You searched for: seise (Engelska - Maltesiska)

a creditor who wishes for making use of provisions of articles 34 and 35 may seise the court for the place where he or she is habitually resident.
kreditur li jixtieq jibbenefika mid-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ l-artikoli 34 u 35 jista’ jindirizza lill-qorti tal-post fejn għandu r-residenza abitwali.

it continued by stating that the courts of the member states of which the spouses hold the nationality have jurisdiction under that regulation and the spouses may seise the court of the member state of their choice.
il-fatt li, permezz ta “anti-suit injunction”, qorti ta’ stat membru, li normalment għandha ġurisdizzjoni skont ir-regolament nru 44/2001, tiġi prekluża milli tiddeċiedi dwar l-applikabbiltà ta’ dan irregolament għall-kawża li titressaq quddiemha, i‘sser neċessarjament li tkun tneħħiet is-setgħa ta’ din ilqorti li tiddeċiedi fuq il-ġurisdizzjoni tagħha stess.

prorogation of jurisdiction could prove useful also in situations where the spouses are unable to seise a court of a member state under the current jurisdiction rules, because they do not have common nationality or domicile.
il-proroga tal-kompetenza tista’ tkun utli wkoll f’sitwazzjonijiet fejn il-miżżewġin ma jistgħux jagħtu l-pussess lil qorti ta’ stat membru taħt ir-regoli kurrenti ta’ kompetenza, peress illi m’għandhomx nazzjonalità jew domiċilju komuni.

since the new brussels ii regulation does not allow spouses to apply for divorce in a member state of which only one of them is a national in the absence of another connecting factor, spouses may find themselves in a situation where the only possibility is to seise the courts of the member state of their habitual residence.
peress illi r-regolament brussell ii il-ġdid ma jħallix lill-miżżewġin li japplikaw għal divorzju fi stat membru li għalih wieħed minnhom biss hu ċittadin fl-assenza ta’ fattur ieħor ta’ konnessjoni, il-miżżewġin jistgħu jsibu ruħhom f’sitwazzjoni fejn l-unika possibbiltà hi li jagħtu l-pussess lill-qrati ta’ l-istat membru tar-residenza abbitwali tagħhom.

a creditor may seise the central authority of the member state in which he or she is habitually resident through the court for the place where he or she is habitually resident; that court shall send the application of the creditor if it considers that this request is consistent with the conditions laid down in this chapter.
kreditur jista’ jqabbad lill-awtorità ċentrali li qiegħda tagħmel it-talba ta’ l-istat membru li fih hu joqgħod abitwalment bl-intermedjarju tal-qorti tal-post tar-residenza abitwali tiegħu, li tittrasmetti t-talba tiegħu jekk hi taħseb li hija konformi mal-kundizzjonijiet imsemmija fil-kapitolu preżenti.

a party wishing to escape the choice of court agreement can considerably delay proceedings in the chosen court if it first seises a (non-competent) court in a country where the judicial system is comparatively slow.
parti li tkun tixtieq tevita l-ftehim dwar l-għażla tal-qorti tista’ ddewwem konsiderevolment il-proċedimenti fil-qorti magħżula jekk l-ewwel tressaq il-proċedimenti quddiem qorti (li ma jkollhiex ġurisdizzjoni) f’pajjiż li fih is-sistema ġudizzjarja tkun timxi komparattivament bil-mod.