoll ta’ 
l-ewwel istanza (jekk hemm) jithallsu mis -socjeta` 
appellata GIE Pari Mutuel Urbain.  
 
 
 
< Sentenza Finali >  
 
--------------------------------- TMIEM ---------------------------------