Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1516098
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 18 FEBRUARY 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Why are students with a disability being denied good quality education? The National Education Strategy 2024 – 2030 is about visioning the future by Transforming Education. These last few days; the public has been inundated with negative stories of what students with disabilities and their families must endure within the education system. These are not the only stories. Many years ago, as one of KNPD (now called CRPD) Board members, the Malta Federation of Organisations Persons with Disability (MFOPD) had asked for an eval- uation of the inclusive education system in Malta. The scope behind this request was for the authorities to see what was working or not, where to improve and or, if need be, what to substitute and with what. MFOPD is unaware of such evaluations and follow-ups. It is obvious that nothing happened with regards as otherwise we are not in this pitiful and painful situation. MFOPD cannot understand how the Ministry for Education came up with the long-term goals and how it plans to reach them, as this is what a strategy is all about, without evaluating what we have. We have a right to know why our education system failed and is failing us and our children, we have a right to know why students with disabilities are being denied good quality education. Our Education Act states in Article 4 that it is the duty of the State: (a) to promote education in Malta based on the values of democracy, inclusion, di- versity, active citizenship, critical thinking, responsible behaviour and ethical conduct; and (b) to ensure the existence of a system of schools and other educational institutions in Malta catering for the full develop- ment of the whole personality and overall well-being of the person including his ability to work This Act was not written yesterday. We should be realising good things and not still fighting for a good quality educa- tion for our children. Marthese Mugliette President MFOPD Graffitti's incomprehensible thinking I have a lot of respect for Graffitti and many issues they stand for but I cannot agree with their latest statement denounc- ing Malta's participation in the EU's Red Sea mission. The claim that by being part of this de- fensive mission Malta would abet Israeli genocide by proxy is spurious and incom- prehensible. Graffitti's position implies they agree with the attacks on merchant shipping carried out by Houthi militants because it is a gesture of solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. First of all, the insistence that Houthi militants are only attacking Israeli-bound or owned ships is flimsy at best. Some of the ships that have been attacked have no connection whatsoever with Israel. Secondly, the attacks have disrupted in- ternational shipping routes and as a direct consequence have harmed Malta's trade interests. Given that the EU mission is one in- tended to defend commercial ships and provide escort as they pass through the Bab el-Mandab Strait, I absolutely see no issue with Malta taking part. The EU has been clear that its mission in the Red Sea will not be involved in attacks on Yemeni territory but will serve to stop attacks being carried out on ships. Trying to imply that this action in some way is supporting Israel's indiscriminate war in Gaza is ridiculous. Malta should be defending its interests at the same time that it applies pressure within the EU for a harsher stand against Israeli aggression in Gaza. N. Busuttil St Paul's Bay THE Court of Appeal held that the Court does not have the competence to deter- mine whether the Revenues Commis- sioner had a title or not over the amount based on the evidence presented. This was held in Francis Grima in his own name and in his capacity as director and representing the company Outwest Limited vs Commission of Revenues. Francis Grima instituted proceedings against the Commissioner of Revenues because he was presented with an official letter to pay the sum of €188,643.74 as a representative of Outwest Ltd, a company which he is a director of. Furthermore, the Commissioner informed the repre- sentative that, if he fails to pay the overdue amount in the time given to him, he would proceed to execute the said executive title through the appropriate mandates. Grima argued that the Commissioner failed to follow the provisions of the Value Added Tax Act, thus disabling them from acquiring an executive title against Gri- ma. The procedure aforementioned that must be adhered to was quoted from the judgment of Aluminium Extrusions Lim- ited u Raymond Borg vs Director General (VAT) given by the Court of Appeal on 27 April 2016. The plaintiff went on to state that the defendant's official letter was untimely as Grima was still waiting for a reply from the Commissioner on the ap- plication submitted by the Company in- volved which was done in accordance to the provisions set out in the Value Added Tax Regulations (Cancellation of Interest and Administrative Penalties) entered under the Value Added Tax Act of 1998, the Customs and Excise Tax Act and the Value Added Tax Acts of 1994), i.e. an application under Legal Notice 456 of 2011 as amended. Thus, according to the plaintiff, there is no sense accompanying the Commissioner's decision to impose an executive title over the entire amount that Grima was ordered to pay, which is €188,643.74. Grima also argued that once again the Commissioner had no right to impose an executive title over the amount owed if any amount in the total amount owed came from any administrative fines. An- other plea the plaintiff forwarded was that Grima, as a director had never dur- ing his management of the company had any monies or property that were of the company or owed to the company, there- fore rendering him an unqualified to be a representative of the company, Outwest Ltd. He should not be held responsible for any amounts that may be owed by the Company he managed. Finally, the last plea presented to the court by the plain- tiff is that, the request for the payment of the sum of €188,643.74, as deduced by the Commissioner in his official letter of 15 December 2015, is totally unfounded in fact and in law. The First Hall of Civil Court rejected the first two pleas presented by the defendant and therefore the judgment was to be de- cided on the 3rd and 4th plea. This deci- sion was taken on 5 February 2021 after postponed sittings due to the COVID-19 pandemic whereby, the Court favoured the defendant, but the decision was ap- pealed by the plaintiffs and requested the Court to annul the judgment that was appealed due to reasons provided for in Article 790 of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure, and also because it is extra petita and/or contains defects that prejudice the right to be heard appropri- ate to all parties. The Commissioner ar- gued that during the hearing regarding the 3rd and 4th plea, there was no request for continuation and that Court was sat- isfied and was ready to decide on the matter at hand as it examined those two pleas only and nothing more. As a result, the defendant was left confused as to why the plaintiff/appellant would consider the judgment extra petita. The Court of Ap- peal found the first ground of appeal not meritorious and was dismissed. The Plaintiff/Appellant also request- ed the court to remand the acts back to the First Court for a continuation of the proceedings and if both requests were to be dismissed, it requested the court to authorise that, after thoroughly present- ing all remaining evidence regarding the merits of the current case, the court pro- ceeds to dismiss the third and fourth pre- liminary objections raised by the Com- missioner along with any other objections not yet addressed. Additionally, the court grants the petitioner's request as outlined. The Court of Appeal in this case, agreed with the First Court that it did not have the competence to decide whether the Commissioner had a title or not over the amount based on the evidence presented. The evidence substantiated the claims made by the plaintiff and that the official letter of the Commissioner was quoted to be "unfounded in fact and in law" and once again declared the second ground of appeal brought by the plaintiff-appellant to be unfounded and was subsequently rejected. In its final verdict, the Appeals Court rejected the appeal lodged by Grima and confirmed the judgment made by the First Court. In addition to this, the Court ruled that the costs of both cases were to be incurred by the zappellants. Appeals Court rakes in favour of the Commissioner of Revenues LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates