Test sħiħ

B’kawża li fetħu quddiem it-Tribunal għat-Talbiet tal-Konsumaturi, Joseph Debono u Louise Tanti talbu rifużjoni ta’ €2150 prezz ta’ membership package billi dak li ġie mwiegħed fil-ftehim datat 31 ta’ Marzu 2014 ma kienx sejjer jiġi pprovdut.

B’sentenza tat-13 ta’ Lulju 2015 it-Tribunal laqa’ l-eċċezzjoni li t-Tribunal m’għandux ġurisdizzjoni in vista tal-arbitration clause (klawzola numru 19) fil- kuntratt li ffirmaw il-partijiet.

Joseph Debono u Louise Tanti ħassewhom aggravati bl-imsemmija sentenza u għalhekk appellaw b’aggravji li fis-sustanza huma dawn:

(i)it-Tribunal tal-Konsumatur għandu, skont Artiklu 20 tal-Kap 378, ġurisdizzjoni speċjali biex jisma’ kwistjonijiet tal-konsumaturi. Skont dan l-artiklu, il- konsumatur għandu l-għażla li jidher jew quddiem it-Tribunal inkella quddiem il- qrati ordinarji, iżda mhux li jmur Arbitraġġ. Ma jagħmilx sens li iktar minn Tribunal speċjali wieħed jingħata kompetenza konkorrenti. Il-kompetenza mogħtija mil-liġi lil dan it-Tribunal ma tistax titneħħa, iktar u iktar billi l-liġi waqqfitu biex tipproteġi l-pożizzjoni dgħajfa tal-konsumatur.

(ii)il-klawżola arbitrali tikkostitwixxi unfair contract term ipprojbita mill-artiklu 44(2)(ċċ) tal-Kap 378 billi f’kuntratti ma’ konsumaturi ma jistgħux jiddaħħlu espressjonijiet li jkollhom l-effett li “jeskludu jew ifixklu d-dritt li għandu l- konsumatur li jieħu azzjoni legali jew li jeżerċita xi rimedju legali ieħor, b’mod partikolari billi jeħtieġu lill-konsumatur li jieħu xi kwistjoni għal arbitraġġ li ma jkunx jaqa’ taħt xi disposizzjoni tal-liġi, biex b’hekk jirrestrinġu l-evidenza li jkollu f’idejh jew jimponu fuqu l-oneru tal-prova li, skont il-liġi li tkun tapplika, għandu jinkombi fuq il-parti l-oħra tal-kuntratt”.

Ir-risposta tal-appell tiddefendi s-sentenza appellata billi:

(i)kieku l-leġislatur ried jeskludi l-kompetenza taċ-Ċentru Malti dwar l-Arbitraġġ kien jgħid hekk espressament;

(ii)l-appellanti għandhom jonoraw il-kuntratt billi pacta sunt servanda u l- kuntratt hu liġi bejn il-partijiet;

(iii)l-unfair contract term teskludi riferenza għal arbitraġġ “li ma jkunx jaqa’ taħt xi disposizzjoni tal-liġi” u mhux allura ċ-Ċentru Malti dwar l-Arbitraġġ li huwa mwaqqaf b’liġi;

Il-qorti rat l-atti.

Fatti.

Fil-31 ta’ Marzu 2014 l-atturi ffirmaw kuntratt mas-socjeta konvenuta li bih xtraw membership ghall-pakkett maghruf bhala Rediscover the World. Il-membership kienet ghall-perjodu ta’ sena u l-prezz imhallas kien ta’ €2,150. Fil-kuntratt jinghad:

“Any dispute or difference arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be determined in Malta, in accordance with the laws of Malta, by the appointment of a single arbitrator to be agreed between the parties. If no Agreemenet is reached within fourteen days, after either party has given to the other party a written request to concur in the appointment of an Arbitrator, an arbitrator shall be appointed by the Chairman or deputy Chairman of the Malta Arbitration Centre”.

Hu evidenti li l-kuntratt li ffirmaw l-atturi kienet tat-tip standard form contract.

Konsiderazzjonijiet.

(a)L-ewwel aggravju – It-Tribunal ghal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur huwa tribunal specjali, mahluq b’ligi specjali u li ghandu gurisdizzjoni specjali.

L-appellanti argumentaw li b’ligi (Kap. 378) it-Tribunal inghata gurisdizzjoni specjali. Hu l-konsumatur li jiddeciedi ghandu jipproponi kawza quddiem it- Tribunal jew qrati ordinarji. Il-ligi m’hijiex tipprospetta li l-konsumatur jista’ jaghzel li jirrikorri ghall-proceduri ta’ arbitragg, kemm jekk regolata b’ligi jew le.

Il-qorti ma taqbilx ma’ dan ir-ragunament. ‘Il fatt li l-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal- Konsumatur ma jsemmiex espressament li parti ghall-kuntratt tista’ tirreferi lment f’proceduri ta’ arbitragg, m’hemm xejn kontra l-ligi li partijiet jiftehemu li jirreferu kwistjoni ghall-arbitragg. Bhala principju l-persuni huma liberi li jaghmlu ftehim ta’ arbitragg (ara Christopher Grech vs Joseph Cutajar et, deciza mill-Prim’Awla fl-1 ta’ Dicembru 2008).

Tieni Aggravju – Klawzola arbitrali f’kuntratti li jsiru mal-konsumatur hi unfair contract term.

Fil-kaz in ezami l-kwistjoni hi dwar l-interpetazzjoni tal-Artikolu 44(2)(cc) tal-Att dwar l-Affarijiet tal-Konsumatur (Kap. 378) li jipprovdi li espressjoni projbita f’kuntratt tinkludi:-

“jeskludu jew ifixklu d-dritt li għandu l-konsumatur li jieħu azzjoni legali jew li jeżerċita xi rimedju legali ieħor, b’mod partikolari billi jeħtieġu lill-konsumatur li jieħu xi kwistjoni għal arbitraġġ li ma jkunx jaqa’ taħt xi disposizzjoni tal-liġi, biex b’hekk jirrestrinġu l-evidenza li jkollu f’idejh jew jimponu fuqu l-oneru tal-prova li, skont il-liġi li tkun tapplika, għandu jinkombi fuq il-parti l-oħra fil-kuntratt.

L-appellanti isostnu li dan il-provvediment jipprojbixxi deroga tal-kompetenza tat-Tribunal għal Talbiet tal-Konsumatur għax din tkun tammonta għal unfair contract term. Min-naha l-ohra l-appellata filwaqt li dan l-artiklu bħala regola jipprojbixxi deroga bħal din, jagħmel eċċezzjoni fil-każ ta’ arbitraġġ li ma jkunx jaqa’ taħt xi disposizzjoni tal-liġi. Iċ-Ċentru Malti dwar l-Arbitraġġ huwa mwaqqaf b’liġi, ergo, huwa validu qbil bejn partijiet f’tilwima li jirrikorru għalih.

Artiklu 44(2)(ċċ) huwa transpożizzjoni ta’ paragrafu (q) tal-Annex mal-Artiklu 3 tal-Council Directive 93/13/EEC tal-5 t’April 1993 dwar unfair terms in consumer contracts, li jaqra:

“Article 3

1.A contractual term which has not been individually negotiated shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.

2.A term shall always be regarded as not individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term, particularly in the context of a pre- formulated standard contract.

The fact that certain aspects of a term or one specific term have been individually negotiated shall not exclude the application of this Article to the rest of a contract if an overall assessment of the contract indicates that it is nevertheless a pre-formulated standard contract. Where any seller or supplier claims that a standard term has been individually negotiated, the burden of proof in this respect shall be incumbent on him.

3. The Annex shall contain an indicative and non-exhaustive list of the terms which may be regarded as unfair”.

Imbaghad fl-Annex tad-Direttiva jingħad:-

“TERMS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 (3) 1. Terms which have the object or effect of:

(q) excluding or hindering the consumer's right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract”.

Ma jidhirx li huwa kkontestat li l-ftehim in kwistjoni huwa standard form contract.

Fl-Ingilterra, il-leading case dwar il-validita` ta’ klawżoli arbitrali f’kuntratti ma’ konsumatur hija Mylcrist Builders Ltd v Buck [2008] APP.L.R. 09/19 mogħtija fid-19 ta’ Settembru, 2008 minn Mr Justice Ramsey li nterpreta xi tfisser “arbitration not covered by legal provisions”:

“52. I respectfully adopt the approach of Judge Havery in Zealander & Zealander at 729 as to the meaning in paragraph 1(q) of "arbitration not covered by legal provisions". I do not consider that, as the Claimant submits, arbitration under the 1996 Act is arbitration covered by legal provisions. Rather, I consider that phrase would apply to a case where, for instance, there is a statutory arbitration requirement. It does not apply to arbitration generally”.

Fil-ktieb Comparative Law of International Arbitration ta’ Jean-Francois Poudret u Sebastien Besson (2007, Thomson Sweet & Maxwell) pagna 314, jinghad:

“The meaning of ‘arbitration not covered by legal provisions’ is ambiguous and does not appear to exclude arbitration in all circumstances. Rather, it seems that the clause will be invalid only if it causes ‘a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer’”.

Imbaghad fil-ktieb B2C Arbitration: Consumer Protection in Arbitration, Alexander J. Belohlavek (JurisNet, LLC, 2012, pagna 79) jinghad:

“Many published opinions maintain that the words ‘arbitration not covered by legal provisions’ are unclear. Some authors propose that the definition is supposed to prevent decision-making following the rules of equity, i.e. amicable settlements, or the means of unrestrained freedom in determining the merits of a dispute. Other theories suggest that the rule prevents ad hoc arbitrations, i.e. arbitral proceedings which are not formally conducted under the auspices of any permanent entity organizing arbitral proceedings. The words employed in Point (q) of the Annex to the Directive should by no means be taken to prohibit the possibility of also resolving consumer disputes in ad hoc arbitrations, i.e. outside the jurisdiction of permanent arbitral institutions. The definition clearly covers any type of arbitration, providing, however the arbitrators are strictly bound by applicable (substantive) law”.

Din il-qorti m’hijiex konvinta li dak li nghad fis-sentenza Ingliza hu fil-fatt interpretazzjoni korretta tal-kliem “arbitration not covered by legal provisions”. It-test Malti tal-Artikolu 44(ċċ) tal-Kap. 378 pjuttost jagħti lill-qorti x’tifhem li biex klawzola arbitrali tkun unfair contract term, hemm bzonn li l- arbitragg ma jkunx regolat b’liġi, tant li jkompli: “.... biex b’hekk jirrestringu l- evidenza li jkollu f’idejh jew jimponu fuq l-oneru tal-prova li, skont il-ligi li tkun tapplika, ghandu jinkombi fuq il-parti l-ohra fil-kuntratt”. Fil-kaz in ezami mhu ser ikun hemm xejn minn dan. Il-kwistjoni trid tigi determinata f’Malta u skond il-ligi Maltija. L-Artikolu 15(1) tal-Att dwar l-Arbitraggi (Kap. 387) jipprovdi li: “Fil-kaz ta’ ftehim ta’ arbitragg domestiku, li jsir bis-sahha tal-Arikolu 14, it-tilwimiet ghandhom jitrangaw skont id-disposizzjonijiet ta’ din it-Taqsima, bla hsara ghal kull tibdil bhalma (a) il-partijiet jistghu jaqblu dwaru bil-miktub, u (b) jista’ jkun permess bil-ligi”. Ghalhekk l-arbitragg irid jitmexxa skond l-Att dwar l-Arbitragg, u l-provi li jridu jressqu l-atturi m’humiex ser ikunu ristretti u lanqas mhu ser ikun hemm xi tibdil fuq l-oneru tal-prova.

L-appellanti argumentaw ukoll li r-riferenza ghall-arbitraġġ f’paragrafu (ċċ) hu biss ezempju u li l-provvediment “.... ma jeskludix espressjonijiet ohra f’kuntratt li wkoll jeskludu jew ifixklu d-dritt tal-konumatur li jiehu azzjoni legali”. Fil-fehma tal-qorti, ghal dak li ghandu x’jaqsam ma’ klawzola arbitrali f’kuntratt iffirmat miz-zewg partijiet, il-parti rilevanti ta’ paragrafu (ċċ) hi dik li tirreferi “....

arbitragg li ma jkunx jaqa’ taht xi disposizzjoni tal-ligi”. Il-process ta’ arbitragg hu fih innifsu rimedju. Bil-mod kif qeghdin jirragunaw ir-rikorrenti jkun ifisser li kull klawzola ta’ arbitragg hi unfair contract term, li l-qorti m’ghandhiex dubju li m’huwiex il-kaz.

Fir-rikors tal-appell, l-appellant ghamlu wkoll riferenza ghall-Artikolu 22(4) tal- Kap. 378 li jipprovdi:

“Meta l-Qorti tal-Appell taqta’ li l-appell ikun fondat u gustifikat, din ghandha thassar id-decizjoni tat-Tribunal u ghandha hi stess taqta’ t-talba u l-kontro-talba originali skond id-disposizzjonijiet tal-artikolu 21”.

L-atturi jippretendu li din il-qorti tisma’ l-provi kollha hi u tiddeciedi l-meritu. Il- qorti ma taqbilx ma’ dan ir-ragunament, in kwantu:

1.Fl-ewwel lok il-konkluzjoni tal-qorti hi li l-kaz ghandu jinstema’ f’proceduri ta’ arbitragg;

2.F’kull kaz, ghadhom ma nstemghux provi dwar il-meritu. It-Tribunal iddecieda biss eccezzjoni preliminari. Fil-fehma tal-qorti l-Artikolu 22(4) japplika fejn tkun inghatat sentenza dwar il-meritu.

Ghal dawn il-motivi tichad l-appell bl-ispejjez kontra l-appellanti.