Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1517531
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 17 MARCH 2024 LETTERS & LAW Letters to the Editor Law Report Communications authority has no remit to regulate retail prices I am writing in response to the letter published in the MaltaToday on Sunday, 17 MARCH 2024, from your reader (T. Muscat, Naxxar), regarding the recent price increase announced by Melita for its sports package subscription. While we appreciate the concerns regarding the price increase, we wish to clarify the role and jurisdiction of the Malta Communications Authority (MCA). Contrary to your reader's sug- gestion, based on national and EU laws, the MCA is not vested with the remit and power to regulate retail prices of electronic communications services. While Article 4(3)(i) of the Malta Com- munications Authority Act (Cap.418) does indeed refer to a general power to regulate price structures for activities regulated under the Act, it is imperative to contextualise this provision within the entirety of Article 4(3). The relevant parts of this article stipulate that: "The Authority shall also, in accord- ance with the laws it is entitled to en- force – (i) Regulate the price structure for any activity regulated by or under this Act and where appropriate to establish the mechanisms, whereby the price to be charged for the services, products, opera- tions or activities is determined". Currently, there is no specific legis- lation in force empowering the MCA to regulate retail prices for electronic communications services. Therefore, the MCA's regulatory authority in this mat- ter is constrained by the absence of such enabling legislation. Moreover, it is essential to recognise that the regulatory landscape for elec- tronic communications is subject to European Union (EU) rules. Under the harmonised EU norms, retail markets for electronic communications lie be- yond the scope of ex-ante regulation by national regulatory authorities such as the MCA. Instead, these markets are governed by competition law, which falls outside the purview of the MCA's man- date. Therefore, while we acknowledge the concerns raised by your reader, we reit- erate that the MCA is unable to address such matters within the current legal framework. Daniela Azzopardi Communications Coordinator Malta Communications Authority Concern over impact on students with disability of UPE LSE directives THE National Parents Society for Per- sons with Disability (NPSD) expresses deep concern over the recent directives issued by the Union of Professional Ed- ucators (UPE) amid an ongoing trade dispute. One directive prohibits the replace- ment of Learning Support Educators (LSEs) who are sick, on special, ma- ternity, or any other form of leave, causing a significant disruption to the education of students with disabili- ties. As a result, children who rely on one- to-one support are being sent home, even though there are available LSEs. As a result, parents are being forced to take an indefinite amount of leave from work to care for their children, while children are being denied their educa- tion. This is causing immense stress, frus- tration, and anxiety for families who are struggling to manage the impact of these directives and on children who do not know when they will be accept- ed into school or not. The NPSD acknowledges the rights of educators and supports the pursuit of their professional and workplace interests. However, the United Nations Con- vention on the Rights of the Child and the EU Child Guarantee emphasise that education is a legal right for every child based on equal opportunity. Unions should stop using children with disabilities as pawns to get what they want without regard to their fun- damental rights and well-being. This is becoming a worrying trend in educa- tion. We urge the UPE to reconsider these directives. Education is a fundamental right for all children, which must be upheld even in times of dispute. We also urge the relevant authorities to consider the needs of students with disabilities in their negotiations and to find immedi- ate solutions that prevent any interrup- tion to their education. Marchita Mangiafico President National Parents Society for Persons with Disability CO-OWNERS must make use of the property in common as long as it is done in the best interest of the co-ownership. This was held in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Toni Abela on 14 March 2024 in Joseph Vella vs Brendan Degiorgio. The Plaintiff, Joseph Vella explained to the Court in his application that he owns a block of four floors in the Tal- Handaq Industrial Zone. The block in- cludes a number of industrial garages and warehouses. The Defendant owns one of the garages and works alumi- num windows from there. For the past years, the Defendant Brendan Degior- gio, blocked the common passageway with his merchandise. This is being done in the common passageway which is his property. The Defendant even put shelving in the common passage- way. Vella asked the Court to declare that the Defendant's decision to block the common passageway is illegal and should be ordered to remove the mer- chandise and other items. Degiorgio filed a statement of de- fence, in which he pleaded that there were other co-owners who store in the common areas. He did not accept that the common property was the Plain- tiff's common property and that the fact that he installed a hoist was an in- convenience. The Court quoted Article 491 of the Civil Code, which reads: "Each of the co-owners is entitled to make use of the common property, provided: (a) that the use be made according to the destination of the property as es- tablished by usage; (b) that it be not made against the interest of the community, or in such a manner as to prevent the oth- er co-owners from making use of the common property according to their rights" The Court held it disagreed with the Defendant that the action should have been instituted against the other co-owners. The Plaintiff should have a right to choose a co-owner who is not obeying the rules. Article 491 states that the co-owners have a right to use the common property as long as it is used according to its destination. He does not need to have the authorisa- tion of the other co-owners, but cannot use it exclusively. This is why there is no need to take an action against all the other co-owners. On the other hand, the Court agreed with the Defendant that the Plaintiff was not the owner of the common parts, because the contract of Febru- ary 2022, the Plaintiff acquired half the undivided share of the common parts. But this shows that the Plaintiff is a co-owner with the Defendant. This establishes that he has a juridical inter- est in the common property and has a right to file this action. The Court held that there was an in site sitting in May 2023 and the judge observed that there was a hoist which is now removed, there were shelves and corridor full of material. The Court held that no co-owner may make use of the common prop- erty against the interest of the oth- er co-owners. The Court pointed at shelves and material in the common area, which should be considered as being taken over. Therefore, the De- fendant is depriving the Plaintiff from the use of the property. The Defendant is bound to use the common area ac- cording to its destination. The corridor was indicated as a fire escape passage and leads to the emergency door. It was never intended to be used as stor- age. The Court ruled by upholding the Plaintiffs claims and ordered the De- fendant to remove everything within two months. Co-owners cannot block the use of other co-owners LAW REPORT MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates