Source: https://e-justice.europa.eu/caseDetails.do?idTaxonomy=6145&idCountry=19&plang=en
Timestamp: 2019-12-08 07:49:11+00:00
Document Index: 2132647

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

315/2006/1
Ellul David Et vs Flyaway Tours
Package Travel Directive, Article 3, 2. Package Travel Directive, Article 4, 5. Package Travel Directive, Article 4, 7. Package Travel Directive, Article 5, 1.
Plaintiffs booked a holiday in Egypt in August 2005 with Flyway Tours. Plaintiffs had advised Flyway Tours that they wanted to book their hotel with a hotel of the Sheraton chain of hotels as they had previously used such hotels and were pleased with the level of service and accommodation provided. In fact plaintiffs opted for the Sheraton hotel in Cairo as indicated on the Flyaway Brochure which clearly indicated the hotel as “Gezirah Sheraton 5 Star”.
When plaintiffs arrived in Egypt they realised that the hotel was not part of the Sheraton chain of hotels. When they arrived at the hotel, consumer discovered that it was once part of the chain but that this was no longer the case. Plaintiffs complained about the service provided by the hotel, particularly about the first room where they were accommodated, the food provided and the level of service in general. Plaintiffs said that they were in general very disappointed and their holiday ended up in a ‘disastrous’ fashion. Plaintiffs claimed the full costs for the air flight and for the hotel accommodation.
During the hearing of the case before the First Court (the Small Claims Tribunal) it resulted that the hotel was sold to Accor another chain of hotels but that defendant company had failed to inform plaintiffs of this change. Plaintiffs stated that on arriving at the hotel they immediately notified defendant’s representative in Cairo with their complaints.
This case is a decision given by the Court of Appeal following an appeal by defendant company Air Malta plc from a decision of the first court.
The first court upheld in part the claim for damages made by plaintiffs by awarding them the cost of hotel accommodation but not the cost of the flight. The first court held that plaintiffs were entitled to be given the service as advertised in brochure. Defendant company could not advertise the name of a particular brand when it results that this is not the case. Doing this seriously misleads the customer by giving him the impression that he is buying a service provided by a certain brand when this is actually not the case.
Defendant company in its appeal argued that it should not be held responsible because the management of the hotel in question had passed to new owners emphasising that in any case the hotel had retained its five star classification.
The Court of Appeal noted that the choice of the hotel by plaintiffs was based on what was stated in the travel brochure provided by defendant company, and that therefore what was stated in the brochure was equally binding on both parties. The Court referred to the provisions of the Package Travel Regulations and the specific obligations of the package organiser to inform plaintiffs of any changes, which information must include those details as may enable the consumer to establish in a clear and precise manner whether the package offerings are to his liking. The Court said that defendant company had acted in breach of its legal obligations when it failed to inform plaintiffs that the hotel was in question was not according to what was advertised in its brochure in that the hotel was now not being managed by Sheraton group. The Court noted that it was the duty of defendant company to inform plaintiffs of such a change and that defendant company had provided the accommodation it had advertised in the brochure. The Court referred to the general principles under the Maltese Civil Code – specifically article 1133 – whereby a person is liable for damages if he fails to abide with his commitments unless it results that he was unable to do so because of circumstances beyond his control. The court said that in this case defendant company failed to inform plaintiffs of the change in the ownership of the hotel. The Court confirmed the decision of the first court in its entirety.
Pagna 1 minn 12
Seduta tas-17 ta' Ottubru, 2008
Appell Civili Numru. 315/2006/1
David u Rosanna Ellul
Flyaway Tours u b’digriet tat-12 ta’ Gunju 2006, it-
Tribunal jilqa’ t-talba u l-kliem ‘Flyaway Tours’ jinbidel
fil-kliem ‘Air Malta plc’
Fil-31 ta’ Jannar, 2008, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet Zghar ippronunzja s-segwenti sentenza fl-ismijiet premessi:-
Ra l-Avviz tat-talba li bih l-atturi qed jitolbu lil dan l- Onorabbli Tribunal jikkundanna lil konvenuti ihallsu s-somma ta’ sitt mija, sebgha u sittin lira u erbatax il-centezmu (Lm667.14) rapprezentanti spejjez ta’ safra tal-Egittu li saret fl-24 ta’ Awissu sal-31 ta’ Awissu 2005, liema safra saret tramite lagenzija konvenuta, meta l-atturi kellhom joqoghdu fil-Sheraton Hotel u mhux f’El Gezirah Hotel Towers & Casino. Bl-ispejjes inkluzi dawk ta’ l-ittra bonarja datata 17 ta’ Marzu 2006.
Ra r-risposta tas-socjeta’ konvenut fejn ecepixxa illi qieghda tirrespingi l-pretensjonijiet ta’ l-atturi bhala infondati fil-fatt u fid-dritt ghas-segwenti ragunijiet: (i) Preliminarjament in-nullita’ ta’ l-avviz tat-talba stante li ma tezisti ebda kumpanija jew entita’ msejha ‘Flyaway Tours’, imma dan huwa biss isem ta’ servizz/prodott provdut minn Air Malta plc.; (ii) Preliminarjament ukoll, l-atturi naqsu li jressqu lment mal-handling agent ta’ Air Malta plc waqt is-safra in kwistjoni ai termini tal- Klawsola 23 tal-‘General Conditions’ indikati filbrochure tal-‘Flyaway Tours’ (Dok. A); (iii) Filmertu u minghajr pregudizzju ghas-suespost, lattur jridu jgibu prova tal-fatt li sofrew danni u lquantum ta’ tali danni; (iv) Sussidjarjament u minghajr pregudizzju trid issir ukoll prova tarresponsabbilita’ tal-konvenuta. Fil-qosor, wara li latturi kienu ibbukkjaw l-allogg taghhom fix- ‘Sheraton El Gezirah Hotel’, fl-Egittu, il-hotel inxtrat mill-Accor Group u nbidlilha isimha ghal ‘Accor El Gezirah Hotel Towers & Casino Cairo’. Il-hotel pero zammet l-istess facilitajiet u l-istess livell (5 star). Fil-fatt, lill-konvenuta jirrizultalha li latturi ma ghamlu ebda lment mal-hotel in kwistjoni waqt il-btala. Bl-izpejjez. Din ir-risposta qed tigi ipprezentata minn AirMalta plc stante li l-avviz tattalba wasal fl-ufficcju registrat taghha.
Ra id-Digriet ta’ dan it-Tribunal kif diversament presjedut datat 12 ta’ Gunju 2006, fejn gie ordnat illi ssir korrezzjoni fl-okkju tal-Avviz fis-sens illi minnflok il-kliem ‘Flyaway Tours’ jiddahhlu l-kliem ‘Air Malta plc’.
Sema x-xhieda ta’ l-attur David Ellul.
Sema x-xhieda tal-attrici Rosanna Ellul. Sema x-xhieda ta’ Robert Pace prodott missocjeta’ konvenuta.
Ra d-Digriet tal-4 ta’ Ottubru 2007 fejn is-socjeta’ konvenuta giet awtorizzata sabiex tipprezenta eccezzjoni ulterjuri.
Ra n-nota ta’ l-eccezzjonijiet ulterjuri tal-konvenuta fejn eccepiet illi t-talba ta’ l-atturi ghandha tigi respinta stante li l-atturi m’ghandhomx interess guridiku necessarju biex jintavolaw din il-kawza, u dan minhabba illi l-atturi qed jitolbu hlas ta’ spejjez rigwardanti safra fl-Egittu, liema spejjez ma gewx inkorsi mill-atturi izda mill-kumpanija David Interiors Limited.
Ra l-atti kollha tal-kawza u d-dokumenti kollha li gew esebiti.
Sema t-trattazzjoni tal-avukati difensuri talpartijiet.
Ikkunsidra.
Illi fl-ewwel lok, fir-rigward ta’ l-ewwel eccezzjoni sollevata mis-socjeta’ konvenuta, t-Tribunal jirrileva illi din giet sorvolata permezz ta’ korrezzjoni li giet awtorizzata b’Digriet tat-12 ta’ Gunju 2006.
Illi jirrizulta li l-atturi kienu bbukkjaw vjagg gewwa l-Egittu f’Awissu tas-sena 2005, mal-Flyaway Tours. Milli jidher l-attur kellu xi xoghol x’jaghmel gewwa l-Egittu u ghalhekk hu u martu kienu ddecidew li jaghmlu vakanza hemmhekk fl-istess hin. Peress illi l-atturi kienu gieli uzaw is-servizzi tal-hotels tal-grupp Sheraton, anki fl-Egittu stess, u peress illi kien joghgobhom is-servizz moghti minn dan il-‘chain of hotels’, huma ghazlu li jibbukkjaw il-hotel indikat bic-car fuq il-brochure tal-Flyaway Tours’ bhala ‘Gezirah Sheraton’ (5 star).
Li gara pero huwa li malli wasslu l-Egittu, l-atturi indunaw illi l-hotel li kienu bbukkjaw ma kienx hotel tal-grupp Sheraton. Huma saru jafu b’dan ghaliex fl-ewwel lok, kif spjega l-attur, issoltu lhotels tax-Sheraton ikollhom ‘shuttle buses’ taghhom stess li jigbru u jiehdu n-nies fil-lukandi taghhom mill-ajruport. Izda minnflok gie ghalihom driver b’karozza li skond huma kienet ser taqa bicciet. Mbaghad meta wasslu fil-hotel, skoprew illi l-hotel kienet xi darba tal-grupp Sheraton izda ma kienitx ghadha tifforma parti minn dan il-grupp ta’ hotels.
L-atturi fix-xhieda taghhom ilmentaw dwar isservizz tal-lukanda taghhom u partikolarment dwar l-ewwel kamra li nghatat lilhom, kif ukoll dwar l-ikel u s-servizz in generali. Huma jsostnu li kienu dizappuntati hafna minhabba dan il-fatt li l-hotel taghhom ma kienx parti mill-grupp Sheraton u lvjagg taghhom ghalhekk spicca biex kien wiehed dizastruz.
Illi permezz ta’ din il-kawza, l-atturi qedin jitlolbu li jithallsu lura l-ammont ta’ Lm667.14, liema ammont huma hallsu s-socjeta’ konvenuta u jirrapprezenta l-prezz imhallas minnhom ghallflights (Lm319.14), il-prezz ta’ l-akkomodazzjoni gol-lukanda (Lm300), kif ukoll il-prezz ghall-‘extra night’ li l-atturi hallsu lill-agent Egizzjan, Garbi Travel, sabiex setghu joqoghdu lejl ‘extra’ fillukanda (Lm48).
L-atturi fix-xhieda taghhom jikkonfermaw illi malli wasslu fil-lukanda u malli bdew il-problemi, huma mill-ewwel ghamlu kuntatt u ilmentaw mal-agent lokali indikat fil-brochure tal-Flyaway Tours stess, f’dan il-kaz ‘Gabry Travel’. Fil-fatt meta wasslu fillukanda, l-atturi inghataw kamra li kellha rieha qawwija tas-sigaretti u kellha zewg ‘twin beds’ minnflok ‘double bed’ kif kienu bbukkjaw. Huma ghalhekk ilmentaw dwar dan, u bl-ghajnuna talagent lokali, inghataw kamra ohra. Skond huma, l-atturi kienu anki cemplu l-agent lokali u lmentaw mieghu dwar diversi affarijiet ohra Dan fil-fatt gie kkonfermat kemm mix-xhieda ta’ Robert Pace prodott mis-socjeta’ konvenuta kif ukoll middokumenti ezebiti mis-socjeta’ konvenuta stess, u cioe l-kopji ta’ korrispondenza bejn l-agent lokali Gabry Travel u s-socjeta’ konvenuta, fejn l-agent lokali stess jikkonferma illi l-atturi kienu kellmuh u li kien hu li rranga sabiex ibiddlilhom il-kamra wara li kienu ilmentaw fuqha. Dan kollu jikkonferma illi l-atturi fil-fatt imxew skond il-‘General Conditions’ indikati fil-brochure tal-Flyaway Tours, u millewwel resqu l-ilmenti taghhom mal-agent lokali kif kienu obligati li jaghmlu.
Illi minn-naha taghha s-socjeta’ konvenuta pproduciet bhala xhud lil Robert Pace li huwa Manager tal-Flyaway Tours. Dan ix-xhud ikkonferma illi l-atturi kienu bbukkjaw kamra ‘double room’ fil-lukanda ‘five star’ jisimha ‘Gezirah Sheraton’ gewwa Cairo, fl-Egittu. Gie kkonfermat minnu ukoll li l-lukanda ma kenitx ghadha tifforma parti mill-grupp tal-lukandi bl-isem Sheraton meta l-atturi kienu marru joqoghdu hemm, izda kienet parti minn grupp ta’ lukandi iehor bl-isem ‘Accor’.
Ix-xhud spjega illi l-lukanda in kwistjoni kienet inbieghet lill-grupp Accor wara li gie stampat ilbrochure tal-Flyaway Tours, u ghalhekk baqghet tidher bhala lukanda tax-Sheraton. Huwa kkonferma wkoll illi meta l-atturi bbukkjaw illukanda taghhom huma kienu talbu specifikament ghal lukanda tal-grupp Sheraton. Skond hu il- Flyaway Tours saru jafu bit-tibdil minn lukanda Sheraton ghal lukanda Accor f’Settembru 2005 - wara li l-atturi ilmentaw b’dan il-fatt.
Illi fid-dawl ta’ dan kollu, t-Tribunal jidhirlu li persuna ghandha dritt li tinghata s-servizz jew prodott li tkun ghazlet a bazi ta’ reklam li jkun sar minn dik il-persuna li tkun qed tbiegh is-servizz jew prodott. Il-persuna li tkun qed tbiegh isservizz jew prodott ma tistax tirreklama tali that isem jew ditta maghrufa meta dan ma jkunx il-kaz ghaliex b’hekk tkun qed tizvija serjament il-klijent, u taghti impressjoni zbaljata jew tipprometti xi haga li m’hijiex f’pozizzjoni li tezegwixxi.
Illi llum il-gurnata kullhadd japprezza li isem partikolari bhal dak ta’ grupp ta’ lukandi huwa marbut haga wahda ma kwalita’ ta’ servizz u ‘standards’ li wiehed ghandu jippretendi minn dak l-isem. Ghalhekk it-Tribunal jidhirlu li hija haga ghal kollox ragonevoli li l-atturi xtaqu jaghzlu b’mod partikolari s-servizz u l-kwalita’ tal-grupp ‘Sheraton’.
Illi s-socjeta’ konvenuta ma tista’ bl-ebda tiggustifika l-fatt illi fil-brochure taghha hija reklamat bi kliem car lukanda partikolari bhala lukanda tal-grupp Sheraton, meta din effettivament ma kenitx. Jekk verament il-bejgh tal-lukanda reklamat minnha sar wara li gie stampat il-brochure taghha, messha almenu avzat il-klijenti taghha b’dan it-tibdil u messha ghamlitha cara li l-lukanda in kwistjoni ma kenitx ghadha tifforma parti mill-grupp Sheraton.
It-Tribunal jidhirlu li l-fatt li l-bini baqa l-istess wiehed, u li l-bejgh tal-lukanda kien sar biss ftit qabel ma marru l-atturi, jew il-fatt illi l-lukanda xorta wahda baqghet lukanda ‘five star’ bl-ebda mod ma jezonera lis-socjeta’ konvenuta millobbligu taghha li tavza lill-klijenti li dak li kien hemm imnizzel fil-brochure ma kienx ghadu validu.
Illi ghalhekk l-atturi ghandhom dritt jippretendu lura minghand is-socjeta’ konvenuta l-ammont li hallsu ghall-akkomodazzjoni taghhom. Izda minnnaha l-ohra, t-Tribunal ma jistax jaqbel mat-talba tal-atturi li jippretendu lura l-ispejjes l-ohra li huma hallsu, u cioe l-ispejjes tal-flights u tal-‘extra night’ fil-lukanda koncernata. Dan ghaliex fl-ewwel lok, l-ispejjes tat-titjiriet m’ghandhom x’jaqsmu assolutament xejn mall-problema tal-lukanda. Di piu, l-attur kellu bilfors jivvjagga sal-Egittu ghaliex kellu xi xoghol x’jaghmel u ghalhekk kellu bilfors itir sa l-Egittu u jhallas ghal dan. Mbaghad firrigward tal-ispejjes tal-‘extra night’, jekk l-atturi kienu daqshekk dizappuntati bil-lukanda ma messhom qatt hallsu ghal lejl iehor, u setghu se mai sabu akkomodazzjoni x’imkien iehor. L-atturi mhumiex intitolati jitolbu lura l-flus li huma hallsu ghal ‘extra night’ meta kienu altru milli konxji talfatt li din il-lukanda ma kenitx il-lukanda li kienu bbukkjaw.
Illi fir-rigward ta’ l-eccezzjoni ulterjuri tas-socjeta’ konvenuta, jidher illi fuq iz-zewg dokumenti RE2 u RE3 hemm indikat il-kliem ‘David Interiors Limited’. Dan pero bl-ebda mod ma jfisser illi lpagament sar minn din is-socjeta’. Fil-fatt l-attur xehed illi l-pagament sar permezz ta’ ‘cash’ li huwa hareg minn butu, u fuq id-dokumenti in kwistjoni hemm ukoll indikat il-kliem ‘cash’. Kein ikun differenti li kieku l-pagament sar permezz ta’ cekk tal-kumpanija. Ghalhekk fin-nuqqas ta’ prova kuntrarja, t-Tribunal jidhirlu li ghandu jaccetta l-versjoni tal-attur illi l-pagament sar minnu stess permezz ta’ flus kontanti, u li ghalhekk l-atturi ghandhom interess guridiku sabiex jitolbu l-flus lura
Ghal dawn il-motivi, it-Tribunal jaqta u jiddeciedi billi jichad l-eccezzjonijet tas-socjeta’ konvenuta, u jilqa’ limitatament it-talba tal-atturi fis-somma ta’ sitt mija, tmienja u disghin Ewro u wiehed u tmenin centezmu (€698.81), ekwivalenti ghal Lm300. Fic-cirkostanzi, l-ispejjes tal-kawza ghandhom jigu sopportati kwantu ghal nofs millatturi u nofs l-iehor mis-socjeta’ konvenuta.”
L-obbjezzjonijiet tas-socjeta` Air Malta plc kontra din issentenza huma, in sintesi, dawn li jsegwu:-
(1) La gie stabbilit illi d-danni sofriethom ssocjeta` David Interiors Limited, u mhux l-atturi personalment, it-Tribunal kien legalment zbaljat meta cahditilha l-eccezzjoni ulterjuri tal-karenza ta’ l-interess guridiku;
(2) Ma kellhiex tigi mizmuma responsabbli u ordnata thallas danni ghal fatt li l-lukanda fl-Egittu biddlet isimha u l-gestjoni taghha bdiet issir minn management gdid (“Accor”). F’dan il-kuntest tenfasizza illi xorta wahda anke b’din il-bidla, il-lukanda baqghet wahda “5 Star Category Standard”;
(3) Il-“kwantum” tad-danni kanonizzat mhux gustifikat. Ziedet taggungi illi jekk din il-Qorti jidhrilha illi xi danni huma dovuti arbitrio boni viri dawn ghandhom ikunu f’ammont inferjuri ghal dak deciz mit-Tribunal;
Kontra r-revoka mitluba mis-socjeta` appellanti, l-atturi appellaw, sew in via principali kif ukoll, incidentalment, biex jitolbu l-varjazzjoni tas-sentenza. Dan fis-sens illi t- Tribunal ma ghamelx sewwa li ma akkordalhomx l-intier tas-somma tad-danni minnhom reklamata, u wkoll, ghaliex huma ma kellhomx jigu ordnati jbatu n-nofs ta’ l-ispejjez tal-kawza;
Fuq l-ewwel motiv ta’ aggravju tas-socjeta` konvenuta appellanti, it-Tribunal sab li la s-somma tal-booking thallset f’kontanti mill-atturi, avolja d-dokumenti relattivi rilaxxjati mis-socjeta` Air Malta kienu jindikaw lis-socjeta` “David Interiors Ltd”, l-istess atturi kellhom l-interess guridiku li jagixxu bl-azzjoni taghhom. Is-socjeta` appellanti tikkontendi illi l-konsiderazzjoni hekk maghmula mit-Tribunal mhix fondata, la fattwalment u lanqas guridikament. Fattwalment, ghaliex il-vjagg kien intiz bhala “business trip”. Guridikament, ghaliex la r-ricevuti huma intestati f’isem l-imsemmija socjeta`, din kellha tkun l-aqwa prova tal-veri kontraenti u ma setghux jingiebu provi testimonjali kontra l-miktub;
Huwa bil-wisq car minn din l-argomentazzjoni illi ssocjeta` appellanti trid tipperswadi illi dawk id-dokumenti, ghax hekk redatti u mahruga minnha, kellhom jaghmlu stat sagrosant di fronte ghall-atturi illi l-kontrattazzjoni saret bilfors mas-socjeta` David Interiors Ltd, cionostante li elementi ohra ta’ provi kienu jindikaw li l-vjagg, anke jekk intenzjonat bhala business trip, kien wiehed personali ghall-atturi. Ma hu xejn barra mill-ordinarju illi wiehed ihallas personalment pero` imbaghad l-entrati ta’ dak ilhlas, ghal ragunijiet ben notorji, iddahhalhom fil-kotba talkumpanija;
Il-Qorti ma jidhrilhiex li ghandha tissofferma fuq l-aspetti guridici ta’ l-interess guridiku, anke ghaliex in materja lgurisprudenza taghna hi wahda kopjuza. Tillimita ruhha ghall-osservazzjoni illi l-interess ta’ l-atturi f’dan il-kaz hu wkoll wiehed dirett in kwantu personali ghalihom, legittimu in kwantu konformi ghad-dritt li tieghu huma qeghdin ifittxu t-tutela minn tribunal, u fuq kollox, attwali ghax fil-mument tal-proponiment ta’ l-azzjoni minnhom l-istess dritt kien diga` jezisti. In bazi ghal dawn ir-riflessjonijiet kollha, il- Qorti qed tqis insostenibbli l-ewwel aggravju;
B’introduzzjoni ghat-tieni motiv ta’ aggravju ma jidherx li huwa kkontrastat illi l-atturi kienu, fuq ix-xelta taghhom mill-brochure tal-Flyaway Tours tal-kumpanija konvenuta, hallsu ghall-akkomodazzjoni fil-lukanda El Gezirah Sheraton. In meritu qed jigi osservat illi la l-proposta ta’ dik il-lukanda offerta b’dak il-brochure giet accettata millatturi, din l-accettazzjoni, komunikata lis-socjeta` appellanti, kienet certament tikkompleta l-kunsens talkontraenti fuq l-elementi tal-kontrattazzjoni b’mod li lpartijiet ma setghux ma jkunux vinkolati biha;
Il-fatti f’dan il-kuntest huma sew migjuba fis-sentenza appellata u mhux il-kaz li l-Qorti toqghod terga’ ttennihom. Tghaddi ghalhekk mill-ewwel biex taghmel il-kummenti taghha fuq l-ilment tas-socjeta` appellanti;
F’materja ta’ dritt relattivament ghall-obbligazzjonijiet hu sew maghruf illi l-adempiment ta’ obbligazzjoni ma jgibx mieghu, biss u sempliciment, l-ezekuzzjoni ta’ dik lobbligazzjoni izda wkoll dik tad-doveri accessorji. Ad ezempju, dik ta’ l-informazzjoni jew tal-komunikazzjoni ta’ l-elementi kollha saljenti u necessarji biex dak li jkun jista’ jifforma, b’mod ezatt, preciz u tempestiv l-ideja tieghu dwar il-kontenut tal-ftehim u dik ta’ l-utilita` tieghu ghalih. Kif manifest mill-Att relattiv (Kapitolu 409) u r-regolamenti maghmula tahtu (A.L. 157/2000), fil-kaz ta’ servizzi ta’ livvjaggar, l-importanza ta’ l-ghoti tat-taghrif, filkompletezza tieghu, hi singolarment sottolinejata. Irresponsabilita` migjuba fis-sehh b’rizultat ta’ ksur ta’ dawk l-istess doveri tinsorgi mhux biss fil-kaz ta’ nuqqas ta’ komunikazzjoni u ta’ informazzjoni tac-cirkustanzi maghrufa izda wkoll, fil-hsieb tal-Qorti, anke fil-kaz ta’ cirkostanzi konoxxibbli bid-diligenza ordinarja. Dan kollu qed jigi rilevat in kwantu hu sew evidenti mill-atti illi lkumpanija appellanti kkummettiet lezjoni ta’ dan id-dover meta ommettiet li tgharraf lill-atturi illi l-lukanda fl-Egittu ma kienetx ghadha fit-termini tal-brochure, immexxija mix- Sheraton Group izda minn kumpanija ohra diversa (l- Accor);
Ankorke dik il-kumpanija l-ohra hi wkoll wahda internazzjonalment rinomata, u sew il-bini u lklassifikazzjoni tal-lukanda baqghu immutabbli, kien dejjem jinkombi fuq is-socjeta` appellanti li tinforma lillatturi fil-mument tal-kontrattazzjoni bil-bdil fl-isem tallukanda u dik tal-gestjoni taghha minn kumpanija diversa minn dik tal-ghazla taghhom. Apparti accenni li jaghmlu latturi ghal certi nuqqasijiet riskontrati minnhom fil-lukanda, id-doljanza principali taghhom tidher proprju li kienet din ossija n-non-konformita da parti tas-socjeta` appellanti mal-programm negozjali ta’ l-akkomodazzjoni;
Kif inhu sew saput, anke f’kaz fejn id-debitur ta’ obbligazzjoni ma jezegwix b’mod ezatt u fidili lprestazzjoni li jkun indahal kontrattwalment ghaliha, hu tenut ghar-rizarciment tad-danni (Artikolu 1133, Kodici Civili), ammenokke ma jipprovax li l-inadempiment avvera ruhu minhabba impossibilita` derivata minn kawza barranija dwar liema ma kienx imputabbli. Din l-ezenzjoni mill-htija ma gietx f’dan il-kaz ipprovata. Dak li invece jinsab sodisfacentement ipprovat hu illi l-kumpanija appellanti kienet fi htija ghan-nuqqas taghha li debitament, u fiz-zmien opportun, tinforma lill-atturi illi l-allogg maghzul minnhom, u assunt b’obbligu mill-istess socjeta` appellanti, ma kienx dak idoneju specifikat fil-brochure. Anke jekk il-fattispeci mhux identici ghal dawk tal-kaz prezenti, ara ghal dawk li huma certi riljevi legali ssentenza ta’ din il-Qorti tas-17 ta’ Frar, 2003 in re: “Zammit & Cachia Limited -vs- Hix Limited”. Ghal dawn ir-ragunijiet it-tieni motiv ta’ aggravju qed jitqies hu wkoll insostenibbli;
L-ahhar motiv ta’ aggravju jinsab ukoll, ghal raguni diversa, imqanqal mill-atturi, u ghalhekk jispetta li sew ilwiehed u l-iehor jigu kkonsidrati flimkien;
Sincerament, din il-Qorti ma ssib xejn x’ticcensura firragonament u l-konkluzjoni tat-Tribunal fuq il-quantum tad-danni. Pjuttost jidher li t-Tribunal zamm ekwilibriju sew fil-harsien ta’ l-interessi taz-zewg partijiet, b’tali mod li filwaqt li akkorda lill-atturi dak li fil-konkret kein jimmeritahom, fl-istess hin u konsiderazzjoni ma ghabbiex piz zejjed u mhux misthoqq fuq spallejn is-socjeta` appellanti. Ma ghandux jintnesa li, wara kollox, it-Tribunal adit hu tenut jiddeciedi principalment skond l-ekwita [Artikolu 7 (1), Kapitolu 380], u tali kien jintitolah japproda ghal soluzzjoni aktar adegwata u ekwa tal-kontroversja filkonfini tal-principju informattiv tal-materja. Mhux accettabbli bhala gustifikazzjoni la l-fatt li l-atturi ma sofrew ebda dannu ghaliex gew “upgraded” f’kamra ta’ listess binja ta’ lukanda ta’ l-istess livell, kif kontez missocjeta` appellanti, u lanqas s-sottomissjoni ta’ l-atturi illi huma kieku kienu jafu li l-akkomodazzjoni ma kienetx dik minnhom prenotata, ma kienux jaghmlu dak il-vjagg fl- Egittu. Ma hemm xejn fil-verita` x’jikkonduci ghal din ilproposizzjoni ta’ l-atturi appellati u din lanqas ma setghet tigi assunta a posteriori;
Dan iwassal ghal konsiderazzjoni tal-gravam l-iehor sollevat mill-atturi dwar il-kap ta’ l-ispejjez. Il-Qorti hi talfehma li s-sentenza appellata ma ghandhiex, kif mitlub, tigi riformata. Apparti li r-regolament tat-temperament ta’ l-ispejjez hu mholli fid-diskrezzjoni prudenzjali ta’ min hu msejjah biex jiggudika, l-ispartizzjoni saret ghab-bazi tarrebh u t-telf. Ma jidherx ghaldaqstant li tezisti raguni sufficjenti biex din il-Qorti titbieghed mill-konkluzjoni tat- Tribunal ghal mod kif dan iddecieda l-kap ta’ l-ispejjez. Ghall-motivi kollha suesposti l-appell principali tassocjeta` konvenuta qed jigi michud bl-ispejjez kontra taghha. Ugwalment, il-Qorti qed tiddeciedi fil-kaz ta’ lappell incidentali u principali ta’ l-atturi billi tichad l-istess bl-ispejjez kontra l-istess atturi. Is-sentenza appellata qeghda konsegwentement tigi konfermata in toto kemm fir-rigward tal-mertu kif ukoll fil-rigward tal-kap ta’ lispejjez. < Sentenza Finali >
---------------------------------TMIEM---------------------------------