CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s7015FBD8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:14pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 574 20.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Dadouch v. Malta (application no 38816/07)     long delay in registering a RUSSIAN marriage IN MALTA UNJUSTIFIED   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mazen Dadouch, is a Maltese national who was born in Damascus (Syria) in 1967, and lives in Sliema (Malta). In 1993, he acquired Maltese citizenship as a consequence of his marriage to a Maltese national, which was annulled. He retained Maltese nationality.   In July 2003, he married a Russian national in Moscow. In July 2004, he applied to the Public Registration Office to have his marriage registered in Malta. On several occasions, notwithstanding the presentation of his Maltese identity card and a Maltese passport, the Public Registry required that Mr Dadouch submit a letter from the Department of Citizenship declaring that he was a citizen of Malta. Despite his contention that this request had no legal basis in domestic law, Mr Dadouch asked the department to issue the letter. His request was refused. On 31 May 2005, Mr Dadouch obtained a decision of the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts, requiring the Director of the Public Registry to register the marriage, upon Mr   Dadouch submitting his original act of marriage in Russian together with an English translation authenticated by his lawyer. On 5 April 2006, that decision was revoked by the Court of Appeal. The latter, while expressing doubts as to whether the Court of Revision of Notarial Acts had any competence in this case, held that a Maltese passport was not conclusive evidence of citizenship.   Mr Dadouch instituted proceedings before the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, complaining that the refusal to register his marriage was in violation of his right to private life. The evidence submitted by the relevant Government minister showed that the requirement for a “letter of citizenship” did not result from the law or a legal notice but from an internal regulation. On 10 October 2006, the court rejected the application, with legal costs to be paid by Mr Dadouch. It held that Article 8 had not been breached, since the Director of the Public Registry had not categorically refused to register the marriage, but had merely requested appropriate documentation. Mr Dadouch also appealed to the Constitutional Court, which found on 9 March 2007 that his right to private life had not been breached.   In the course of those proceedings a circular, applicable to all Government departments, had been issued stating that Maltese passports could be accepted as proof of citizenship. On 2 May 2006 the Head of the Nationality Department had confirmed that Mr Dadouch was a Maltese citizen. On 13 November 2006, the marriage had been registered on the basis of the documents originally submitted by Mr Dadouch.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court Relying in particular on Article 8, Mr Dadouch complained that the failure of the Maltese authorities to register his marriage, for 28 months, had breached his right to private life. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2   September   2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court held that registration of a marriage, being a recognition of an individual’s legal civil status, came within the scope of Article 8 § 1. Thus, the delay of over 28 months in the registration of Mr. Dadouch’s marriage clearly had an impact on his private life (lack of such documentation makes the processing of certain requests, such as applications for social or tax benefits, lengthier and more complex, if possible at all). Such an interference was in breach of Article 8 unless it could be justified as being “in accordance with the law”, as pursuing a legitimate aim and as being “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve the aim or aims concerned. The Court had considerable doubt whether the relevant law satisfied the requirements of precision and forseeability, but did not find it necessary to decide the question. It was ready to accept the Maltese Government’s contention that national regulation of the registration of marriage might serve the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and the protection of the rights of others. The Court’s main task was to assess whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court noted that apart from the issue as to whether the documents submitted by the applicant fulfilled formal requirements, the Government had not given any reason justifying the need for refusing registration of Mr. Dadouch’s marriage for over two years. Even assuming that the marriage act itself required further verification, it could have been done more speedily.   Similarly, as regards the certification of Mr. Dadouch’s citizenship, the Court was of the view that, since he was in possession of a valid Maltese passport, a presumption of his Maltese nationality arose. If the authorities believed that he might have renounced his Maltese citizenship, it was for them to verify the matter with the relevant department and within an appropriate time-frame, rather than to require the holder of a valid Maltese passport to prove that he still retained Maltese nationality. The Court further observed that Mr. Dadouch had attempted to obtain a letter of citizenship, notwithstanding the precarious legal basis for such a requirement, but the authorities refused to issue such a letter.   Thus, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that the delay was due to Mr.   Dadouch’s decision to institute proceedings; it noted that the Government itself conceded that the procedure had been unnecessarily prolonged.   In consequence, in the circumstances of Mr. Dadouch’s case, the denial to register his marriage for a period of over two years was a disproportionate interference with his right to private life, in violation of Article 8.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court held that Malta had to pay Mr.   Dadouch 3,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .