Some have expressed an interest in the legal arguments that my lawyer, Dr Anthony Cremona made in my defence in the crucifix kissing court case.

Below is the full version of our representations to the court. They include Judge Vanni Bonello's magisterial opinions at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

It is not a short document. But for those who might be interested it's worth the effort.

Nota ta’ Sottomissjonijiet ta’ Lou Bondi;

Jesponi bir-rispett:

1. ILLI waqt is-seduta quddiem dina l-Onorabbli Qorti tat-12 ta’ Ottubru, 2011, il-konvenut tramite il-konsulent legali tieghu “irrileva” li “in vista tal-fatt illi l-attur pubblikament iddikjara illi ma jemminx b'Alla jitlob lil din il-Qorti taghti d-direttivi opportuni dwar id-deposizzjonijiet tieghu li ttiehdu taht gurament ta' twemmin religjuz”;

2. ILLI tajjeb li jigi rilevat li l-konvenut, pero’, naqas milli:

- jghid x’inhuma, fil-fehma tiegħu, l-konsegwenzi legali ta’ dan kollu – jekk hemm;

- jgħid ezattament x’qed jitlob;

3. ILLI konvenjentement il-konvenut minnflok tefa’ l-kwistjoni fuq dina l-Onorabbli Qorti u talab li dina l-Onorabbli Qorti taghti “d-direttivi opportuni dwar id-deposizzjonijiet tieghu li ttiehdu taht gurament ta' twemmin religjuz”. Dan, naturalment, jagħmilha diffiċli ħafna għall-attur li jirribatti din it-talba u li jagħmel s-sottomissjonijiet tiegħu.

4. Ċiononostante, u in poche parole, l-attur umilment ser jissottometti li:

(a) dan kollu, fic-cirkostanzi kif ser jigu spjegati, m’għandu jkollu assolutament ebda konsegwenza la fuq ix-xhieda li ta l-attur u lanqas fuq il-prosegwiment tal-proċedjuri odjerni;

(b) jekk il-konvenut ser jipprova jallega li l-atti huma nulli jew għandhom jiġu sfilzati kaġun tal-verbal tiegħu, dan assolutament mhux permess u proċeduralment in-nullita’ ta’ atti giet konsistentement (anki qabel l-emendi procedurali iktar recenti) meqjusa li hija “ta’ stretta interpretazzjoni” u meqjusa bhala “sanzjoni estrema” ħafna;

(c) il-ġurament per se jibqa ġurament u jibqa’ jorbot fuq min jiehdu irrispettivament mit-twemmin reliġjuz tiegħu, diment li ma hemmx xi evidenza jew prova li dak li jkun ħa l-ġurament ikun gideb, jew ikun ħadu b’mod leġġer jew ma jkunx fehem l-import tal-ġurament – prova ta’ dan ma hemmx;

(d) jekk il-konvenut għandu prova li l-fatt li l-attur bies il-Kurċifiss ifisser neċessarjament li l-attur gideb taħt ġurament, allura dan għandu jipprovaha;

(e) li l-invokazzjoni ta’ Alla sabiex jgħin lix-xhud u l-att ċerimonjali li x-xhud ibus is-salib ma jneħħux mill-fatt li, mill-bqija, il-forma tal-ġurament u d-dikjarazzjoni solenni xorta waħda, u bl-istess kliem preċiżi, jorbtu lix-xhud li jgħid:

a. is-sewwa;

b. is-sewwa kollu; u

c. xejn ħlief is-sewwa

Għalhekk jista’ jingħad li d-dikjarazzjoni solenni – li, wara kollox, hija ġurament ukoll - hija kompriża fil-ġurament u xejn ma huwa imnaqqas għaliex oltre il-ġurament ikun hemm ic-cerimonja li tiġi invokata l-għajnuna ta’ Alla u jinbies is-Salib (u dan anki ghar-raguni, kif ser jigi spjegat iktar l-isfel, li l-Kurcifiss illum il-gurnata huwa simbolu ta’ valuri sekulari anki ghall-bniedem li ma jemminx);

(f) hemm ġurisprudenza stabbilita - u tendenza ġudizzjali ukoll – li tikkonferma li filwaqt li fil-knisja ma hemmx dubju li l-Kurċifiss huwa simbolu reliġjuz, barra il-knisja, u allura f’ambjent sekulari, il-Kurċifiss huwa simbolu ta’ valuri civici, Kostituzzjonali sekulari importanti, li l-istat (li l-Kostituzzjoni tieghu tghid li r-religjoni Kattolika - bħala stat ta’ fatt u mhux bħala preskrizzjoni - hi r-religjon ta’ Malta) jemmen fihom u li s-socjeta’ thaddan;

(g) wieħed allura jista jirrispetta l-istess valuri sekulari minkejja it-twemmin reliġjuż tiegħu – il-fatt li bniedem ma jemminx ma jfissirx i neċessarjament ikun gideb għax ikun ħa l-ġurament fuq il-Kurċifiss jew għaliex ikunu intużaw ukoll il-kliem ‘hekk Alla jghini’;

(h) l-attur – kif jista’ jiġi ppruvat, dejjem jekk hemm bżonn u jekk jiġi konċess lilu minn dina l-Onorabbli Qorti - għandu rispett kbir lejn il-valuri sekulari li l-Kurċifiss jirrapreżenta u l-fatt li ħa l-ġurament offrut lilu minn dina l-Onorabbli Qorti assolutament ma jfissirx li neċessarjament gideb taħt ġurament. Ghalhekk qed jigi sottomess umilment li m’hemmx bżonn li bniedem neċessarjament jemmen f’Alla sabiex jissottoskrivi għall-dawn il-valuri proprju għaliex – diment li ma jiġix ippruvat mod ieħor – il-Kurcifiss huwa simbolu ta’ dawn il-valuri importanti anki għall-bniedem li ma jemminx;

(i) Huwa car li l-attur bħala cittadin kuxjentzjuz, jaf sew id-differenza bejn il-verita’ u gidba – il-punt krucjali hawn huwa jekk inghadx il-verita jew le, u li dak li jkun ha il-gurament ikun fehem l-import ta’ dan l-att u l-konsegwenzi tieghu, u mhux il-formalitajiet ta’ kif jinghata l-gurament;

(j) il-kliem tal-ġurament li jesigu li min jiehdu jghid is-sewwa, is-sewwa kollu u xejn hlief is-sewwa, għandu tifsira waħda, irrispettivament minn jekk wieħed jemminx f’Alla jew le – fil-każ ta’ gurament għall-persuna Kattolika, hemm il-prassi li tiġi invokata l-għajnuna ta’ Alla u jinbies il-Kurċifiss, mentri fil-każ ta’ persuna li mhuwiex kredenti, din il-proċedura ma tiġix segwita – pero din tibqa’ proċedura u xejn iktar għaliex il-ġurament jibqa’ l-istess (ara il-Pulizija (Spett Angelo Gafa) vs Donovan John Scerri, Qorti ta’ l-Appell Kriminali - 17 ta’ Ottubru, 2011). Tant u hekk li l-artiklu 3 tal-Att dwar id-Dikjarazzjonijiet (Kap.245 tal-Ligijiet ta’ Malta) juri bic-car kemm id-dikjarazzjoni solenni hija komrpiza fil-gurament;

(k) huwa rilevanti ukoll li hemm ir-riskju li jiġu mittiefsa d-drittijiet fundamentali ta’ l-attur, u ta’ kull bniedem ieħor li, sabiex ma jieħux ġurament skont il-fidi Kattolika - li huwa d-‘default’ fil-liġi tagħna - ikun kostrett jiddikjara fil-Qorti, quddiem kulħadd, it-twemmin reliġjuż tiegħu jew in-nuqqas ta’ twemmin reliġjuż tiegħu, u hemm deċiżjonijiet tal-Qorti Ewropeja dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem li jgħidu proprju li dan jikkostitwixxi ksur tal-liberta’ tat-twemmin tal-bniedem kif sanċit mill-artiklu 9 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja dwar id-drittijiet tal-Bniedem u l-artiklu 40 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta;

(l) skont l-artiklu 112 tal-Kap.12 kull ma jesigi huwa li permezz tal-gurament ix-xhud jghid is-sewwa, is-sewwa kollu u xejn hlief is-sewwa, u imbaghad l-artiklu 111 tal-Kap 12 kull ma jitlob huwa li ix-xhud jiehu l-gurament “bil-mod li huwa jidhirlu illi hu l-akbar rabta għall-kuxjenza tiegħu.……” – minhabba l-valuri civici importanti li l-Kurcifiss jissimbolizza, specjalment fis-socjeta’ taghna, l-inkluzjoni tal-prassi li jinbies il-Kurcifiss mhux necessarjament inaqqas minn din ir-rabta fuq il-kuxjenza ta’ xhud li ma jemminx: anzi qed jigi sottomess umilment li jista anki jkun proprju l-oppost;

1. IN-NATURA TAL-ĠURAMENT

5. ILLI fl-ewwel lok ta’ min wieħed jinnota li l-ġurament – sija jekk huwa skont ir-reliġjon Kattolika Rumana u sija jekk mhux – jibqa’ wieħed u dejjem jissejjaħ ‘ġurament’. Tant hu hekk li l-‘marginal note’ ta’ l-artikli 110 (li jittratta dwar min għandu s-setgħa li jagħti “ġurament”) u 111 (li jittratta dwar il-formola “tal-ġurament” skont ir-reliġjon tax-xhud) kollha jitkelmu dwar ‘ġurament’ - dan il-ġurament jibqa’ l-istess irrispettivament mit-twemmin reliġjuż tax-xhud għax huwa biss ir-ritwal jew ċerimonja tat-teħid tal-ġurament li jinbidel (apparti l-użu tal-kliem ‘niddikjara solennement’ minflok ‘naħlef’). Minbarra dan kollu, l-artiklu 111 tal-Kodiċi tal-Proċedura (Kap. 12 tal-ligijiet ta’ Malta) jgħid li fiż-żewġ każi x-xhud ikun qed ‘jaħlef’.[1] Issa:

- min iħaddan ir-reliġjon Kattolika Rumana jinvoka lill-Alla biex jgħinu u ibus is-Salib;

- u min ma jistqarrx dan ir-reliġjon ma hemmx għalfejn jagħmel xejn minn dan;

Dak li jitlob l-artiklu 112 tal-Kodiċi tal-Proċedura (Kap.12 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta) huwa li:

“112. (1) Ix-xhieda u kull min għandu jieħu ġurament, għandu jaħlef li jgħid is-sewwa, is-sewwa kollu u xejn ħlief is-sewwa.”

Dan, qed jiġi sottomess umilment, l-attur għamlu, minkejja li d-‘default position’ fis-sistema legali tagħna hija li l-ġurament jittieħed skont id-drawwa tar-reliġjon Kattolika Rumana (sakemm ix-xhud ma jitlobx mod ieħor).

6. ILLI fil-fatt, l-invokazzjoni ta’ Alla sabiex jgħin lix-xhud, u l-att ċerimonjali li x-xhud ibus is-Salib ma jneħħux mill-fatt li, mill-bqija, il-ġurament u d-dikjarazzjoni solenni xorta waħda, u bl-istess kliem preċiżi jorbtu lix-xhud li jgħid:

a. is-sewwa

b. is-sewwa kollu, u

c. xejn ħlief is-sewwa.

Għalhekk jista’ jingħad li id-dikjarazzjoni solenni – li hija ġurament ukoll – hija, sa ċertu punt, kompriża fil-ġurament, u xejn ma huwa necessarjament imnaqqas għaliex minbarra l-ġurament innifsu fil-kaz in ezami kien hemm ukoll il-prassi li tiġi invokata l-għajnuna ta’ Alla u li jinbies is-Salib (u dan anki ghar-ragunijiet spjegati iktar il-quddiem).

7.1 ILLI n-natura tal-ġurament ġiet studjata proprju f’kawża reċenti ħafna quddiem l-Onorabbli Qorti ta’ l-Appell Kriminali fl-ismijiet Il-Pulizija (Spt. Angelo Gafa’) vs Donovan John Scerri deċiża fis-17 ta’ Ottubru, 2011 (liema prinċipji ġew konfermati ukoll fil-kawżi l-oħra bl-ismijiet Il-Pulizija (Spt. Angelo Gafa’) vs Duane Carabott u Il-Pulizija (Spt. Angelo Gafa’) vs John Cutajar, it-tnejn deċiżi mill-istess Qorti fis-17 ta’ Ottubru, 2011 ). In poche parole dan kien każ fejn il-konvenut kien iffirma dikjarazzjoni bil-miktub u l-prosekuzzjoni kienet qed titlob li jinsab ħati talli ħalef il-falz. Avolja l-Onorabbli Qorti tal-Maġistrati u anki dik ta’ l-Appell sabu li l-akkużat ma kienx ħati li ħalef il-falz għaliex sabu li l-elementi tar-reat ma kienux jissussistu (mhux l-inqas għaliex l-akkużat ma ingħatax ġurament, iżda sempliċement ffirma dikjarazzjoni mingħajr ma ħadd ma amministralu l-ġurament per se, kif titlob il-liġi) saru osservazzjonijiet interessanti (u utli) ħafna dwar in-natura u l-forma tal-ġurament. L-Avukat Ġenerali, per eżempju, sostna li:

“hemm distinzjoni bejn il-forma u l-formalita’ tal-ġurament u d-dispożizzjonijiet li nsibu kemm fil-Kodiċi Kriminali kif ukoll fil-Kodiċi tal-Organizzazzjoni u Proċedura Ċivili jippreskrivu biss il-forma. Il-bews tas-salib, li tagħmel idejk fuq il-Bibbja jew fuq il-Koran mhux parti mil-liġi tagħna.”

7.2 ILLI d-deċiżjoni fuq imsemmija tkompli tispjega li:

“Skont l-Avukat Ġenerali l-formola hija biżżejjed. Il-bews tas-salib jew li wieħed iqiegħed idejh fuq il-Koran mhux neċessarju. U jekk wieħed jeżamina xi definizzjonijiet li jfissru l-kelma ‘ġurament’ wieħed jinduna li dawn ma jagħtux dettalji tal-formalitajiet.

Iż-żewġ definizzjoniet li ġejjin huma eżempji ta’ dan:

(i) ‘a. A solemn, formal declaration or promise to fulfil a pledge, often calling on God, a god, or a sacred object as witness.

b. The words or formula of such a declaration or promise.

c. Something declared or promised (free online dictionary).’

(ii) ‘Oath: A solemn declaration or undertaking (often naming God) as to the truth of something or as a commitment to future action.’ (The Concise Oxford Dictionary 1991).”

Hawnhekk jidher ċar kemm il-ġurament minnu innifsu huwa dikjarazzjoni solenni – ġie li jinkludi invokazzjoni ta’ Alla u ġie li le – iżda l-invokazzjoni ta’ Alla mhijiex obligatorja sabiex jkun hemm ġurament.

Għalhekk ukoll wieħed japprezza kif id-dikjarazzjoni solenni tista’ tiġi kompriża fil-ġurament li jinkludi invokazzjoni ta’ Alla u ċ-ċerimonja tal-bews tas-Salib – pero’, il-fatt li tkun saret din l-invokazzjoni u din iċ-ċerimonja m’għandux waħdu u mingħajr prova ta’ xi leġġerezza da parti ta’ min qed jieħu l-ġurament, b’xi mod jaffettwa l-validita’ jew il-vinkolu li tikkreja id-dikjarazzjoni kompriża fil-ġurament.

7.3 ILLI l-Onorabbli Qorti ta’ L-Appell tkompli tosserva li:

“Prattiċi f’pajjiżi oħra juru għaliex isiru ċerti ċeremonji iżda ma jfissrux li ċ-ċeremonji huma indispensabbli kif turi ssilta li ġejja.

‘A person taking an oath indicates this in a number of ways. The most usual is the explicit "I swear," but any statement or promise that includes "with * as my witness" or "so help me *," with '*' being something or someone the oath-taker holds sacred, is an oath. Many people take an oath by holding in their hand or placing over their head a book of scripture or a sacred object, thus indicating the sacred witness through their action: such an oath is called corporal. However, the chief purpose of such an act is for ceremony or solemnity, and the act does not of itself make an oath.

In Western countries, it is customary to raise the right hand while swearing an oath, whether or not the left hand is laid on a Bible or other text. This custom originated during the Medieval period when convicted felons were often branded on the palm of the right hand with a letter or mark indicating their conviction. Since felons were disqualified from making declarations under oath, an oathtaker would display their right hand to show that they were free of convictions and therefore able to take an oath.’”

7.4 ILLI huwa rilevanti hawn li għalkemm id-Difiża ma qablitx mal-Prosekuzzjoni, dan kien biss għaliex id-difiża kienet qed tinsisti (ġustament) li ġurament bilfors irid jiġi amministrat sabiex jissusisti r-rejat u li ma hux biżżejjed li bniedem sempliċement jiffirma formola, iżda l-argumenti fuq imsemmijin ma ġewx kkritikati. Għalhekk l-Onorabbli Qorti ta’ L-Appell kkonkludiet li: “l-ġurament imur ‘il hemm minn sempliċi formola ta’ kliem li fiha ‘Jien naħlef’ u / jew firma fuq karta. Teżisti l-amministrazzjoni tal-ġurament li mhix sempliċiment formola.”

7.5 ILLI minkejja dan kollu, qed jiġi sottomess umilment ukoll li ma huwa imniżżel imkien li jekk bniedem ma jistqarrx ir-Reliġjon Kattolika Rumana ma jistax juża l-istess ċerimonji u formalitajiet li huma d-drawwa jew il-pratika kostanti fil-pajjiż partikolari u dan:

(a) sija biex ma jkunx kostrett jiżvela t-twemmin tiegħu (b’leżjoni għad-drittijiet fundamentali tiegħu, kif spjegat iktar l-isfel); u

(b) sija għaliex din il-forma ta’ ġurament – speċjalment għall-persuna ta’ Nazzjonalita’ Maltija ġo pajjiż fejn il-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta jiddikjara li “ir-reliġjon ta’ Malta hija r-Reliġjon Kattolika Apostolika Rumana” u fejn il-Kurċifiss jissimbolizza valuri ċiviċi important ħafna għall-istess soċjeta’.

2. MA HEMMX PROJIBIZZJONI LI PERSUNA MHUX KATTOLIKA JIEĦU ĠURAMENT SKONT IR-RELIĠJON KATTOLIKA, BASTA DIN TOĦLOQ RABTA GĦAX-XHUD

8. ILLI apparti minn hekk, lanqas ma jidher li hemm xi projibizzjoni li bniedem li ma jistqarrx ir-Reliġjon Kattolika Rumana jieħu ġurament skont kif hi d-drawwa ta’ dawk li huma ta’ dik ir-reliġjon. Anzi, l-artiklu 111 tal-Kap. 12 jgħid li:

“(111) Ix-xhud li jistqarr ir-reliġjon Kattolika Rumana għandu jaħlef kif hi d-drawwa ta’ dawk li huma ta’ dik ir-reliġjon; u x-xhud li ma jistqarrx dik ir-reliġjon għandu jaħlef bil-mod li huwa jidhirlu illi hu l-akbar rabta għall-kuxjenza tiegħu.”

Anki l-Att Dwar Id-Dikjzarazzjonijiet (Kap.245 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta) kull ma jgħid huwa li meta l-liġi tipprovdi għad teħid ta’ ġurament:

“(1) jekk (a) dik il-persuna toġġezzjona li tingħata l-ġurament u tagħti bħala r-raġuni għall-oġġezzjoni tagħha li ma għandhiex twemmin reliġjuz, jew li t-teħid tal-ġurament huwa kontra t-twemmin reliġjuż tagħha, jew li għandha oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza biex tieħu ġurament” “dik il-persuna titħalla tagħmel dikjarazzjoni solenni … minfjok li tieħu ġurament.”

9. ILLI dan allura huwa dritt u mhux obbligu, dejjem diment li l-ġurament li jittieħed – hi x’inhi l-forma li biha jittieħed – joħloq rabta fuq il-kuxjenza ta’ min qed jieħu dak il-ġurament. Fil-fatt, ser jiġi sottomess iktar il-quddiem f’din in-Nota illi minkejja n-nuqqas ta’ twemmin reliġjuż ta’ l-attur, proprju minħabba r-rispett kbir li l-attur għandu għall-valuri (sekulari) importantissimi li l-Kurċifiss jirrapreżenta, speċjalment f’soċjeta reliġjuża bħal ma hija dik Maltija u f’pajjiż fejn il-Kostituzzjoni ta’ pajjiżna stess jiddikjara fl-artiklu 2(1) li “ir-reliġjon ta’ Malta hija r-Reliġjon Kattolika Apostolika Rumana”, ma hemm assolutament xejn li jipprojibih milli jieħu ġurament proprju fil-forma l-iktar solenni fis-soċjeta tagħna.

3. IS-SALIB MA JIRRAPPREŻENTAX BISS PRINĊIPJI RELIĠJUŻI BARRA POST TA’ ADORAZZJONI, IŻDA VALURI SEKULARI IMPORTANTI

3.1 Il-Valur Sekulari ta’ simbolu important bħal-Kurċifiss

10.1 ILLI hemm ġurisprudenza stabbilita – u tendenza ġudizzjali ukoll – li tikkonferma li filwaqt li fil-knisja u postijiet ta’ adorazzjoni ma hemmx dubju li l-Kurċifiss huwa simbolu reliġjuz, barra il-knisja, u allura f’ambjent sekulari, il-Kurċifiss għandu valur u sinjifikat sekulari in kwantu jirrapreżenta bosta valuri ċiviċi, Kostituzzjonali, sekulari importanti li l-istat li jħaddan twemmin reliġjuz kattoliku jemmen fihom. Dan ġie trattat f’kawża ċelebri deċiża mill-Qorti Ewropeja Dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem, fl-ismijiet Case of Lautsi and others v. Italy (application no. 30814/06, deċiża reċentement fit-18 ta’ Marzu, 2011), li kien il-każ ċelebri fejn l-applikant kien talab li l-Kurċifiss – simbolu ta’ twemmin Nisrani – jitnehha minn ġol-klassijiet ta’ skola ta’ l-Istat ġewwa l-Italja.

10.2 ILLI dak li huwa interessanti għal-proċeduri odjerni huwa li f’dan il-każ il-Qorti Ewropeja – u diversi persuni u entitajiet li intervjenew fil-proċeduri- irrikonoxew li l-Kurċifiss mhuwiex neċessarjament biss simbolu reliġjuż iżda li jissimbolizza valuri sekulari importanti ħafna għall-Istat, u li għalhekk t-turija tiegħu ġewwa klassi ta’ l-iskola (li mhijiex post ta’ adorazzjoni) ma tfissirx nċessarjament intolleranza lejn reliġjonijiet oħrajn. Li jsegwu huma diversi siltiet li proprju jikkonfermaw dawn il-prinċipji:

(a) fl-ewwel lok, anki jekk l-Ewwel Qorti (ic-Chamber) kienet iddecidiet li l-Kurcifiss kellu jitnehha mill-klassijiet (decizjoni li giet revokata mill-Grand Chamber) ic-Chamber stess irrikonoxxiet “the plurality of meanings the crucifix might have” (avolja hasset li “the religious meaning was predominant”) – predominanti iva, iżda mhux esklussiva;[2]

(b) f'din il-kawza l-Gvern Taljan argumenta li: “a single symbol could be interpreted differently from one person to another. That applied in particular to the sign of the cross, which could be perceived not only as a religious symbol, but also as a cultural and identity-linked symbol, the symbol of the principles and values which formed the basis of democracy and western civilisation; it appeared, for instance, on the flags of a number of European countries.”[3] (enfasi miżjuda)

(c) illi minhabba l-implikazzjonijiet serji ta' dak li kien qed jigi mitlub mill-Qorti, anki l-Gvern Malti kien intervjena f'dan il-kaz (flimlien ma' dak ta' 7 pajjizi ohra u bosta organizzazzjonijiet) u fis-sottomissjonojiet taghhom irrilevaw proprju kemm: “state symbols inevitably had a place in state education and that many of these had a religious origin, the Cross - which was both a national and a religious symbol - being the most visible example. In their view, in non-Secular European states, the presence of religious symbols in the public space was widely tolerated by the secular population as part of national identity. States should not have to divest themselves of part of their cultural identity simply because that identity was of religious origin.”[4] (enfasi miżjuda)

(d) illi addirittura 33 membru tal-Parlament Ewropew ukoll issottomettew li: “in this specific context religious symbols have a secular dimension and should therefore not be removed.”[5] (enfasi miżjuda)

10.3 ILLI partikolarment interessanti f’dan il-każ kien proprju il-‘Concurring Opinion’ ta’ l-Imhallef Giovanni Bonello fejn, fost affarijiet oħra, insibu s-segwenti:

(i) introduzzjoni bis-segwenti silta: “A court of human rights cannot allow itself to suffer from historical Alzheimer's. It has no right to disregard the cultural continuum of a nation's flow through time, nor to ignore what, over the centuries, has served to mould and define the profile of a people. No supranational court has any business substituting its own ethical mock-ups for those qualities that history has imprinted on the national identity. On a human rights court falls the function of protecting fundamental rights, but never ignoring that “customs are not passing whims. They evolve over time, harden over history into cultural cement. They become defining, all-important badges of identity for nations, tribes, religions, individuals”. (Justin Marozzi, The Man who Invented History, John Murray, 2009, p. 97.) A European court should not be called upon to bankrupt centuries of European tradition. No court, certainly not this Court, should rob the Italians of part of their cultural personality.”[6] (enfasi miżjuda) Imkien, hawnhekk, ma hemm referenza għall-aspett reliġjuż tal-Kurċifiss, iżda biss għall-valur kulturali tiegħu;

(ii) L-Imħallef Bonello jagħti ukoll sommarju storiku tal-prezenza ta’ dan is-simbolu tal-Kurċifiss ġewwa l-iskejjel Taljani u jgħid li: “The presence of the crucifix in Italian schools only testifies to this compelling and millennial historical reality – it could loosely be said that it has been there since schools have been there. Now, a court in a glass box a thousand kilometres away has been engaged to veto overnight what has survived countless generations. The Court has been asked to be an accomplice in a major act of cultural vandalism.”[7] (bl-ebfasi mill-ġdid fuq l-aspett kulturali)

(iii) Żied li: “This Court's rather modest function remains that of determining whether the exposure in State schoolrooms of what to some is a Christian symbol and to others a cultural gadget in any way interfered with Ms Lautsi's and her children's basic right to freedom of religion – as defined by the Convention itself.”[8] (enfasi miżjuda)

(iv) Dwar il-kwistjoni jekk “the mere silent and passive presence of a symbol in a classroom in an Italian school amount to “teaching”? Does it hinder the exercise of the guaranteed right?”[9] l-Imħallef Bonello kiteb li: “I doubt how far the mute presence of a symbol of European cultural continuity would amount to teaching in any sense of that fairly unambiguous word…. The mere display of a voiceless testimonial of a historical symbol, so emphatically part of the European heritage, in no way amounts to “teaching”, nor does it undermine in any meaningful manner the fundamental right of parents to determine what, if any, religious orientation their children are to follow.”[10] (enfasi miżjuda)

(v) Fl-aħħar jikkonkludi li kieku il-Qorti Ewropeja ddeċidiet il-kawża mod ieħor kienet tkun qed tiċħad: “European heritage value to an emblem recognised over the centuries by millions of Europeans as a timeless symbol of redemption through universal love.”[11] (enfasi miżjuda)

10.4 ILLI bl-istess mod, id-deċiżjonijiet tal-Qrati Taljani fl-istess proċeduri miġjubin minn Lautsi, kollha enfasizzaw l-aspett proprju ‘sekulari’ tal-Kurċifiss. Per eżempju:

(A) Id-deċiżjoni tal-Qorti Amministrattiva Taljana (tas-17 ta’ Marzu, 2005, re Lautsi) qalet li:

“although the crucifix was undeniably a religious symbol, it was a symbol of Christianity in general rather than of Catholicism alone, so that it served as a point of reference for other creeds. It went on to say that the crucifix was a historical and cultural symbol, possessing on that account an “identity-linked value” for the Italian people, in that it “represent[ed] in a way the historical and cultural development characteristic of [Italy] and in general of the whole of Europe, and [was] a good synthesis of that development”. The Administrative Court further held that the crucifix should also be considered a symbol of a value system underpinning the Italian Constitution.”[12] (enfasi miżjuda)

(B) L-istess Qorti Amministrattiva qalet li: “It can therefore be contended that in the present day social reality, the crucifix should be regarded not only as a symbol of historical and cultural development and therefore of the identity of our people, but also as a symbol of our value system: liberty, equality, human dignity and religious toleration, and accordingly also of the secular nature of the state – principles which underpin our Constitution.”[13]

(C) Qalet ukoll li: “the cross, as the symbol of Christianity, … even constitutes in a sense the universal sign of the acceptance of and respect for every human being as such, irrespective of any belief, religious or other, which he or she may hold. …”[14] u ċioe li l-Kurċifiss jista’ jkollu valur importanti għall-bniedem anki jekk dak li jkun ma jħaddanx twemmin reliġjuż!

(D) Id-deċiżjoni tal-Consiglio di Stato Taljan (Nru 556 tat-13 ta’ April, 2006, re Lautsi) bl-istess mod rrikonoxxiet li:

“Quite clearly, the crucifix is in itself a symbol that may have various meanings and serve various purposes, above all for the place in which it has been displayed. In a place of worship, the crucifix is properly and exclusively a religious symbol ... In a non religious context like a school ... for non believers its display is justified and possesses a non-discriminatory meaning from the religious point of view if it is capable of representing and evoking synthetically and in an immediately perceptible and foreseeable manner values which underpin and inspire our Constitutional order, the foundation of our civil life. In that sense the crucifix can perform - even in a “secular” perspective distinct from the religious perspective specific to it – a highly educational symbolic function, irrespective of the religion professed by its pupils.”

(E) Il-Qorti Ewropeja rrapurtat li “the Consiglio di Stato (Supreme Administrative Court), which confirmed that the presence of crucifixes in State-school classrooms … regard being had to the meaning that should be attached to it, was compatible with the principle of secularism. On that point it found in particular that in Italy the crucifix symbolised the religious origin of values (tolerance, mutual respect, valorisation of the person, affirmation of one's rights, consideration for one's freedom, the autonomy of one's moral conscience vis-à-vis authority, human solidarity and the refusal of any form of discrimination) which characterised Italian civilisation.”[15] (enfasi miżjuda)

(F) Il-Consiglio di Stato żiedet li “…when displayed in classrooms, the crucifix could fulfil – even in a “secular” perspective distinct from the religious perspective to which it specifically referred – a highly educational symbolic function, irrespective of the religion professed by the pupils. The Consiglio di Stato held that the crucifix had to be seen as a symbol capable of reflecting the remarkable sources of the above-mentioned values, the values which defined secularism in the State's present legal order.”[16] (enfasi miżjuda)

(G) Il-Consiglio di Stato jikkonkludi li “As with any symbol, one can impose on or attribute to the crucifix various contrasting meanings; one can even deny its symbolic value and make it a simple trinket having artistic value at the most. However, a crucifix displayed in a classroom cannot be considered a trinket, a decorative feature, nor as an adjunct to worship. Rather, it should be seen as a symbol capable of reflecting the remarkable sources of the civil values referred to above, values which define secularism in the State's present legal order. ..”[17] (enfasi miżjuda)

10.5 ILLI, naturalment, wieħed irid jagħmilha ċara li b’dan kollu ebda disrispett huwa intiż għal dan is-simbolu tant importanti - anzi, dawn l-argumenti proprju jikkonfermaw kemm dan is-simbolu tant huwa importanti illi anki oltre ir-reliġjon u t-twemmin reliġjuż, dan l-istess simbolu reliġjuż u sagru għandu valur sekulari ukoll.

10.6 ILLI li huwa rilevanti huwa li fis-siltiet fuq riprodotti ma kienux il-valuri reliġjużi ta’ dan is-simbolu hekk importanti għall-dawk li jħaddnu r-Reliġjon Kattolika Rumana li saret referenza ghalihom iżda minflok ghall-valuri sekulari (u kulturali) – ukoll importanti – li dan is-simbolu jirrapreżenta.

3.2 Ir-rispett li bniedem mhux Kattoliku jista’ jkollu għall-simbolu bħal-Kurċifiss

11.1 ILLI kif dejjem jista’ jikkonferma l-attur okkorrendo, bħala cittadin kuxjentzjuz – u diment li ma jigix ppruvat il-kuntrarju – hu għandu apprezzament sħiħ tal-kunċett tal-verità, u tad-differenza bejn li tghid il-verità u li tigdeb, u tad-differenza bejn is-sewwa u l-qerq. Bl-istess mod, l-attur ukoll ghandu apprezzament u għarfien sħiħ tal-kunċett ta’ ġurament u tal-obbligu morali u legali imposta fuq xhud permezz tal-ġurament, u ċioe li l-istess xhud, meta jixhed taħt ġurament, irid jghid is-sewwa, is-sewwa kollu, u xejn hlief is-sewwa, kif ukoll tal-konsegwenzi legali jekk xhud ma jgħidx il-verità jew ma jgħidx il-verita’ kollha.

11.2 ILLI l-attur jista’ jigi mistoqsi ukoll jikkonferma – dejjem okkorrendo - il-lealtà tiegħu lejn il-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta li proprju tagħraf lir-reliġjon Kattolika Appostolika Rumana bħala r-reliġjon ta’ Malta u, allura, ir-rispett sħiħ tiegħu lejn is-simboli u d-drawwiet tal-istat Malti inkluż il-metodu, il-kliem u r-ritwali li bihom wieħed jieħu ġurament quddiem l-istituzzjonijiet tal-istat Malti u inkluż lejn il-valuri importanti li dawn is-simboli jirrappreżentaw (meta ma jkunux ġo post ta’ adorazzjoni).

11.3 ILLI ghalhekk huwa possibbli li bniedem li ma jhaddanx ir-religjon Kattolika Appostolika Rumana jkollu xorta wahda rispett shih lejn is-serjetà u l-qima li biha min jemmen u min hu Kattoliku iqis il-Kurċifiss (u l-att li wieħed ibusu) u lejn il-valuri importanti (mhux religjuzi) li l-Kurcifiss jissimbolizza. Bl-istess mod, l-att ta’ gurament skont id-drawwiet tar-religjon Kattolika, anki jekk xhud ma jkunx religjuz, f’ċirkostanzi partikolari u speċifiċi bħal dan il-każ xorta wahda jista – diment li ma jigix ppruvat mod iehor – ma jikkostitwixxix att reliġjuż iżda att t’affermazzjoni li timpenja lil dak ix-xhud li jonora l-obbligu li jgħid is-sewwa, is-sewwa kollu u xejn ħlief is-sewwa. B’dan il-mod, in-nuqqas ta’ sinjifikat reliġjuż għax-xhud ma jneħħi xejn mis-sinjifikat sħiħ morali, etiku u legali ta’ dan l-att.

12. ILLI għalhekk se mai l-oneru huwa fuq il-konvenut li jipprova li, għaliex l-attur ħa l-ġurament bil-forma li ħadu, dan neċessarjament ifisser li ma qalx il-verita’ jew li x-xhieda tiegħu għandha tiġi skartata, jew forsi li jkun ħa l-ġurament b’mod leġġer jew li ma jkunx fehem l-import tal-ġurament (li qed jiġi sottomess bir-rispett li assolutament ma hux il-każ).

Mingħajr din il-prova (li qed jiġi sottomess bir-rispett, li l-konvenut mhux ser jirnexxielu jagħmilha, għaliex ma hux il-każ) allura l-ġurament li ħa l-attur għandu jibqa’ jgħodd.

13. ILLI tant hu hekk li minkejja li dina l-Onorabbli Qorti għandha s-setgħa, skont l-artiklu 113 tal-Kap 12, li “tagħmel twissija lil min ikun sejjer jaħlef, fuq l-importanza talġurament, u fuq il-konsegwenzi ta’ ġurament falz” dina l-Onorabbli Qorti ma ħassietx il-bżonn tagħha din t-twissija f’dan il-kaz.

3. KSUR TAD-DRITTIJIET FONDAMENTALI TA’ L-ATTUR

14. ILLI li bniedem ikun kostrett jiddikjara t-twemmin reliġjuż tiegħu – jew in-nuqqas ta’ twemmin reliġjuż tiegħu, skont il-każ – jledi d-dritt fundamentali tal-bniedem tal-liberta’ ta’ kuxjenza hekk kif sanċit mill-artiklu 32 u 40 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta u mill-artiklu 9 (‘freedom of thought, conscience and religion’) tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja Dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem.

15.1 ILLI l-artiklu 40 tal-Kostituzzjoni ta’ Malta tgħid hekk:

“40. (1) Il-persuni kollha f’Malta għandu jkollhom libertà sħiħa ta’ kuxjenza u jgawdu l-eżerċizzju liberu tal-mod rispettiv tagħhom ta’ qima reliġjuża.

(2) Ebda persuna ma tkun meħtieġa li tirċievi tagħlim fir-reliġjon jew li turi tagħrif jew profiċjenza fir-reliġjon jekk, fil-każ ta’ persuna li ma tkunx laħqet l-età ta’ sittax-il sena, issir oġġezzjoni għal din il-ħtieġa mill-persuna li skont il-liġi jkollha awtorità fuqha u, f’kull każ ieħor, jekk il-persuna hekk meħtieġa toġġezzjona:

Iżda ebda ħtieġa bħal dik ma għandha titqies li tkun inkonsistenti ma’, jew bi ksur ta’, dan l-artikolu safejn it-tagħrif ta’, jew il-profiċjenza jew istruzzjoni fi, ir-reliġjon ikunu meħtieġa għat-tagħlim ta’ dik ir-reliġjon, jew għal ammissjoni għas-saċerdozju jew għal ordni reliġjuż, jew għal għanijiet oħra relijjużi, u ħlief safejn dik il-ħtieġa tiġi murija li ma tkunx raġonevolment ġustifikabbli f’soċjetà demokratika.

(3) Ebda ħaġa li hemm fi jew magħmula skont l-awtorità ta’ xi liġi ma għandha titqies li tkun inkonsistenti ma’ jew bi ksur tas-subartikolu (1), safejn dik il-liġi tagħmel provvediment li jkun meħtieġ raġonevolment fl-interess tas-sigurtà pubblika, ordni pubbliku, moralità jew deċenza pubblika, saħħa pubblika, jew ilprotezzjoni tad-drittijiet u libertajiet ta’ oħrajn, u ħlief safejn dak il-provvediment jew, skont il-każ, il-ħaġa magħmula skont l-awtorità tiegħu, hija murija li ma tkunx ġustifikabbli raġonevolment f’soċjetà demokratika.”

15.2 L-artiklu 9 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja jghid hekk:

“9(1). Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

16. ILLI huwa minnu li sija l-artiklu 111 tal-Kap.12 u sija l-artiklu 1 tal-Kap.245 jagħtu d-dritt (u mhux l-obbligu, jerġa jiġi ribadit) li xhud joġġezzjona li jieħu l-ġurament skont ir-Reliġjon Kattolika Rumana, izda sabiex jagħmel dan irid bil-fors jiddikjara it-twemmin reliġjuż tiegħu, jew in-nuqqas ta’ twemmin, li tmur proprju kontra l-liberta’ ta’ kuxjenza tal-bniedem. L-Att Dwar Id-Dikjzarazzjonijiet (Kap.245 tal-Liġijiet ta’ Malta), per eżempju, jgħid li meta l-liġi tipprovdi għad teħid ta’ ġurament:

17. ILLI dan il-prinċipju ġie rikonoxxut ukoll mill-Qorti Ewropeja Dwar id-Dritijiet tal-Bniedem fil-kawża, per eżempju, ta’ Dimitras and others vs Greece (applications nos 42837/06, 3269/07, 35793/07 and 6099/08). F’din id-deċiżjoni naqraw li l-fatti kienu s-segwenti, ċioe li l-applikanti:

“were summoned to appear in court on various dates between February 2006 and December 2007, as witnesses, complainants or suspects in criminal proceedings. In conformity with Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were asked to take the oath by placing their right hands on the Bible. Each time, they informed the authorities that they were not Orthodox Christians and preferred to make a solemn declaration instead, which they were authorised to do.

In several cases, in the standard wording of the minutes of the proceedings concerned, the words “Orthodox Christian”, were crossed out and replaced by the handwritten references “atheist” and “made a solemn declaration”, for example. Some records were actually incorrect, stating “Orthodox Christian – took the oath” when in fact the person was an atheist and had made a solemn declaration instead. Even when they appeared in court without being required to take the oath, the applicants had had to reveal their religious convictions in order to request the amendment of the standard reference to “Orthodox Christian” on the form used for the minutes.”[18]

18. ILLI imbagħad naqraw li “relying on Articles 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 8 (right to respect for private and family life and correspondence) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination), the applicants complained that they had been obliged to reveal their “non-Orthodox” religious convictions when taking the oath in court.”

Fid-deċiżjoni unanima tagħha, il-Qorti Ewropeja Dwar id-Drittijiet tal-Bniedem saħqet li:

“freedom of thought, conscience and religion, which went hand in hand with pluralism, was one of the foundations of a “democratic society” and that in its religious dimension that freedom was an essential part of any believer’s identity, as well as being a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. It had already held that freedom to manifest one’s religious beliefs included an individual’s right not to reveal his faith or his religious beliefs and not to be obliged to act or refrain from acting in such a way that it was possible to conclude that he did or did not have such beliefs – and all the more so when aptitude to exercise certain functions was at stake.” (enfasi miżjuda)

F’dan il-każ l-applikanti ġew meqjusa kważi awtomatikament bħala ‘Greek Orthodox’ u kellhom bil-fors jiddikaraw it-twemmin reliġjuż veru tagħhom sabiex jitħallew, per eżempju, jieħdu il-ġurament mhux skont ir-reliġjon Grieg Ortodoss. Dan huwa proprju dak li qed jiġri f’dawn il-proċeduri iżda l-Onorabbli Qorti Ewropeja qalet li: “The applicants had been considered as Orthodox Christians as a matter of course, and had been obliged, sometimes in hearings, to point out that they did not subscribe to that faith and, in some cases, to specify that they were atheists or Jews in order to have the standard wording of the minutes amended….” (enfasi miżjuda)

19. ILLI b’mod simili għall-liġi Maltija, “Article 218 [tal-liġi applikabbli Griega] regulated the taking of the oath in court, on the Bible. It was thus presumed in the Code of Criminal Procedure that all witnesses were Orthodox and willing to take the oath, as reflected in the standard wording of the records of court proceedings. Indeed, it is only exceptions to the rule that Article 220 provides for allowing those who were not Orthodox Christians to take the oath in conformity with another religion or to make a solemn declaration if they had no religion or their religion did not permit oath taking.” U dan ukoll huwa eżattament dak li qed jiġri f’dawn il-proċeduri u li qed jitlob li jsir il-konvenut.

20. ILLI l-Onorabbli Qorti Ewropeja kkonkludiet uninanimament li kien hemm ksur ta’ l-artiklu 9 tal-Konvenzjoni Ewropeja u li d-dritt fundamentali ta’ l-applikanti tal-liberta’ tal-ħsieb, tal-kuxjenza u tar-reliġjon ġew mittiefsa. Il-Qorti qalet li:

“The Court found that requiring the applicants to reveal their religious convictions in order to be allowed to make a solemn declaration had interfered with their freedom of religion, and that the interference was neither justified nor proportionate to the aim pursued. There had therefore been a violation of Article 9.”

21. ILLI dan il-prinċipju huwa ben rassodat fil-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti Ewropeja li kienet diġa kkonfermatu fil-kawża preċedenti fl-ismijiet: Alexandridis v. Greece (application no. 19516/06) fejn l-Onorabbli Qorti Ewropeja qalet li:

“the freedom to manifest one’s beliefs also contained a negative aspect, namely, the individual’s right not to be obliged to manifest his or her religion or religious beliefs and not to be obliged to act in such a way as to enable conclusions to be drawn regarding whether he or she held – or did not hold – such beliefs.” (enfasi miżjuda)[19]

Il-Qorti f’dan il-każ ikkonkludiet għall-darb’oħra li: “the fact that the applicant had had to reveal to the court that he was not an Orthodox Christian had interfered with his freedom not to have to manifest his religious beliefs. There had therefore been a violation of Article 9.”

22. ILLI bħal dawn il-kawżi fuq imsemmija wieħed jista’ jsib bosta oħra li kollha jikkonfermaw l-istess prinċipji, bħal, per eżempju:

(i) Buscarini and Others v. San Marino (application no. 24645/94, Grand Chamber Judgement 18.02.1999): “Elected to the San Marino parliament in 1993, the applicants complained of the fact that they had been required to swear an oath on the Christian Gospels in order to take their seats in parliament, which in their view demonstrated that the exercise of a fundamental political right was subject to publicly professing a particular faith. The Court found a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of thought, conscience and religion). It held in particular that the obligation to take the oath was not “necessary in a democratic society” for the purpose of Article 9§2, as making the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs was contradictory.”

(ii) Sinan Isik v. Turkey (21924/05, Chamber judgment 02.02.2010): “A member of the Alevi religious community, Mr Işık in 2004 unsuccessfully applied to a court requesting that his identity card feature the word “Alevi” rather than the word “Islam”. It was obligatory in Turkey for the holder’s religion to be indicated on an identity card until 2006, when the option was introduced to request that the entry be left blank. His request was refused on the grounds that the term “Alevi” referred to a subgroup of Islam and that the indication “Islam” on the identity card was thus correct. The Court found a violation of Article 9 which had arisen not from the refusal to indicate Mr Işık’s faith (Alevi) on his identity card but from the fact that his identity card contained an indication of religion, regardless of whether it was obligatory or optional. The Court underlined that the freedom to manifest one’s religion had a negative aspect, namely the right not to be obliged to disclose one’s religion.”

4. MA HEMMX LOK TA’ NULLITA’

23. ILLI avolja l-konvenut għadu ma ddikjarax ruħu fuq x’inhuma, fl-opinjoni tiegħu, l-konsegwenzi li l-attur ħa ġurament skont id-drawwiet tar-Reliġjon Kattolika Rumana, żgur li hawn m’hemmx lok għan-nullita tax-xhieda li ttieħdet u dan għaliex in-nullita’ ta’ atti hija ‘sanzjoni estrema’ ħafna u għandha tiġi applikata biss f’dawk il-każijiet espressament imsemmija mill-liġi, li dan il-każ żgur mhuwiex wieħed minnhom. Hemm solużżjonijiet – jekk soluzzjoni hemm bżonnha – ferm inqas estremi sabiex il-konvenut jiġi assigurat li dak li ntqal taħt ġurament huwa is-sewwa, is-sewwa kollu u xejn ħlief is-sewwa, u wieħed jittama li l-konvenut mhuwiex qed jipprova jevita m-mertu ta’ dawn il-proċeduri billi jiggranfa ma’ aspett proċedurali, speċjalment tenut kont tal-mertu partikolari ta’ dan il-każ.

24. ILLI ora mai huwa principju ben rassodat fil-gurisprudenza nostrali li n-nullita m’ghandiex tigi ddikjarata hlief f’dawk il-kawzi meta huwa dikjarat espressament mill-ligi. Ta’ dan hemm diversi ezempji fil-gurisprudenza taghna:

(a) Fil-kawza fl-ismijiet Agnes Gera De Petri et vs il-Kummissarju ta’ l-Art (PA PS tat-3 ta’ Ottubru, 2003) il-Qorti qalet li f’din il-materja “tajjeb … illi … tinzamm in mira l-osservazzjoni elokwenti ta’ l-Onor. Imhallef Maurice Caruana Curran illi “n-nullitajiet huma odjuzi, ma jistghux jigu prezunti, ma jistghux jigu estizi minn kaz ghall-iehor, u in generali jirripunjaw ghaz-‘zeitgeist’ modern li huwa kuntrarju ghar-ripetizzjoni ta’ kawzi u atti gudizzjarji u ghall-moltiplikazzjoni ta’ l-ispejjez u telf ta’ zmien anti-ekonomiku hlief ghal ragunijiet verament serji” — “Victor Henry Debono et -vs- Onor. Dr. Vincent Tabone nomine”, Prim’ Awla, Qorti Civili, 14 ta’ Mejju 1970; Tali enuncjazzjoni ssegwi dak il-principju fundamentali tad-dritt li jirritjeni illi “in-nullita’ hija ta’ stretta interpretazzjoni”, u ghalhekk “in re dubia benignorem interpretationem sequi non minus iustius est quam tutius (L. 192, para 1, D. L. 17)” - Kollez. Vol. XXXI P I p 396. Din il-massima taghmel rikjam ghall-principju iehor taddritt Ruman f’ materja ta’ ermenewtika legali, jigifieri, “in dubio interpretatio facienda est ut superfluwitas evitetur””; (enfasi mizjuda)

(b) Fl-istess kawza l-Qorti osservat kemm “Gja fi zmenijiet ohra meta kien jimpera r-rigur ta’ l-osservanza tal-formalitajiet kien gie osservat illi “il sistema della moderna legislazione e giurisprudenza tende ad evitare la molteplicazione e la dilazione delle liti e a diminuire il dispendio, scoraggiando quelle liberazioni e quelle nullita` dovute a semplici errori a cui il rigido formalismo si attaccava con troppa severita` e poco riguardo agli interessi dei contendenti e dell’amministrazione della giustizia in generale” (Kollez. Vol. XXVI P I p 424; Vol. XXIX P I p 1171; Vol. XXXVIII P III p 663; “Carmelo Meli –vs- Anthony Sammut et”, Appell Kummercjali, 22 ta’ Dicembru 1970;”

(c) Illi fil-kawza Untours Insurance (Agents & Brokers) Ltd noe vs Maria Lourdes Gauci (Qorti ta’ l-Appell Inferjuri, 16 ta’ Dicembru, 2002) il-Qorti ikkonfermat li: “Jinghad in linea ta’ massima illi t-teorija l-aktar accettabbli mill-Qrati, f’kazijiet ta’ nullita’ ta’ l-atti, hi dik li tiffavorixxi l-ammissibilita’ u mhux in-nullita’ ta’ l-att. Dan in omagg ghal principju illi n-nullitajiet ghad-deficjenzi procedurali ghandhom jigu skoraggiti u fejn hu possibbli l-atti jigu salvati. Dan il-hsieb, illum aktar minn qabel, hu in armonija ma’ l-innovazzjonijiet u l-aggornamenti procedurali introdotti bl-Att XXIV tal-1995 ghal Kodici ta’ Organizazzjoni u Procedura Civili. Gja fl-imghoddi Qrati differenti, ispirati mill-htiega tat-twettiaq ta’ dak imfisser bhala “la guistizia del dato caso”, kienu jharsu, aktar milli lejn il-legalizmu u l-formalizu, “lejn dak li hu skont il-haqq u s-sewwa, lejn il-gustizzja sostanzjali, xi drabi wkoll, fejn mehtieg, moderata mill-principju ta’ l-ekwita’” (Vol XXIX pI p1171; “Carmelo Meli –vs- Anthony Sammut”, Appell Kummerc, 22 ta’ Dicembru 1970). Gie emfasizzat per ezempju f’decizjoni ormai sekolari illi l-formalizmu u rrigorizmu esagerat fil-proceduri gudizzjarji gie abbandunat bhala “il sistema proprio dell’infanzia del diritto” – “Xuereb -vs- Xuereb”, 2 ta’ Jannar 1883.” (enfasi mizjuda)

(d) fil-kawza fl-ismijiet Alfred Portelli vs Kummissarju Tat-Taxxi Interni (10 ta’ Jannar, 2003) l-Onorabbli Qorti ta’ l-Appell kkonfermat li: “Il-problema hi wahda antika u dejjem kienet maghna kif manifest f’gurisprudenza kopjuza fuq din it-tematika. B’danakollu anke meta l-Qrati ta’ zmenijiet ohra kienu x’aktarx influwenzali minn nozzjonijiet ta’ rigorosita` procedurali kien hemm diga` t-tendenza li jevitaw in-nullitajiet u jsalvaw l-atti. L-ezemplari f’dan il-kuntest huma bosta. Hekk fid-decizjoni fl-ismijiet “Com. Rosario Xuereb –vs- Com. Paolo Xuereb et”, Qorti Kummerc, 2 ta’ Jannar 1883 (Vol X pI) gie osservat dan:- “L’antico rigore che esigeva l’uso delle identiche parole della legge nelle azioni giudiziarie, ossia il formulismo, e’ nei nostri tempi abbandonato, come sistema proprio dell’infanzia del diritto.” Issokta jigi ribadit “b’wisq aktar raguni u qawwa nistghu nghidu hekk illum meta l-ligi u l-qorti aktar mill-formalizmu jew legalismu, thares lejn dak li hu skont il-haqq u ssewwa, lejn il-gustizzja sostanzjali, xi drabi wkoll fejn jinhtieg, moderata mill-principju tal-ekwita` li wisq tajjeb giet imfissra bhala la ‘giustizia del dato caso’” – “Salvatore Tonna –vs- Carmelo Chetcuti et”, Appell Civili, 16 ta’ Novembru 1934. Hsieb dan ribadit fis-sentenza fl-ismijiet “Carmelo Meli –vs- Anthony Sammut et”, Appell Kummerc, 22 ta’ Dicembru 1970. Gie fil-fatt ritenut illi “n-nullita` hija haga odjuza u ghandha tigi ordnata meta espressament komminata mil-ligi” (Vol XXXIII pI p134). Effettivament, “in-nullita` ma tistax tigi desunta meta mhux espressament stabbilita minn disposizzjonijiet li jirrigwardaw proceduri specjali”. (Vol XXXII pI p329).” (enfasi mizjuda)

25. ILLI anki awtur bhal Laurent jghallem li n-nullita’ “e’ un mezzo estremo cui il legislatore non ricorre che in caso di necessita.” (Diritto Civile, Vol 1 para 43). Kwalsiasi kumment ulterjuri ikun superfluwu fuq dan l-aspett.

26. ILLI n-nullita ta’ l-atti hija regolata mill-artiklu 789 tal-Kap.12 li ukoll jipprova kemm jista’ jkun li l-atti jigu salvati – qed jigi sottomess li n-nullita’ f’dan il-kaz mhux rikjest taht ebda mill-paragrafi ta’ dan l-artiklu 789.

5. KONKLUZJONI

27. ILLI għalhekk qed jiġi sottomess bir-rispett li l-verbal li għamel il-konvenut m’għandu jkollu assolutament ebda konsegwenza la fuq ix-xhieda li ta l-attur u lanqas fuq il-prosegwiment tal-proċedjuri odjerni.

28. ILLI finalment il-fatt jibqa – sakemm ma jiġix pruvat mod ieħor – li bl-invokazzjoni ta’ Alla fil-ġurament u mingħajrha, il-verita’ hija waħda u hija din il-verita’ li qal l-attur - hemm rotta ferm inqas drakonjana u estrema kif tista’ tiġi riżolta din il-kwistjoni (jekk tinhtieg soluzzjoni), u dan billi – jekk verament hemm il-lok (għaliex qed jiġi sottomess, bir-rispett, li dan ma hemmx bzonnu) – l-attur jitħalla jikkonferma:

- sija l-fatti kollha kontenuti f’din in-Nota (fejn meħtieġ); u

- sija l-fatt li x-xhieda kollha tiegħu tirrefletti il-verita’, il-verita’ kollha u xejn ħlief il-verita’

biex b’dan il-mod il-proċeduri jkunu jistgħu jkomplu fuq il-mertu sabiex din il-kawża tiġi deċiża darba għall-dejjem.

29. ILLI qed jiġi sottomess bir-rispett li kwalsiasi soluzzjoni oħra li jitlob il-konvenut ser tfisser biss li n-nuqqas ta’ twemmin ta’ l-attur ser jispiċċa biex ppreġudikatlu l-kawża tiegħu.

30. ILLI in ogni caso, u mingħajr preġudizzju, ma jridx jintesa ukoll l-fatt li xhieda oħra ġew ppreżentati mill-attur u d-dritt li jsiru sottomissjonijiet jibqa’, u allura l-kawża xorta waħda tista’ tipproċedi.

Tant għandu l-esponent x’jissottometti għas-savju ġudizzju ta’ dina l-Onorabbli Qorti.

_________________________

Avv. Dott. Anthony Cremona

57, St Christopher Str

Valletta (VLT 1462)

Notifika: Dr Toni Abela, Il-bini tal-Qorti, il-Belt Valletta

[1] Art.3(1) tal-Kap 245: “Dikjarazzjoni li ssir minflok ġurament għandha tkun fl-istess forma bħall-ġurament li ssir minfloku, iżda minflok il-kliem "naħlef", "niddikjara bil-ġurament" jew kliem ieħor li juru t-teħid ta’ ġurament, għandhom jidħlu l-kliem "niddikjara solennement" bl-adattamenti konsegwenzjali tal-kliem fejn meħtieġ; u l-kliem "hekk Alla jgħini", jekk jinsabu fil-forma tal-ġurament, għandhom jitħallew barra.”

[2] Paġna 15 para. 31 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[3] Paġna Page 16 para 36 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[4] Paġna Page 20 para 47 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[5] Paġna Page 24 para 56 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[6] Paġna 38 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[7] Paġna 38 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[8] Paġna 41 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[9] Paġna 42 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[10] Paġna 42 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[11] Paġna 43 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[12] Riprodott f’paġna 5 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[13] Riprodott f’paġna 6 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[14] Riprodott f’paġna 7 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[15] Riprodott f’paġna 7 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[16] Riprodott f’paġna 7-8 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[17] Riprodott f’paġna 9 tad-deċiżjoni ta’ Lautsi and others vs Italy.

[18] Press Release issued by the Registrar, 449 03.06.2010, Chamber Judgement Dimitras and others vs Greece, paġna 1.

[19] Press Release issued by the Registrar, 126 21.02.2008, Chamber Judgement Alexandridis v. Greece, application no. 19516/06, paġna 2-3.

BondiBlog

31 October 2011

Of cruxifictions in court

Avv. Dott. Anthony Cremona

57, St Christopher Str

Valletta (VLT 1462)

1 comment: