Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1545828
12 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 12 JULY 2026 OPINION & LAW No need for a precise price but need of a fair price in co-ownership action MALCOLM MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Keith Azzopardi Tanti Strengthening social dialogue on EU matters Minister for European funds, social dialogue and consumer protection EFFECTIVE policymaking re- quires meaningful engagement with the people and organisa- tions that will be affected by the decisions taken. Social dialogue is an important tool which ena- bles governments to engage with workers, employers, businesses and civil society, ensuring that different perspectives contribute to the development of policies that are both practical and re- sponsive. At a time of rapid economic, social and technological change, policymaking in Malta must also reflect the wider European con- text in which many of today's challenges and opportunities are shaped. Many of the policy choices that affect Malta's economic and social development are shaped, directly or indirectly, by decisions tak- en by the European Union (EU). Competitiveness, skills, labour markets, digitalisation, sustaina- bility, consumer protection and enterprise all have a European dimension. These developments are not distant from our daily re- alities. They influence how busi- nesses plan, how workers adapt, how institutions respond, and how Malta positions itself in a fast-changing Europe. For this reason, strengthening social dialogue in Malta must also mean strengthening the nation- al discussion on EU matters. EU policy developments that directly affect Malta need to be discussed in a timely, accessible and mean- ingful way. This is where Servizzi Ewropej f'Malta, a government agency that provides information and assistance on EU-related matters, plays an important role. Through its work the agen- cy helps citizens, organisations, public entities and stakeholders understand EU opportunities, access EU funding, and engage more effectively with the EU de- cision-making process. Earlier this year, Servizzi Ew- ropej launched its policy unit. It marked an important step to- wards strengthening dialogue be- tween citizens, stakeholders and policymakers, while ensuring that Maltese perspectives are effec- tively reflected in discussions tak- ing place within EU institutions. Through stakeholder meet- ings, thematic discussions, public consultations and participation in wider dialogue platforms, the unit seeks to facilitate structured dialogue on EU policies and leg- islation that have a direct impact on Malta. This approach allows for stakeholders to contribute their expertise and perspectives at an early stage of the policy pro- cess. This is particularly impor- tant given that EU proposals are often complex, and yet can have significant implications for com- petitiveness, employment, com- munities and implementation on the ground. Rather than treating consulta- tion as a final step, Servizzi Ew- ropej f'Malta aims to promote a culture where stakeholders are engaged earlier, feedback is gath- ered more consistently, and na- tional positions are informed by a broader understanding of the issues at stake. Within Malta's wider social di- alogue structures, the unit seeks to compliment the valuable work already being undertaken by the Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD). As the country's foremost plat- form for structured dialogue be- tween the government and social partners, the MCESD plays a cru- cial role in social dialogue on both national and EU matters. Servizzi Ewropej f'Malta seeks to compli- ment this work by engaging citi- zens, businesses and civil society in consultations on EU policy and legislative proposals. As well pro- vide stakeholders with practical updates on relevant EU develop- ments. The aim is not simply to react once decisions are taken at EU level, but to strengthen Malta's capacity to engage early, antic- ipate change and reflect stake- holder perspectives throughout the process. For a small Member State, preparation and coordina- tion are essential to safeguarding national interests. EU policy should not be seen as separate from national policy. The two are increasingly inter- connected. A stronger dialogue on EU matters is therefore also a stronger dialogue on Malta's fu- ture. THE law allows co-owners of a property to arrive at a fair price when the majority would like to sell, while the minority is resist- ing the sale. This was held in a judgment delivered by the First Hall of the Civil Court, presid- ed by Judge Audrey Demicoli in Klara Xerri et vs Emanuel Farru- gia et. The judgment was deliv- ered on 3 July 2026. The plaintiffs declared in their sworn application that they are all co-owners of a property in Kirkop that was owned by their parents, who died in 1978 and 1986 respectively. They are 11 siblings and therefore each had one eleventh share. One of the sisters, who was a spinster died in 2015. Her share of 1/11 was divided amongst her other sib- lings. The plaintiffs collectively owned 70% of the property and wanted to sell it. They entered into a promise of sale agreement with the price of €190,000. The defendants had 1/3 of the prop- erty and did not agree with its sale. The defendants stated that they did not want to sell because they wanted to make use of the property and because it had sen- timental value. They were look- ing at dividing the property into two since in the past parts of the property were rented out. The court analysed Article 495A of the Civil Code. Part of it allows the majority co-own- ers, who have been co-owners for more than three years, to ask the court to sell the proper- ty if the minority disagree. The court quoted from a judgment delivered by the Court of Ap- peal on 27 January 2017 in No- tary Richard Vella Laurenti et vs John Vella Laurenti et. In that judgment the court held that endless co-ownership may affect the economy of the country if the sale is blocked. This was echoed by another judgment Dr An- na Felice et vs Dr Mark Mifsud Cutajar noe, decided on 25 July 2013. As to the procedure used to adopt Article 495A of the Civil Code, the court commented that it is not contested that the par- ties to the case are co-owners of the property and there is no evidence of a separate action of division of inheritance. The evi- dence showed that the plaintiffs had 7/10 of the property and the defendants had 3/10 of the prop- erty. The plaintiffs are in agree- ment that they want to sell the property. On the other hand, the court had to examine whether the de- fendants would be prejudiced if the property is sold. The court pointed out that the plaintiffs had offered the defendants to purchase the property them- selves. They refused. The de- fendants also held that they were not formally called upon to sign the promise of sale agreement. The court saw a number of val- uations of the property which varied in price. Quoting from the Vella Laurenti case, which held that Article 495A is not used to assure with precision the market price but to assure the parties a fair price. The court-appoint- ed architect said that in 2023 the property must have been worth €200,000. The court held in Philippa Briffa et vs Carmelo Agius et decided by the First Hall of the Civil Court on 24 March 2015 that the court-appointed experts' opinion is tantamount to evidence. In the case under review, the difference between the price agreed on the promise of sale and the price indicated by the court-appointed architect amounted to €1,000 per share and therefore deemed not to be prejudicial to the parties. The court agreed with the court-ap- pointed expert's conclusions. The court also pointed out that the defendants did make un- founded allegations and upheld most of the claims raised by the plaintiffs, ordering the sale to proceed.