Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idCountry=19&idTaxonomy=7090&plang=en&init=true
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 02:36:38+00:00
Document Index: 1052796

Matched Legal Cases: ['Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ', 'Qorti ']

Agius vs International Trading Company Ltd
International Trading Company Ltd
conformity with the contract, consumer rights, contract law, precontractual information
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 2 Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 5, 1.
(1) The two year time period within which a consumer may make his/her claim runs as from the date that the lack of conformity to the description of the goods ‘becomes apparent’ as dictated by Article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act, which implements Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC.
The plaintiff bought a fridge from the defendant company and after a while such fridge started to leak. Although the defendant tried to repair the fridge it continued to leak. The plaintiff thus launched a claim in the Consumer Claims Tribunal, and the latter ruled against the defendant, ordering rescission of the contract and a refund of the price paid. The defendant company appealed the decision reached by the Tribunal, arguing that i) the plaintiff’s claim was launched after the prescriptive period had passed, basing itself on the prescribed period set out by Article 1431 of the Civil Code regarding latent defects ii) the plaintiff installed the fridge incorrectly.
The court argued that since the dispute concerns a consumer contract, then the law that is to apply is the special law laid out by the Consumer Affairs Act rather than the general contract law of the Civil Code. Thus, contrarily to the provisions of the Civil Code which state that prescription starts to run from the day that the consumer ‘could’ have discovered the latent defect, in cases of consumer contracts Article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act (or Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC) dictates that the time in which a consumer may make his/her claim runs as from the date that the lack of conformity to the description of the goods ‘becomes apparent’. Meanwhile, the same provision also dictates that such time shall be suspended once negotiations are ongoing between the trader and consumer in order to reach a settlement, which in fact happened in this particular case.
The court finally concluded that when the plaintiff bought a new fridge she had every right to expect that it would not have any defects in such a short time after delivery. It cannot be argued, as the defendant did, that the fridge was not installed properly, since if anything, if the installation was so complicated the seller should have advised the buyer at the time of the purchase.
(1) From when does the two year time period in Article 78 of the Consumer Affairs Act (which implements Article 5(1) of Directive 1999/44/EC start to run?
Rat is-sentenza ippronunjzata mit-Tribunal ghat-Talbiet tal-Konsumatur moghtija fit-18 ta’ Lulju 2012 fejn gie deciz:-
Wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-Avviz fl-ismijiet fuq premessi pprezentati fit-3 ta’ Jannar, 2011, fejn ir-rikorrenti talbet danni ta’ tmien mija u hamsin euro (€850), rapprezentanti prezz ta’ fridge li beda jaghmel l-ilma.
L-intimat ipprezenta risposta bil-miktub ghal din it-talba, u attenda ghas-seduta.
Illi wara li sema’ x-xhieda guramentata tar-rikorrenti li hija l-istess rikorrenti, u wara li sema’ x-xhieda tal-intimat li huma rapprezentanti tas-socjeta` intimata, u wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-fatti kif ukoll tac-cirkostanzi kollha tal-kaz;
Ir-rikorrenti ssottomettiet bil-miktub li hija xtrat fridge u fiz-zmien il-garanzija bdiet taghmel l-ilma u s-silg, u minkejja li l-intimat sewwew u biddlu xi haga mis-sistema, dina xorta baqghet taghmel l-ilma.
Is-socjeta intimata ssottomettiet illi wara li ghamlu tibdila fis-sistema tal-gas, din ma baqghetx taghmel l-ilma.
It-Tribunal, wara li sema’ lill-partijiet, jinnota illi jekk il-fridge kienet tajba gdida, ma kellhomx isiru alterazzjonijiet sabiex tigi irrangata,u di piu qed jemmen il-verzjoni tar-rikorrenti fejn tghid li qed taghmel l-ilma.
It-Tribunal qed jilqa’ t-talba tar-rikorrenti, u jordna lis-socjeta` intimata thallas is-somma ta’ sitt mija u hamsin ewro (€650), bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess socjeta` intimata u b’dan illi l-fridge tigi propjeta’ tas-socjeta intimatwara li jsir il-hlas.”
Minn din is-sentenza s-socjeta intimata ITC Limited ħassitha aggravata u
interponiet l-preżenti appell fejn ilmentat:
1.	Illi ghalkemm il-kawza saret kontra s-socjeta International Trading Company Limited (C 10187) fil-fatt il-prodott mertu tal-kawza kien inbiegh lir-rikorrenti minn ITC Ltd. (C 10309) socjeta ohra fl-istess grupp ta’ kumpaniji.
2.	Illi t-talbiet attrici kienu preskritti nkwantu milquta minn dekadenza billi l-azzjoni ghad-difetti latenti ma tistax tigi ezercitata wara sitt xhur minn mindu id-difett ma jibqax mohbi u dan a tenur ta’l-artikoli 1431(1) u 1431(2) tal-Kap.16 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta. Il-garanzija li inghatat kienet tkopri it-tiswijiet biss u ma tintitolax kwindi lill-appellata ghar-rifuzjoni tal-prezz.
3.	In-nuqqas ta’ tharis tal-principji tal-gustizzja naturali u dana billi id-decizjoni tat-Tribunal ma tirriflettiex l-verzjoni moghtija mis-socjeta appellanti. Ghalhekk ma hemmx dubbju illi it-Tribunal ma hax konjizzjoni tal-provi imressqa mill-intimati. Illi inoltre wara li inqatghet il-kawza, gie a konjizzjoni tas-socjeta appellanti illi l-Arbitru kien l-avukat ta’ diversi kumpaniji f’kawzi li hija ghandha ma dawn il-kumpaniji.
4.	Illi mill-provi prodotti kellu jirrizulta ampjament illi l-prodott mibjugh lill-appellata ma kienx milqut b’difetti. Illi t-Tribunal ma gharbilx sew il-provi prodotti u b’mod specjali dak allegat mis-socjeta appellanti illi l-hsara li kellha il-fridge ma kenitx frott ta’ xi difett latenti, izda kagjonata mill-ambjent fejn kienet qed tinzamm.
Illi l-appellata twiegeb ghal dana l-appell u taghmel uzu mill-istess billi tressaq appell incidentali ghad-decizjoni tat-Tribunal fejn talbet il-varjazzjoni taghha u dana fir-rigward ta’ l-ammont likwidat li kellu jigi lilha rifuz mis-socjeta appellanti. Tishaq illi billi t-Tribunal sab illi hija kienet gustifikata fl-ilment minnha imressaq u gjaldarba iddecieda illi il-bejgh kellu jigi rexiss, kwindi hija kienet intitolata ghar-rifuzjoni tal-prezz intier tal-fridge fl-ammont ta’ €850 u mhux €650 kif iddeceida it-Tribunal.
Illi fir-risposta taghha ghall-appell incidentali interpost mill-appellata, is-socjeta appellanti tissolleva il-pregudizzjali dwar l-irritwalita ta’l-istess u dana billi tishaq illi appell minn decizjoni tat-Tribunal jista’ isir biss fuq karenza tal-principji tal-gustizzja naturali u semmai jekk l-appellata dehrilha li kien sar zball ghar-rigward tal-kumpens likwidat, hija kellha taddotta l-procedura prevista fir-regolament 16.4 tal-Ligi Sussidjarja 378.01. Illi il-Qorti ser tikkunsidra dan il-pregudizzjal wara illi tistharreg jekk l-appell tas-socjeta intimata jisthoqqx akkoljiment.
Illi l-ewwel aggravvju sollevat mis-socjeta appellanti gie sorvolat u dana permezz ta’ korrezzjoni li saret fl-okkju tal-kawza b’digriet ta’ din il-Qorti tat-12 ta’ Novembru 2014, fejn l-isem tas-socjeta appellanti gie mibdul minn International Trading Limited ghal ITC Limited.
Sorvolt ghalhekk l-ewwel ostakolu procedurali, l-Qorti ser tghaddi ghat-tieni aggravvju sollevat li jolqot il-preskrizzjoni ta’l-azzjoni attrici sollevata mis-socjeta appellanti issa fi stadju ta’ appell. Illi l-Qorti, qabel kull konsiderazzjoni dwar dana l-aggravvju, ma tistax ma tosservax nuqqas lampanti fl-atti tat-Tribunal li jikkonsistu biss fir-rikors promotur, ir-risposta b’xi ritratti annessi ma’l-istess u il-verbal ta’ seduta. Illi ghalkemm mill-atti ta’l-appell u senjalatament mir-rikors u ir-risposta jirrizulta illi instemghu xi xhieda quddiem it-Tribunal, madanakollu din l-istess xhieda ma hijiex riprodotta fl-atti u di piu’ mill-verbal ta’l-uniku seduta li jidher li inzammet ma jirrizultax illi il-partijiet iddeponew jew ressqu xi xhieda in sostenn ta’ dak minnhom allegat. Din il-Qorti ghalhekk hija rinfaccjata b’sitwazzjoni fejn ghalkemm is-socjeta appellanti issa qed tissolleva l-eccezzjoni tal-preskrizzjoni ta’l-azzjoni madanakollu l-atti probatorji huma mankanti. Dak li johrog mill-atti li ghandha quddiemha il-Qorti allura huwa biss dak li jirrizulta mill-avviz u ir-risposta. Mill-faccata ta’ quddiem tal-avviz jirrizulta illi l-att tal-kompro-vendita tal-fridge sehh fid-09 ta’ Gunju 2009 u l-avviz gie intavolat fit-08 ta’ Dicembru 2010. Mill-atti jidher illi nel frattemp izda kienu ghaddejjin trattattivi bejn il-partijiet fejn is-socjeta appellanti ippruvat tirrimedja ghal hsara li kienet qed isehh fil-fridge, izda jidher illi xorta wahda l-ilment ta’l-appellata illi il-fridge baqghet tqattar l-ilma ippersista.
Illi l-legislazzjoni ghall-protezzjoni tal-konsumatur adottat id-direttivi tal-Unjoni Ewropeja in materja biex b’hekk din il-ligi specjali saret applikabbli fi kwistjonijiet ta’ bejgh u ghoti ta’ servizzi lill-konsumatur. Il-Council Directive 1999/44/EC tispecifika hekk fil-preambolu taghha:
“Whereas it is appropriate to limit in time the period during which the seller is liable for any lack of conformity which exists at the time of delivery of the goods; whereas Member States may also provide for a limitation on the period during which consumers can exercise their rights, provided such a period does not expire within two years from the time of delivery; whereas where, under national legislation, the time when a limitation period starts is not the time of delivery of the goods, the total duration of the limitation period provided for by national law may not be shorter than two years from the time of delivery;”
Tkompli fl-artikolu 5:
“1. The seller shall be held liable under Article 3 where the lack of conformity becomes apparent within two years as from delivery of the goods. If, under national legislation, the rights laid down in Article 3(2) are subject to a limitation period, that period shall not expire within a period of two years from the time of delivery.
2. Member States may provide that, in order to benefit from his rights, the consumer must inform the seller of the lack of conformity within a period of two months from the date on which he detected such lack of conformity.”
Illi dina id-direttiva giet adottata fil-legislazzjoni taghna meta fl-artikolu 78 ta’l- Kapitolu 378 jinghad:
“Il-kummerċjant għandu jkun responsabbli taħt id-disposizzjonijiet tal- artikoli 73 u 74 meta l-konsumatur jinduna bin-nuqqas ta’ konformità fi żmien sentejn mill-kunsinna tal-oġġetti. Dan il-perjodu għandu jiġi sospiż sakemm idumu għaddejin in-negozjati bejn il-kummerċjant u l-konsumatur bil-għan li jintlaħaq ftehim amikevoli.”
“Fil-konsiderazzjoni ta’ din il-Qorti l-Artikolu 78, korrettement interpretat, ghandu jfisser illi biex il-konsumatur ma jinkorrix fl-estinzjoni taz-zmien ghall-proponiment ta’ l-azzjoni tieghu huwa htieglu jiskopri n-non-konformita ta’ l-oggett mixtri fi zmien sentejn mill-kunsinna ta’ dak l-oggett. Mhux bizzejjed li hu jinduna bin-nuqqas fi kwalunkwe zmien, ikun x’ikun, imma li fiz-zmien il-perijodu statutorju ta’ sentejn mill-kunsinna huwa jintebah bin-non-konformita`. A differenza ta’ ligijiet ohra, ad ezempju l-Artikolu 1431(2) Kodici Civili, il-provvediment tal-ligi specjali fl-Artikolu 78 ma jghidx ukoll illi t-terminu tal-preskrizzjoni ma jibdiex jghaddi “hlief minn dak in-nhar li seta’ jkun li hu jikxef id-difett mohbi”. Pjuttost, l-imsemmi Artikolu 78 ghandu xebh mad-dispost ta’ l-Artikolu 1407 (1) tal-Kodici Civili fejn dan jipprovdi li l-azzjoni tax-xerrej “tintilef eghluq sentejn minn dak in-nhar tal-kuntratt”;
“L-unika differenza bejn il-ligi ordinarja taht il-Kodici Civili u d-disposizzjoni rilevanti (Artikolu 78) taht il-ligi specjali (Kapitolu 378) tidher li tinsab f’dan. Hekk mentri, skond kazistika konkordanti, in-negozjati jew trattativi li jsiru bejn il-partijiet biex jittantaw jirrisolvu l-kwestjoni ta’ bejniethom ma kienux jinterrompu d-dekorriment tat-terminu preskrittiv (ara b’ezemplari “Negte. Alessandro Mizzi -vs- Alfredo Camoin et”, Qorti tal-Kummerc, 31 ta’ Novembru, 1912), salv jekk bhala effett u fil-kors ta’ dawk it-trattattivi, il-venditur ma jkunx irrikonoxxa u ma jkunx ikkontrasta l-ezistenza tal-vizzju (ara “Emmanuele Camilleri nomine -vs- Anthony Calascione nomine”, Qorti tal-Kummerc, 29 ta’ Ottubru, 1954), fil-kaz prospettat taht l-Artikolu 78 hi l-ligi stess li tennuncja illi l-perijodu preskrittiv jarresta l-mixja tieghu u jibqa’ sospiz sakemm idumu ghaddejjin in-negozjati tendenti ghall-ftehim amikevoli;1”
Johrog ghalhekk kemm mill-ligi kif ukoll mill-insenjament gurisprudenzjali illi l-azzjoni intentata mil-konsumatur taht il-Kapitolu 378 hija distinta mill-azzjoni ghad-difetti latenti prospettata fil-Kodici Civili, tant illi allura id-disposizzjonijiet ordinarji stabbiliti fil-Kapitolu 16 ma jsibux applikazzjoni meta l-azzjoni issir fil-parametri tal-ligi specjali li tirregola l-affarijiet tal-konsumatur u allura huma it-termini preksrittivi taht dina il-ligi specjali li ghandhom japplikaw u mhux it-terminu indikat fl-aggravvju sollevat mis-socjeta appellanti. Billi mill-atti jirrizulta illi t-terminu ta’ sentejn mill-kunsinna tal-fridge lill-appellata kien ghadu ma iddekorriex u fi kwalunkwe kaz dana it-terminu wkoll gie sospiz meta bdew ghaddejjin it-trattattivi bejn il-partijiet, kwindi dan it-tieni aggravvju ma jistax isib akkoljiment u qed jigi ghalhekk rigettat.
Illi s-socjeta appellanti tilmenta wkoll minn nuqqas ta’ osservanza tal-principji tal-gustizzja naturali u dan ghal zewg ragunijiet. Fl-ewwel lok tilmenta illi fid-decizjoni tieghu it-Tribunal ma hax konjizzjoni tal-provi migjuba ‘il quddiem minnha. Issostni wkoll illi ic-Chairman li ippresjeda it-Tribunal kien l-avukat difensur ta’ kumpaniji kummercjali li kontrihom is-socjeta appellanti kellha xi kawzi pendenti u allura timplika illi l-gudikant ma setax ikun imparzjali fil-konfront taghha. Dan ma jistax hlief ifisser, skond l-istess socjeta, illi kien hemm vjolazzjoni tal-principji tal-nemo judex in causa propria u l-iehor tal-audi alteram partem.
“ma’ l-ewwel regola hu allacjat il-principju notorju ta’ l-imparzjalita` u allura tan-necessita` li mhux biss issir gustizzja imma anke li jkun jidher manifest li gustizzja qeghda ssir (ara “Avv. Dr. Antonio Caruana -vs-Caterina Gerada”, Qorti Kostituzzjonali, 18 ta’ Ottubru 1968). Fil-kaz tat-tieni regola din solitament tabbraccja kwalsiasi materja ta’ “fair hearing” u tal-principju tal-“equality of arms” (“Antonio Sammut -vs- John Bell McCance”, Prim’ Awla, Qorti Civili, 29 ta’ Mejju 1946).
..... hi kodici ta’ procedura korretta u ta’ “fair hearing”; Essenzjalment, fin-natura multiforma taghha din ta’ l-ahhar tassumi dawn l-aspetti:-
(1)	Id-dover li tinghata lill-partijiet fil-kawza l-opportunita` ragonevoli li jressqu l-provi u jaghmlu s-sottomissjonijet taghhom
(2)	Id-dritt li s-setgha diskrezzjonali, affidata lil kull qorti jew tribunal, tkun ezercitata in relazzjoni ghall-materja ezaminata u ma tkun awtomatikament imxekkla minn ebda prekoncetti jew affetta minn “bias”;
(3)	Id-dritt li d-decizjoni tkun bazata fuq stharrig probatorju logiku u b’ motivazzjoni sobrija li tindika rragunijiet ghaliex t-talba jew l-eccezzjonijiet ghaliha jkunu qed jigu milqugha jew michuda. Fi kliem iehor, il-process ghandu jipproduci dik id-decizjoni akkurata li tirrifletti l-verifiki korretti ta’ fatt u l-applikazzjoni tal-ligi. Ikollu jinghad bi qbil ma’ l-awtur McLaughlin (“The Roles of Administrative Tribunals and Courts in Maintaining the Rule of Law”, pagna 187), “only if decisions can be defended rationally with reasons or some imprint of rationality can the Rule of Law survive”;
Jikkonsegwi minn dak premess illi d-decizjoni tista’ tkun soggetta b’ success ghal revizjoni jekk jinstab illi t-Tribunal ma jkunx ippresta attenzjoni adegwata lill-meriti tal-kaz, jew fejn l-ezercizzju tal-poter diskrezzjonali jkun ghal kollox nieqes minn raguni jew meta l-konkluzjoni ultimament raggunta tirrizulta illogika2.
Stabbilti ghalhekk dawn il-massimi legali din il-Qorti ma tarax illi fil-kaz in diazmina kien hemm xi ksur ta’ dawn il-principji wkoll imhaddna fil-Kostituzzjoni taghna. Ibda biex ma hemm l-ebda prova in atti dwar dak allegat issa fi stadju ta’ appell mis-socjeta appellanti illi l-gudikant li ippresjeda it-Tribunal kien b’xi mod biased. Ghalkemm l-appellanti issemmi fl-appell taghha illi ic-Chairman kien l-avukat difensur ta’ xi kumpaniji kummercjali li istitwew xi proceduri legali kontriha, madanakollu ma hemm l-ebda prova dwar min huma dawn is-socjetajiet kummercjali u liema kienu l-kawzi li qed taghmel referenza ghalihom is-socjeta appellanti. Dak allura mistqarr f’dana l-aggravvju jibqa’ allegazzjoni u xejn izjed, mhux sostanzjat mill-provi u kwindi din il-Qorti ma tarax kif dan l-appell jista’ jigi akkolt fuq dina l-premessa. Fir-rigward tal-principju l-iehor tas-smigh xieraq, ghalkemm kif diga gie puntwalizzat l-atti tat-Tribunal huma skarsi ghall-ahhar minghajr lanqas traskrizzjoni tax-xhieda li iddeponew quddiemu, madanakollu minn qari tad-decizjoni b’mod specjali r-ratio decidendi tat-Tribunal ma jidhirx illi il-linja difensjonali tas-socjeta appellanti giet injorata. Huwa minnu illi d-decizjoni tat-Tribunal mhijiex wahda felici u hija nieqsa minn motivazzjonijiet adegwati, madanakollu dak ilmentat mis-socjeta appellanti ma huwiex rifless fis-sentenza impunjata billi mid-dicitura taghha jirrizulta car u tond illi it-Tribunal wasal ghad-decizjoni tieghu wara li qies is-sottomissjonijiet taz-zewg partijiet. Kwindi anke dan l-aggravvju qed jigi respint.
Illi finalment ma hemmx dubju illi l-ahhar aggravvju imressaq mis-socjeta appellanti jikkoncerna l-apprezzament tal-provi maghmula mit-Tribunal, haga li ma taqax fil-manzjonijiet ta’ dina il-Qorti ta’ revizjoni sabiex tissindika. Jinghad biss f’dan ir-rigward illi bhat-Tribunal, din il-Qorti hija tal-fehma illi meta l-appellata akkwistat fridge gdida, hija kellha kull dritt tippretendi illi din ma tirriskontrax fiha difetti ftit taz-zmien wara li giet ikkonsenjata lilha. Illi s- socjeta appellanti tipprova titfa’ il-htija fuq l-appellata billi tallega illi il-fridge ma gietx installata kif suppost u ma kellhiex bizzejjed ventilazzjoni. Mhux verosimili u plawsibbli, izda, illi fridge gdida jkollha dina il-hsara immedjata minhabba fir-raguni li tressaq is-socjeta appellanti, li fuq kollox setghet gibdet l- attenzjoni ta’l-appellata ghal dawn il-fatturi meta hija ghamlet l-ordni u iktar u iktar fil-mument tal-konsenja.
“Evidentement, il-qawwa ta’ din il-prospettazzjoni tinhass aktar f’materja ta’ rapport kummercjant-konsumatur skond ma jinzel mid-dispost ta’ l-Artikolu 73 (1) ta’ l-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur. L-intensita ta’ dan il-provvediment ghat-tutela tal-konsumatur huwa talment estiz li joffri assikurazzjoni lix-xerrej billi jimponi obbligu fuq il-bejjiegh illi l-oggetti “ikunu konformi mad-deskrizzjoni moghtija mill-kummercjant u jkollhom il-karatteristici, il-fattizzi u l-kwalitajiet ta’ l-oggetti li l-kummercjant ikun wieghed jew xort’ohra ipprezenta lill-konsumatur bhala kampjun jew mudell (subpara. “a”), ikunu adatti ghall-iskop partikulari li ghalih il-konsumatur ikun jehtieghom (subpara. “b”), ikunu adatti ghall-iskop li ghalih oggetti ta’ l-istess tip normalment jintuzaw (subpara “c”) u juru l-kwalita u l-kapacita li huma normali f’oggetti ta’ l-istess tip u li l-konsumatur jista’ ragonevolment jistenna ... (subpara “d”)3;”
Ghal dawn il-motivi anke dan l-ahhar aggravvju sollevat mis-socjeta appellanti
qed jigi respint.
Jifdal ghalhekk lill-Qorti sabiex tiehu konjizzjoni ta’l-appell incidentali imressaq mill-appellata li tilmenta illi gjaldarba it-Tribunal taha ragun fid -decizjoni, kwindi s-socjeta appellanti kellha tigi ikkundannata thallasha lura il-
prezz intier tal-fridge u cioe’ l-ammont kollu indikat fl-avviz u mhux somma inferjuri. Illi is-socjeta appellanti bi twegiba ghal dina l-lanjanza, tressaq ‘il quddiem il-pregudizzjali dwar in-nullita ta’ dan l-appell billi ma jinkwadrax ruhu fid-disposizzjonijiet ta’l-artikolu 22 tal-Kapitolu 378 li jiddisponi:
“(2) Appell jista’ jsir fil-każijiet li ġejjin:
(a)	fuq kull ħaġa li jkollha x’taqsam mal-ġurisdizzjoni tat-Tribunal; jew
(b)	fuq kull kwistjoni ta’ preskrizzjoni; jew
(ċ) meta t-tribunal ikun mar kontra l-prinċipji ta’ ġustizzja naturali u dik l-azzjoni tkun ippreġudikat il-jeddijiet ta’ min jappella.
(3) Ikun hemm ukoll dritt ta’ appell fil-każijiet kollha fejn l-ammont fil-kwistjoni, kalkolat skont id-disposizzjonijiet tal-artikolu 20(1), jaqbeż l-elf u mitejn euro.
Premess dan, allura, ma hemmx du bju illi dina il-pregudizzjali hija wahda fondata billi appell ghar-rigward tal-likwidazzjoni tal-ammont pretiz f’dawk il-kazijiet fejn l-ammont ma ikunx jeccedi l-€1200 ma huwiex moghti skond il-ligi. Ghal dawn il-motivi anke l-appell incidentali sollevat mill-appellata qed jigi michud.
Ghaldaqstant ghal motivi hawn fuq migjuba l-appell tas-socjeta appellanti qed jigi michud, kif ukoll qed jigi michud l-appell incidentali imressaq mill-appellata u is-sentenza tat-Tribunal qed tigi ikkonfermata.
L-ispejjez ta’l-appell principali ghandhom jigu sopportati mis-socjeta appellanti, filwaqt li dawk marbuta ma’l-appell incidentali ghandha tbatiehom