Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=6158&idCountry=19&plang=en
Timestamp: 2019-10-16 20:53:37+00:00
Document Index: 1021709

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

Appell Civili Numru 3/2009
Janice Xerri vs Mrs. Jones
Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive, Article 3, 3.
The Court noted that articles 74 and 76 of the Consumer Affairs Act provide that the choice of the remedy lies with the consumer – namely whether to seek a replacement, or a partial refund returning the defective goods to the trader.
Plaintiff Janice Xerri filed a claim against defendant on the 15th October 2008 before the Consumer Claims Tribunal whereby she asked for €326 in damages being the price of dress which was defective, and for moral damages as a result of the inconvenience she suffered.
Plaintiff submitted that she bought from defendant a dress for a wedding ceremony, during which ceremony she was the bride’s witness. Plaintiff said that when she worn the dress before the actual wedding ceremony the green colour of the feathers which were part of the dress lost their colour and stained her skin. Plaintiff said that as a result she was extremely embarrassed during the wedding ceremony more so as was she the bride’s witness.
Defendant submitted that on various occasions plaintiff had tried the dress on before she finally bought it. It was only after plaintiff had worn the dress for the wedding that plaintiff approached defendant complaining that the colours of the feathers had stained her skin. Defendant argued that plaintiff had admitted with her that she had used a body lotion before the wedding ceremony – and that according to defendant the use of this lotion may have the cause of the inconvenience suffered by plaintiff. Defendant said that she had offered plaintiff the choice of another dress. Plaintiff however had not accepted this offer.
The Tribunal held that it resulted that the feathers of the dress in question did factually lose colour and consequently stained the skin of plaintiff during the wedding causing plaintiff considerable embarrassment. The Tribunal therefore decided to uphold in part the damages sought awarding €250 in damages plus another €120 for moral damages with costs of the proceedings against defendant and ordering that the dress be returned to defendant once the defendant makes the payments ordered by the Tribunal.
Defendant contested the Tribunal’s decision before the Court of Appeal (inferior jurisdiction) claiming that she was not given adequate opportunity to make her case before the Tribunal.
The Court observed that the Tribunal had decided the case on the evidence submitted. The Court noted that on the basis of the evidence presented it resulted that there was a direct link between the dress and the green stains on plaintiff’s skin. No plausible evidence was presented to demonstrate that the body lotion used by plaintiff was the cause of the harm suffered by plaintiff.
The Court in the circumstances confirmed the decision of the Tribunal with costs against defendant.
Seduta tat-23 ta' Ottubru, 2009
Appell Civili Numru. 3/2009
Janice Xerri
Fl-4 ta’ Frar, 2009, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur ippronunzja s-segwenti sentenza fl-ismijiet premessi:-
Wara li ha konjizzjoni ta’ l-Avviz fl-ismijiet fuq premessi pprezentati fil-15 ta' Ottubru 2008 fejn irrikorrenti talbet danni ta' tliet mija, sitta u ghoxrin ewro (€326) rapprezentanti prezz ta' libsa illi kienet difettuza kif ukoll danni morali.
L-intimat ipprezentat risposta ghal din it-talba u attendiet ghas-seduta.
Illi wara li sema' x-xhieda tar-rikorrenti li hija listess rikorrenti, u wara li sema' x-xhieda talintimat li hija l-istess intimata, u wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-fatti kif ukoll tac-cirkostanzi kollha tal-kaz;
Ir-rikorrenti ssottomettiet illi hija xtrat libsa ta’ lokkazjoni minghand Mrs. Jones ghaliex kienet xhud ta' l-gharusa waqt tieg izda ftit wara li libsitha r-rix reha kulur hadrani fuq il-gilda taghha u tebbalha l-gilda ghal erbat ijiem.
Ir-rikorrenti ssottomettiet illi hija hassitha skomda minhabba li kienet haga tal-misthija aktar u aktar meta kienet ix-xhud tal-gharusa.
L-intimat issottomettiet illi r-rikorrenti marret buona volonta taghha tixtri libsa mill-istabbiliment taghha u li kienet ippruvat il-libsa kemm il-darba qabel ma xtratha. Kien wara li r-rikorrenti libsitha waqt tieg illi marret ghandha tghid illi r-rix tal-libsa kien jerhi l-kulur mal-gilda izda meta talbitha thalli l-libsa filhanut halli tara x'rejazzjoni jaghmel ir-rix mal-gilda, ir-rikorrenti rrifjutat.
L-intimata ssottomettiet wkoll illi r-rikorrenti kienet ammettiet maghha illi kienet uzat 'body lotion' u li kienet offritilha sabiex taghzel libsa ohra izda rrikorrenti ma accettatx dik il-proposta.
It-Tribunal ezamina r-ritratti prodotti mir-rikorrenti.
Il-libsa in kwistjoni giet esebita waqt il-proceduri tat-Tribunal.
Ir-rikorrenti xtrat libsa ghal okkazjoni ta' tieg billi kienet ix-xhud tal-gharusa izda meta libsitha r-rix li kien imwahhal maghha reha l-kulur ahdar u tebbala l-gilda taghha fil-partijiet illi kienu esposti;
Ir-rikorrenti baqghet imtebba b'dan il-kulur ghal matul it-tieg kollu u hassitha ferm imbarrazzata partikolarment billi hi kienet ix-xhud tal-gharusa u ghalhekk wahda minn nies principali waqt iccerimonja tat-tieg;
L-intimata l-ewwel offriet illi taqla' r-rix minn fejn kien imwahhal mal-libsa u twahhlu mal-qadd fejn ma jkunx jista' jerhi izda billi r-rikorrenti ma accettax hi talbet lir-rikorrenti tilbes il-libsa fil-hanut u toqghod biha hemm halli tkun tista’ tara x'effett ser jaghmel ir-rix fuqha. Ir-rikorrenti rrifjutat illi toqghod bil-libsa fuqha fil-hanut.
L-intimata offriet lir-rikorrenti sabiex taghzel libsa ohra minflokha izda billi r-rikorrenti ma ghogbita ebda libsa minn dawk offruti lilha l-intimata, u billi r-rikorrenti kellha zewg okkazjonijiet ohra ta' tieg hija kienet kostretta tixtri libsa ohra minn x'imkien iehor.
It-Tribunal wara li kkonsidra hawn fuq u wara li ra illi r-rix tal-libsa mixtrija minghand l-intimata reha kulur ahdar u tebba' l-gilda tar-rikorrenti ghal matul it-tieg kollu u li b'rizultat ta' dan ir-rikorrenti bghatiet misthija u inkonvenjent ghal matul it-tieg kollu jilqa' t-talba tar-rikorrenti in parte u jordna lillintimata thallas lir-rikorrenti s-somma ta' mitejn u hamsin ewro (€250) kif ukoll is-somma ta' mija u ghoxrin ewro (€120) danni morali bl-ispejjez talkawza kontra l-istess intimat b'dan illi l-libsa ssir propjeta' tal-intimata wara li jkun sar il-hlas.”
Minn din is-sentenza appellat il-konvenuta bl-aggravji f’dawn it-termini:-
(1) It-Tribunal mar kontra l-principju ta’ gustizzja naturali fis-smigh tal-kaz b’mod li ppregudika l-jeddijiet taghha;
(2) Id-decizjoni appellata kienet parzjali in kwantu bazata fuq fatti li ma kienux sostenuti mill-provi prodotti u lanqas fondata fuq il-konsiderazzjoni tal-fatti kollha migjuba ghall-attenzjoni tat-Tribunal;
(3) Ma jirrikorrux l-elementi mehtiega mil-ligi ghallikwidazzjoni ta’ danni materjali u morali;
Fl-ispjegazzjoni moghtija ghas-sostenn ta’ l-ewwel ilment l-appellanti tissottometti illi ma nghatatx opportunita` xierqa biex tiddefendi ruhha u li tkun assistita. Tghid ukoll li t-Tribunal kien sprovvist mir-risposta taghha minkejja li din kienet ipprezentata minnha u, b’zieda, tissottometti li anke wara li spicca s-smiegh tal-kawza l-attrici kompliet tikkomunika mat-Tribunal;
Opportunement, din il-Qorti terga’ hawn tirribadixxi r-riljievi li ghamlet f’sentenzi precedenti taghha, u cjoe li:-
“(1) Kull tribunal ta’ liema xorta hu, ghandu jirrispetta l-principju tal-kontradittorju. Ksur ta’ dan ilprincipju jissarraf f’nullita` tal-procediment u, konsegwentement, tad-decizjoni;
(2) Ghall-iskop li jkun accertat jekk fil-kaz partikolari jezistux tali ksur, wiehed ghandu jiehu in konsiderazzjoni l-argomenti li fuqhom hi mibnija ddecizjoni u jistabilixxi jekk il-partijiet inghatawx ilpossibilita` li jiddiskutu fatti u cirkostanzi li minnhom evolviet ir-ratio decidendi tas-sentenza, u eventwalment jekk kienx hemm elementi li jillustraw konvinciment divers;
(3) Naturalment, it-tharis tal-precitat principju jrid jigi inkwadrat fil-parametri tal-provvedimenti specifici dettati mil-ligi ghall-izvolgiment u regolamentazzjoni talkwestjoni quddiem Tribunal specjali li jkun hekk adit. F’dan il-kaz, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumaturi mwaqqaf taht it-Taqsima III ta’ l-Att XXVIII ta’ l-1994 (Kapitolu 378)”. Ara a propozitu s-sentenza ta’ din il-Qorti fl-ismijiet “Joseph Izzo -vs- Oliver Galea”, 28 ta’ Jannar, 2008;
F’din l-istess decizjoni l-Qorti ssoktat tippuntwalizza illi skond l-Artikolu 23 (1) tal-Kapitolu imsemmi t-Tribunal hu fakoltizzat jirregola l-procedimenti quddiemu bil-mod li jahseb li jkun l-aktar xieraq ghall-finijiet li tintaghmel gustizzja, li jitgharraf b’kull mod li jidhirlu xieraq u ma jkunx marbut fil-prattika dwar l-ahjar prova [Artikolu 23 (2) (b)], u li jiddeciedi skond kull mertu u gustizzja sostantiva tal-kaz, u skond l-ekwita (Artikolu 21);
Premessi dawn l-aspetti ta’ dritt jibda biex jigi kkonstatat illi, kuntrarjament ghal dak dedott, fl-atti tirrizulta r-risposta ta’ l-appellanti. Invece, hu eskluz minn xi verbal illi lappellanti talbet li tkun assistita minn Avukat tal-fiducja taghha u dan gie rifjutat lilha. Bir-rispett dovut, imbaghad, din il-Qorti mhix tant impressjonata mis-sottomissjoni illi ghax l-attrici ssoktat tikkomunika mat-Tribunal wara sseduta dan kellu jirrifletti negattivament fuq l-agir tat- Tribunal b’implikazzjoni ta’ xi abdikazzjoni tad-dover ta’ imparzjalita` jew ta’ xi malamministrazzjoni tal-process gudizzjarju jew tas-sens ta’ bilanc u oggettivita` talgudizzju tieghu. L-issuggerita insinwazzjoni ta’ “bias” f’dan il-kaz ma tissussistix, lanqas skond it-testijiet ta’ dik ir-“reasonable apprehension of bias” jew “real possibility of bias” ghal liema jirrikorru l-Qrati Superjuri fl-Awstralja (ara “Webb -vs- R” [1994] 181 CLR 41) u fl-Ingilterra (ara “Porter -vs- Magill” [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 2 AC 357). Ara wkoll fuq din l-istess tema s-sentenza ta’ din il-Qorti kif presjeduta fil-kawza fl-ismijiet “Mambra Electronics Ltd -vs- Kummissarju tat-Taxxa fuq il-Valur Mizjud”, 27 ta’ Frar, 2009;
B’rabta mbaghad mal-premessi aktar ‘il fuq maghmula, u dik ta’ l-allegata vjolazzjoni tal-principju, lanqas ma jidher, fil-fehma tal-Qorti, illi s-sentenza tippekka minn konsiderazzjoni parzjali tal-fatti prodotti jew tan-nuqqas diskrezzjonali u prudenzjali taghhom, kif hekk l-appellanti ssostni li hu l-kaz bit-tieni motiv ta’ l-aggavju taghha. “Iuxta allegata et probata”, il-Qorti tahseb li l-attrici appellata rnexxielha turi u tipprova, b’mod sodisfacenti, lezistenza tan-nexus bejn il-libsa komprata u t-tebgha ta’ lewn hadrani taht abtha. Dan qed jigi rilevat ghaliex din ilkonnessjoni in bazi ghal provi u c-certezza morali ma tistax tigi facilment skartata u, anzi l-probabilita` hi li dak li gara sehh minhabba li reha l-kulur tar-rix tal-libsa, u mhux ghax kawzat minn xi uzu ta’ body lotion applikat millattrici, qabel, jew wara, li libset il-libsa;
L-Arbitru f’dan il-kaz iddecieda fuq il-fatti prezentati u provati quddiemu u mhux fuq dak li seta’ gie provat jew kontrappost u baqa’ ma giex. Dak in-ness ghal liema saret referenza hawn fuq ma kellux ma jissussistix meta ma giet provata ebda raguni konvincenti xort’ ohra li taghmel abbinament plawsibbli bejn il-body lotion u l-kulur ta’ lewn ahdar fuq il-gilda ta’ l-appellata. Ma ghandux ikun pretiz li t-Tribunal, u issa din il-Qorti, ihossuhom konvinti mill-kongettura propunjata mill-appellanti illi ghax il-kulur u l-kwalita` tal-libsa u tar-rix ma nbiddlux, ergo r-reha talkulur fuq il-gilda ma setax ikun il-kagun determinanti tattebgha taht abt l-attrici. Mill-illustrazzjoni tar-ritratt esebit fl-atti l-affinita` tat-tebgha mal-libsa hi sew evidenti u daqstant iehor hi indikattiva l-offerta ta’ l-appellanti li tiehu l-libsa lura u tirrimpjazzaha b’ohra;
Naturalment, kif indott mill-Artikoli 74 u 76 tal-Kapitolu 378, l-ghazla tar-rimdeju hu mholli fil-poter disposittiv ta’ lappellata li setghet taghzel l-opzjoni l-wahda jew l-ohra minn fost ir-rimedju akkordati lill-konsumaturi in generali;
Kif taraha din il-Qorti, fil-kumpless, il-gustizzja sostantiva li jippreciza l-Artikolu 21 ta’ l-Att hi f’dan il-kaz sew konfortata minn modiku ta’ fatt ipprovat (ara “Carmel Gerada -vs- Charles Borg Barthet (Beta Centre)”, Appell Inferjuri, 29 ta’ Jannar, 1999 u dan igib li l-allegat mankanza ta’ element essenzjali tad-difett sottomessa mill-appellanti mhix accettabbli u jkollha tigi skartata;
Fuq it-tielet motiv ta’ aggravju din il-Qorti certament tapprezza illi l-appellanti bhala proprjetarja ta’ ditta li timporta u tbiegh certu tip ta’ lbiesi ta’ kwalita` ghandha kull interess, fejn ikunu imputati lilha mankanzi bi pregudizzju ghar-reputazzjoni taghha, li taghmel dak kollu possibbli biex, kif jinghad fir-rikors ta’ l-appell, “tipprotegi lfama tajba tad-ditta taghha”. Minn naha l-ohra hemm lattrici appellata li hassitha skomda u offiza b’dak li gara fuq personitha bil-libsa appozitament mixtrija ghallokkazjoni specjali. Il-Qorti tifhem dan l-imbarazzament u l-qaghda dizagjata u ta’ stress li kellha taffronta l-attrici f’dik l-okkazjoni fejn kienet xhud f’tieg u ma tarax il-ghala dak li iskonfort taghha, ma kellux almenu jitpatta b’ammont ljevi ta’ danni morali. Proprju bil-kontra ta’ dak sottomess mill-appellanti, tghodd id-deduzzjoni maghmula minn din il-Qorti fis-sentenza taghha ta’ l-14 ta’ Dicembru, 2006 in re: “Elizabeth Dimech Ghirxi et -vs- Alamango Bridal Ltd”, u fejn gie rifless illi d-danni morali “jizvolgu funzjoni prevalentament punittiva u huma in fatti kwalifikati bhala pretium doloris ghal min issubixxa tbatijiet morali derivanti minn fatti partikolarment offensivi”. Fl-assjem tac-cirkostanzi kollha mhux il-kaz li din il-Qorti, kif mitlub, tiddissenti mil-likwidazzjoni tad-danni, sija materjali sija morali, maghmula mit-Tribunal;
In kwantu ghad-difett procedurali sollevat in linea preliminari u dan fis-sens illi ma kellhiex titharrek id-ditta izda Mary Dolores sive Doris Jones proprio u bhala ezercenti tal-kummerc tad-ditta “Mrs Jones”, tajjeb li jigi mfakkar illi skond ma jinsab provvdut fl-Artikolu 23 (3) ta’ l-Att, “ebda procediment quddiem tribunal ma jkun invalidu minhabba t-tnaqqis ta’ xi formalita` sakemm wiehed ikun mexa b’mod konformi kemm jista’ jkun mar-regoli”. Mhux il-kaz allura li l-Qorti, wahda ta’ revizjoni, tordna lkorrezzjoni mitluba meta ebda senjalazzjoni bhal dik hawn sottomessa ma giet sollevata fl-ewwel istanza quddiem it-Tribunal. Wara kollox, kif inhu pacifiku wkoll, “l-okkju talkawza ma jitbiddelx, u jibqa’ dejjem l-istess sat-tmiem taghha”. Ara “Joseph Giorgio nomine -vs- Caterina Giorgio”, Appell Civili, 23 ta’ Gunju, 1947. Fil-kaz in ezami l-kawza giet introdotta fl-istess ismijiet kif raffigurati fis-sentenza u ghalhekk din ir-registrazzjoni preciza ta’ lokkju tal-kawza fis-sentenza kien kif kellu jkun, ossija “Janice Xerri -vs- Mrs Jones”. Dan hu hekk konformi ghal previzjoni tal-ligi procedurali fl-Artikolu 174 (1) (b) applikabbli ghall-iskritturi.
Ghall-motivi kollha predetti, din il-Qorti qed tichad l-appell u tikkonferma s-sentenza appellata bl-ispejjez kontra lappellanti.