Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1487971
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 11 DECEMBER 2022 15 LAW CLASSIFIEDS HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION MARSALFORN, Gozo - holiday apart- ments for short or long lets with mag- nificent sea-views. Call 21556021, 27556021, 79426883 PROPERTY TO LET XLENDI - catering premises in prime site to let. Can be used for other com- mercial purposes. Phone 79493021, 79426883, 77481592 or 77484029 PROPERTY FOR SALE SAN GWANN- Open plan 190sqm, ready to move into designer finished second floor apartment in a central quiet street forming part of a block of 5 apartments. Two double A/C bed- rooms and 1 single A/C bedroom, two bathrooms, lift, double glazing doors and windows. Direct from owner €350k inquire on 79402244. TARXIEN - Larger than usual first floor duplex maisonette. Three bed- rooms; double glazed windows; invert- er air conditioners including solar water heater. Being sold furnished. Own airspace with possibility of fur- ther development. Contact owner on 99912005/99450639. SERVICES COLLECTIBLE items such panini albums and loose stickers, old post- cards and posted envelopes, medals, militaria, coins and paper money, books, toys, stamps, badges, paint- ings, gold & silver items etc. Call on 21310238, 99246632. CLASSIFIEDS INFO @MEDIATODAY.COM.MT IT is not just and equitable that the applicant for a work and res- idence permit (a Single Permit) application must bear the re- sponsibility for the shortcomings of his prospective employer. This was held in a judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal (Inferior Jurisdiction) in Cami- lo Atkinson Galindo vs Identity Malta Agency presided over by Honorable Mr. Justice Lawrence Mintoff on the 30th November 2022. In this case, the applicantappli- cant arrived in Malta on the 28th November 2020 following a job offer. As a Columbian national he was allowed to stay in Malta for 90 days without requiring a Visa. During this period, an application for the Single Permit was being handled exclusively by his pro- spective employer on his behalf, which was submitted on the 5th March 2021. The application was rejected on the grounds that the applicant was illegally staying in Malta at the time of its submis- sion. The applicant appealed this decision. In the first instance, the Immi- gration Appeals Board on the 18th April 2022 ruled in favour of the applicant, whereby the de- cision taken by Identity Malta on 6th December 2021 to refuse the Single Permit application was to be revoked, while giving direc- tions to proceed ahead with the application of the applicant. Identity Malta lodged an appeal as it felt aggrieved by the deci- sion of the Immigration Appeals Board stating that it gave a wrong interpretation of the law as pro- vided by provision 8(1)(c) of Sub- sidiary Legislation 217.17 (Single Application Procedure for a Sin- gle Permit as Regards Residence and Work and a Common Set of Rights for those Third-Country Workers Legally Residing in Mal- ta Regulations), which provides that for an applicant to apply for a Single Permit, he needs to be residing legally in the Member State where the application is submitted. The Appellant, Identity Malta, stated that although documents for the Single Permit were sub- mitted on the 5th March 2021, such application was not com- plete. The Appellant duly notified the prosepctive employer of the applicant, and eventually the ap- plicant upon his enquiries, about these shortcomings which were concluded on the 26th August 2021. According to the appel- lant this resulted in the applicant overstaying in Malta illegally for several months. The Court considered the facts of the case and noted that fol- lowing the application submit- ted on the 5th March 2021, the applicantreceived an email from Identity Malta stating that "A Single-Permit Application has been initiated on your behalf by ZP Services Limited and is now awaiting your validation". The Court stated that the contents of this email prove that although as provided by Article 7 of Sub- sidiary Legislation 217.17, an ap- plication for Single Permit is the responsibility of the applicant, in practice it is the prospective em- ployer that takes care of such a process for third country nation- als. The Court states that the ap- plicant was correct in assuming that the application submitted on his behalf was complete after receiving the above-mentioned email. The Court also considered the fact that the process that the ap- plicant was requested to follow by Identity Malta did not involve a direct interaction from his side as it was also clearly stated that "Once completed, click on Sub- mit to Employer. ZP Services Limited will then submit your application to Identity Malta". Hence, the Court reflects that the applicant is correct when in- sisting that if the application was late, he should not be accountable as he had no discretion to present the application on a specific date or to make sure that all documen- tation were submitted. Notably, the Court remarked that it is evident that there is a clear conflict between what the law specifies and what happens in practice, and it is not just or equitable that the applicantappli- cant bears responsibility for the shortcomings of the prospective employer in the submission of the application. The Court adds that these cases concern persons that leave everything behind for search of a better future. Fur- thermore, the Court affirms that it is neither just and equitable to state that the application was not submitted in time as stipulated by law, since based on the word- ing of the emails received by the applicant from Identity Malta, it gives the impression that the ap- plication was submitted in time. The Court took into account the fact that Identity Malta re- plied to the applicantapplicant on the 30th July 2021 stating that the application still had some miss- ing documents and that he had to notify his prospective employ- er to submit them. Furthermore, Identity Malta claimed that these missing documents were then re- ceived on the 26th August 2021, and it is on this date that the ap- plication was considered to be complete and not on any other previous date. However, the Court did not agree with this reasoning and concluded that it was clear that the applicant was completely dependent on the prospective employer for such an applica- tion to be submitted to Identity Malta. Furthermore, the appli- cantapplicant was also given the impression that such application was complete and being evalu- ated from the start. The Court also notes that the applicant had no means at any stage to address any resulting shortcomings, which were notified to him sev- eral months after the submission, notwithstanding the fact that he took a personal interest in his application to make sure that his status is regularized. In such cir- cumstances the applicant could not foresee at this point that he might have been staying in Malta illegally or without authorization. Based on these facts, the Court ruled against the appeal institut- ed by Identity Malta and upheld the decision taken by the Immi- grations Appeal Board in the first instance. The applicant was represented by Dr Gianluca Cappitta. Applicant for a Residence and Work permit should not bear responsibility for shortcomings of prospective employer LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates JOB OPPORTUNITY FOR LIVE-IN PERSON Person must speak English and be polite and professional. Job roles include but are not limited to: • Keeping the house and outdoors clean, organized and tidy • Helping with daily chores and errands • Aiding family day to day Driving license. Please send email to tonygatt45@gmail.com JOB OPPORTUNITY FOR LIVE-IN PERSON Person must speak English and be polite and professional. Job roles include but are not limited to: • Keeping the house and outdoors clean, organized and tidy • Helping with daily chores and errands • Aiding family day to day Driving license. Please send email to nicholasgatt@icloud.com