Judgment Text - EU Consumer Law Acquis

EU Consumer Law Acquis Compendium 

Case Law Malta (MT) Nr. 20 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Qorti ta’ l-Appell, 24.04.2009, Appell Civil Numru 15/2008 

Relevant Provisions (European and National Law) 

Directive 93/13, Art. 3-5; Consumer Affairs Act, Art. 44-47C 

Keywords: none 

Published: 

_________________________________________________________________________ 

Headnotes: 

No headnotes available. 

Summary: 

Facts: 

Plaintiff filed a claim before the Consumer Claims Tribunal requesting damages amounting 

to €1207.78 being extra fees she paid to defendant, which plaintiff alleged were not due. 

Plaintiff claimed that she had received excessive bills amounting to €1548.92, following 

which she complained with defendants who made a small discount on the original bill. Consequently 

plaintiff started to pay the bill under protest until her claim was determined by the 

Tribunal 

Plaintiff argued that under the ‘special conditions’ of the internet/e-mail contract - under the 

heading “Tariff Plans” - she had with defendant, the word “unlimited” was used. Plaintiff 

moreover argued that she was not given any detailed information about the use she made 

of the internet services provided and how she was billed for them other then a figure giving 

“data usage”. She also said that defendant never brought to her attention all the contractual 

terms that could apply and which could be seen on defendant’s website. 

The Tribunal noted that defendant had advised plaintiff to take the internet service package 

in question as this was available for the price of €23 per month and that it was impossible 

for her to exceed the limit of five gigabytes download. Moreover the Tribunal observed that 

defendants never indicated to plaintiff that she could be responsible for the payment of any 

uploads by third parties on her computer. The Tribunal noted that after this case defendant 

had in its advertising changed the word ‘download’ to ‘data usage’. 

The Tribunal on examining that of the contract under the heading “Tariff Plan” which gave 

plaintiff unlimited use internet and e-mail access at the fee of €23.69, upheld plaintiff’s claim 

and ordered defendant to review the bills issued to plaintiff accordingly. 

Template © IPR Verlag GmbH Munich 2005 1



_________________________________________________________________________ 

Reasons: 

Defendant appealed the Tribunal’s decision before the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) 

arguing that the Tribunal did not make a correct assessment of the facts of the case and 

applied the law incorrectly. Defendant contended that the contract signed to, stated that the 

bundle was of 5GB of network usage with defendant arguing that the Tribunal failed to examine 

all the applicable contractual terms. 

The Court made specific reference to Council Directive 93/13EEC on unfair terms, observing 

that formalities relating to an agreement are not solely restricted the contractual document 

signed to by the parties, but also includes all the contractual activity both pre and post 

the signing of the contractual document. 

The Court noted that it is also important to factor all the information exchanged between the 

parties both before and after the conclusion of the contract, thereby leading to maximum 

transparency of all the acts relating to the contract so as to ensure that there is greater clarity 

for the consumer. The Court emphasised that the consumer must accordingly be placed 

in a position whereby he can conclude an agreement with the knowledge that all the necessary 

information pertinent to the contract has been communicated to him in a simple, clear 

and understandable manner. 

The Court said that in this case the Tribunal acted in accordance with the above, noting that 

the Tribunal gave particular significant to the use of the word “unlimited” under the heading 

of “Tariff Plan”, and to the fact that defendant subsequently changed its advertising by substituting 

the word “download” with “data usage”. The Court said that it will not question the 

Tribunal’s judgement in determining that the claim made by plaintiff merited protection in accordance 

with both the Unfair Terms Directive and the Consumer Affairs Act, referring also 

to the faculty of the Tribunal to decide cases on the basis of equity in accordance with article 

21 of the Consumer Affairs Act. The Court therefore decided to confirm the decision of the 

Tribunal rejecting defendant’s appeal with costs. 




_________________________________________________________________________ 

Judgment Text: 

QORTI TA' L-APPELL 

ONOR. IMHALLEF 

PHILIP SCIBERRAS 

Seduta ta' l-24 ta' April, 2009 

Appell Civili Numru. 15/2008 

Maria Geraldine Attard 

vs 

Go Mobisle Communications Ltd 

Il-Qorti, 

Fit-3 ta’ Dicembru, 2008, it-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur ippronunzja s-segwenti 

sentenza fl-ismijiet premessi:- 

“It-Tribunal 

Wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-Avviz fl-ismijiet fuq premessi pprezentati fid-9 ta' Lulju 2008 fejn irrikorrenti 

talbet danni ta’ elf, mitejn u sebgha ewro u tmienja u sebghin ewro centezmi 




_________________________________________________________________________ 

(€1207.78) rapprezentanti hlas zejda mitlub mill-intimat u li ma humiex dovuti. 

L-intimat ipprezenta risposta ghal din it-talba u attenda ghas-seduta. 

Illi wara li sema' x-xhieda tar-rikorrenti li hija listess rikorrenti, u wara li sema' x-xhieda ta’ lintimat 

li huwa rapprezentant tad-ditta intimata, u wara li ha konjizzjoni tal-fatti kif ukoll taccirkostanzi 

kollha tal-kaz; 

Ikkunsidra s-segwenti: 

Ir-rikorrenti ssottometta illi wara li rceviet kontijiet li jammontaw ghal elf, hames mija u tmienja 

u erbghin ewro u tnejn u disghin ewro centezmi (€1548.92) hija ghamlet ilment malkumpanija 

ntimata li minn naha taghhom tawha skont zghir u li ghalhekk ir-rikorrenti bdiet 

thallas pagamenti kull xahar 'under protest' sakemm tigi rizolta din ilkwistjoni minn dan it- 

Tribunal. 

Ir-rikorrenti ssottomettiet wkoll illi fl-'special conditions’ tal-kuntratt ghall-‘Internet/e-mail access’ 

li hi ghamlet mal-kumpanija ntimata hemm specifikat il-kelma 'unlimited' fit-'tariff plan' 

kif ukoll illi hi ma nghatat ebda rendikont dettaljat kif sar dan l-uzu u nghatat biss figure f’cifri 

ta' 'data usage'. Il-kumpanija ntimata qatt ma gabet ghal konjizzjoni taghha xi termini talkuntratt 

li jista' jinsab fuq is-sit tal-internet tal-Go. 

Finalment ir-rikorrenti ssottomettiet verbalment waqt is-smiegh tal-kawza illi hi dejjem uzat 

dan isservizz ghal skop domestiku u li hi kellha kontroll shih fuq il-computer taghha b''password' 

li kienet taf hija biss. 

L-intimat issottometta illi huma qatt ma illimitaw il- 5GB imsemmija ghal 'downloads' filkuntratt 

u li rrikorrenti qatt ma talbet tali rendikont tal-uzu u li 

hija lesta li tipproducieh. Inoltre l-intimat issottometta illi huma kienu ghamlu 

riduzzjoni ta' 30% mill-kont ta' Jannar 2008 liema kont kien jammonta ghal tliet mija u wiehed 

u erbghin ewro u erbatax ewro centezmi (€341.14), kif ukoll ezenzjoni mill-ahhar 'access 

fee' u kienet ezentata mill-penali ta' ksur tal-ftehim. 




_________________________________________________________________________ 

Finalment l-intimat issottometta illi huma fasslu program mifrux fuq ghaxar xhur biex irrikorrenti 

tkun tista' thallas il-kontijiet mibghuta lilha. 

It-Tribunal jinnota illi:- 

Wara li r-rikorrenti ressqet l-ilment taghha malkumpanija ntimata, l-intimat minn naha tieghu 

rriduca l-kont izda dan in-nuqqas ma kienx jirrifletti l-obbligu tal-ammont ta' hlas kontrattat. 

Ir-rikorrenti minn naha taghha, u sabiex ma tidholx fi spejjez addizzjonali ta' kawza inizjata 

mill-intimat, bdiet taghmel pagamenti menswali taht protest u bla pregudizju ghall-kaz odjern. 

It-Tribunal jinnota illi l-intimat kien taha parir sabiex tieghu dak is-servizz ghaliex skond listess 

intimat dan kien servizz offrut ghall-prezz ta' tliet u ghoxrin ewro (€23) u li kien impossibbli 

li rrikorrenti taqbez il-limitu ta' 'five gigabytes download'. Barra minn hekk l-intimat qatt 

ma spjega jew b'xi mod iehor indika lir-rikorrenti illi hi kienet ser tinzamm responsabbli ghallhlasijiet 

ta' xi 'upload' li terzi persuni setghu jaghmlu minn fuq il-computer taghha. Ta' min 

jinnota illi wara l-ilment illi wara li tressaq dan l-ilment mir-rikorrenti lkumpanija ntimata biddlet 

il-kelma 'download' ghal dik ta' 'data usage' fuq ir-riklamar taghha. 

It-Tribunal jinnota b'mod partikolari illi l-kelma 'unlimited' tinsab miktuba bl-idejn, u cioe inkitbet 

f’kuntratt li sar specifikament ghar-rikorrenti taht ittitolu 'Tariff Plan'. 

It-Tribunal jinnota s-sottomissjonijiet tar-rikorrenti fejn qal li l-'Consumer Affairs Act, Part VII, 

Title 1 Articles 51A to 51J' tal-Ligi Ewropea tirreferi ghal 'advertising practice of making exaggerated 

statements or statements which are not meant to be taken literally' kif ukoll illi 'A 

commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if in any way, including its overall 

presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information 

is factually correct, in relation to one or more of the following elements, and in either case 

causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have 

taken otherwise'. 

Ghal dawn il-motivi: 

It-Tribunal wara li kkonsidra hawn fuq u wara li ra illi t-'Tariff Plan' kif imnizzla fil-kuntratt u 

accettata u ffirmat miz-zewg partijiet jaghti lir-rikorrenti d-dritt esklussiv ghal uzu 'unlimited' 

ta' 'internet/e-mail access' bir-rata ta' tlieta u ghoxrin ewro u disgha u sittin ewro centezmi 

(€23.69), jilqa' t-talba tarrikorrenti u jordna lill-intimat jirrevedi l-kontijiet kollha mahruga 




_________________________________________________________________________ 

minnu mid-data illi gie ffirmat ilkuntratt sad-data ta' din is-sentenza, u dan bir-rata ta' tlieta u 

ghoxrin ewro u disgha u sittin ewro centezmi (€23.69) fix-xahar, bl-ispejjez kontra listess intimat.” 

L-ilment preponderanti tas-socjeta` mharrka huwa fis-sens illi t-Tribunal naqas li jiehu konjizzjoni 

korretta tal-fatti u tad-dokumenti u applika b’mod zbaljat l-rincipji legali; 

Il-bazi tal-kontestazzjoni ta’ l-appellata bil-kawza minnha proposta quddiem it-Tribunal hi fissens 

illi skond lallegazzjoni taghha s-socjeta` appellanti, fil-mument talbejgh tal-prodott offert 

weghditha 5 gigabytes “download” u mhux 5 gigabytes “usage” (kompriz l-uploads ta’ terzi). 

Ma’ dan is-socjeta` appellanti ma qabletx u in linea difensjonali ssottomettiet illi l-kuntratt iffirmat 

kien jipprovdi illi d-daqs tal-bundle huwa 5GB ta’ network usage. Anke issa f’dan listadju, 

b’censura ghad-decizjoni tat-Tribunal, is-socjeta` appellanti tirrepeti dik l-istess linja 

ta’ difiza taghha u tikkritika lit-Tribunal illi dan qaghad ghal kollox fuq l-istqarrijiet ta’ lappellata 

minghajr ma ezamina sew ilpattijiet kontrattwali. Linejari ma’ din is-sottomissjoni 

taghha s-socjeta` appellanti tikkontendi allura illi t-Tribunal ma ghamelx valutazzjoni xierqa 

tal-provi u dan bi pregudizzju gravi ghal jeddijiet taghha; 

Fis-sentenza taghha fl-ismijiet “Mary Zarb -vs- Emma Azzopardi et”, 28 ta’ Marzu, 2007 din 

il-Qorti kienet hemm issenjalat il-principju illi anke fil-kazijiet insorti quddiem it-Tribunal 

specjali krejat bil-Kapitolu 378 tal- Ligijiet, il-process ghandu jirriproduci dik id-decizjoni akkurata 

li tirrifletti l-verifiki korretti tal-fatti u l-applikazzjoni tal-ligi. Fiha, issokta jizdied illi dik 

id-decizjoni mit-Tribunal tista’ tkun soggetta b’success ghal revizjoni minn din il- Qorti jekk 

jinstab li t-Tribunal ma jkunx ippresta attenzjoni adegwata lill-mertu tal-kaz jew fejn lezercizzju 

tal-poter diskrezzjonali jkun ghal kollox nieqes minn raguni jew fejn il-konkluzjoni 

ultimament raggunta tirrizulta illogika; 

Jinzel minn dan illi l-Qorti ghandha tezamina jekk fil-kaz in ispecje kienx hemm xi motiv minn 

dawn appena illustrate u, ukoll, l-ezistenza ta’ xi pregudizzju gravi ghal liema jirreferi t-test 

tal-ligi fl-Artikolu 22 (2) tal-Kapitolu imsemmi; 

Dikjaratament, is-socjeta` appellanti tirpoza l-argoment centrali taghha bl-aggravju fuq il-bazi 

tal-kuntratt interkjuz bejn il-partijiet ghas-servizz ta’ l-internet. Dan taghmlu biex issostni lpunt 

illi s-servizz ikkuntrattat mill-appellata kien wiehed limitat ghall-uzu ta’ hames (5) gigabytes 

minghajr ebda kwalifika u li ghal kull uzu li jeccedi tali limitu kellu jkun hemm hlas addizzjonali 

skond kif millkuntratt prevvist; 

Fl-inkartament tal-kaz quddiem it-Tribunal tinsab esebita kopja tad-Direttiva 93/13 ta’ l- 

Unjoni Ewropeja relattiva ghal “unfair terms in consumer contracts”. Presumibilment, l-iskop 

ta’ din l-esebizzjoni kien dak li jissenjala l-principju regolanti b’mod uniformi kontrattazzjonijiet 

bhal dak de quo agitur. Opportunament, fuq il-konsiderazzjoni taghha ta’ din id- Direttiva, 




_________________________________________________________________________ 

jidher li fin-normattiva komunitarja l-formalita` tal-ftehim ma hix dik sempliciment taddokument 

konkjuz bejn il-partijiet kontraenti izda din tassumi importanza aktar mifruxa li tinkorpora 

l-attivita` kontrattwali shiha, sija pre, jew post, kontrattwali. F’certu sens allura din ilforma 

takkwista tifsira diversa minn dik tas-sens strett kif nsibuha fil-Kodici Civili in materja 

ta’ kuntratti bil-miktub, in kwantu d-Direttiva donnha ttendi biex ikun maghruf sew liskambju 

ta’ l-informazzjoni anterjuri, kif ukoll posterjuri, ghall-att u r-rapport finali. Dan mhux minghajr 

raguni. Filfehma tal-Qorti l-obbjettiv principali jidher li hu dak li tkun iggarantita t-trasparenza 

massima ta’ l-operazzjoni kontrattwali u li tkun assikurata dik il-kjarezza magguri ta’ gharfien 

dwar dak li jkun qed jigi propost lill-konsumatur ta’ l-oggett jew tas-servizz. Fi kliem iehor 

tezisti dik ilhtiega li l-konsumatur kontraenti jitqieghed fil-kondizzjoni li jikkonkludi l-ftehim 

wara li jkun akkwista, b’mod car, semplici u li jinftiehem, il-konoxxenza ta’ dawk l-elementi 

kollha u ta’ l-informazzjoni shiha u utli ghal dak l-iskop talkonkluzjoni tal-kuntratt; 

Fil-kaz specifiku ma jidherx li t-Tribunal tbieghed minn din il-koncezzjoni. In bazi ghall-provi 

attendibbli, kif valutati minnu, huwa stabilixxa illi lill-appellata kien gie offert servizz ta’ “five 

gigabytes download”, qieghed is-sinjifikat tieghu fuq il-kelma “unlimited” stabbilita taht ilkappa 

“Tariff Plan” fil-kuntratt, innota li l-kumpanija appellanti ssostitwit fir-reklamar taghha lkelma 

“download” ghal dik ta’ “data usage” u, wara li adotta l-kummenti traccjati fil- Consumer 

Affairs Act fil-ligi Ewropeja, iddetermina illi lilment imressaq lilu mill-appellata kien 

wiehed valevoli u lappellata kien jisthoqqilha l-protezzjoni, kif mid-Direttiva u mill-Att dwar l- 

Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur mahsub. Mhix ghal din il-Qorti li tikkwerela din il-valutazzjoni tat- 

Tribunal arginata fuq l-elementi intrinsici tal-provi kemm ghaliex skond il-ligi d-dritt ta’ sindikar 

minn Qorti ta’ revizjoni hu wiehed ristrett ghal dak li jinghad skond il-vot tal-ligi fl- Artikolu 

22 (2) tal-Kapitolu 378, kemm ghaliex din il-Qorti ma ssibx illi t-Tribunal ivvjola, fil-kaz partikulari, 

il-principji ta’ dik il-gustizzja sostantiva u ta’ l-ekwita li jippreciza l- Artikolu 21 (1) talistess 

Kapitolu. Principji dawn li din il- Qorti wisq drabi fissret f’numru ta’ decizjonijiet taghha 

u mhux il-kaz li toqghod terga’ tirreplikahom. Ara b’ezemplari s-sentenza fl-ismijiet “Andrew 

Cassar et -vs- Victor Mercieca nomine”, Appell mit-Tribunal ghal Talbiet Zghar, 22 ta’ Novembru, 

2006; 

Is-socjeta` appellanti tilmenta illi t-Tribunal ma tax piz xieraq lill-espressjoni tal-bona fide 

ghal liema jirreferi l- Artikolu 993 tal-Kodici Civili in kap ghall-Effetti tal-Kuntratti in generali. 

Il-fatti tal-kaz, u l-aktar il-konsiderazzjonijiet tad-decizjoni appellata ma jikkorroborawx u ma 

jsostnux din ic-censura. Dan proprju ghaliex fl-argini tal-kwadru komplet tal-fatti maghrufa lbwona 

fede assumiet parametru siewi gudizzjali ta’ dik il-verifika illi, kif fuq manifest, induciet 

lit-Tribunal ghal dak ir-ragonament u dik il-konkluzjoni, fis-sentenza rispekkjati, tar-rapport 

sottostanti l-kuntratt ta’ ftehim. 

Ghal motivi kollha predetti din il-Qorti qeghda konsegwentement tirrespingi l-appell u tikkonferma 

ssentenza appellata, bl-ispejjez kontra s-socjeta` appellanti.

Judgment Text - EU Consumer Law Acquis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?