CASE OF RAMADAN v. MALTA
Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
András Sajó;David Scicluna;Egidijus Kūris;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
6. The applicant was born in 1964 in Egypt and currently lives in Hamrun, Malta. 7. The applicant had a Maltese tourist visa, which had been issued in 1991 and had been valid for three months. Having overstayed this visa, he remained in Malta illegally. 8. In 1993, when the applicant was twenty-nine years of age and still living in Malta illegally, he met MP, a Maltese citizen, who at the time was seventeen years of age. Three months later, on 13 October 1993, they married in a civil ceremony. On 26 February 1994 they also married in accordance with the Catholic rite. 9. On 18 November 1993 the applicant enquired about his “exempt person status” (see paragraph 34 below) and on 23 November 1993 started the process to obtain Maltese citizenship on the basis of his marriage to a Maltese national. 10. The applicant’s exempt person status was confirmed on 2 March 1994. On 19 April 1994, following the processing of his application and consequent to the marriage, he was registered as a Maltese citizen. On 12 September 1994, he therefore lodged an application to renounce his Egyptian nationality (a copy of the relevant application form has not been submitted to the Court). It transpires from a letter issued by the Consul of the Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt in Malta that on 29 September 1994 the applicant’s request was approved and his Egyptian passport withdrawn. At the relevant time, dual nationality was not possible under either Egyptian or Maltese law. 11. According to the Government, in 1994 the applicant and MP had various marital problems, which led the applicant to leave the matrimonial home on two occasions. The applicant had behaved aggressively, and specifically on 5 June 1994 he had physically assaulted his pregnant wife, causing her a permanent disability. MP left the matrimonial home thereafter. 12. The applicant was charged, remanded in custody, and eventually tried and found guilty in respect of the act of assault. He was given a suspended sentence. 13. In the meantime, on 13 December 1994 a child, LR, was born of the marriage. LR is a Maltese citizen. The various family disputes continued between the couple. 14. On 8 February 1995 MP instituted court proceedings to annul the marriage. Following adversarial proceedings where both parties were represented by a lawyer, the applicant’s marriage was annulled by a judgment of 19 January 1998. The court delivering the judgment was satisfied (to the degree necessary in civil proceedings, namely on a balance of probabilities) that the applicant’s only reason for marrying had been to remain in Malta and acquire citizenship; thus he was positively excluding marriage itself, and there had been a simulation of marriage. Since no appeal was lodged against the judgment, it became final. 15. The applicant did not inform the authorities of the judgment concerning the annulment of his marriage and he remained resident in Malta and retained his Maltese citizenship. 16. On 30 June 2003 the applicant married VA, a Russian citizen, four months after their first encounter. The applicant enquired about the exempt person status of his Russian wife and was asked to produce a copy of the judgment of annulment. On 4 July 2003 the applicant produced a copy of the judgment and it was only at that time that the authorities became aware of the reason for the annulment of his first marriage. 17. Following an application to that effect, on 27 September 2004, VA was granted exempt person status and thus had full freedom of movement (see “Relevant domestic law” below). According to the Government, although this was contested by the applicant, attention was drawn to the fact that the benefit of such status would cease if the applicant lost his citizenship. Two sons were born of this marriage, VR and VL, in 2004 and 2005 respectively. They are both Maltese citizens. 18. On 8 May 2006 the applicant was informed that an order was to be made to deprive him of his Maltese citizenship (under Article 14(1) of the Citizenship Act (“the Act”) – see “Relevant domestic law” below), which, according to the judgment of 19 January 1998, appeared to have been obtained by fraud. He was informed of his right to an inquiry. 19. The applicant challenged that decision, claiming that it was not true that he had obtained his marriage by fraud and stressing that he had three Maltese children. 20. In consequence, proceedings were instituted to investigate the applicant’s situation and if necessary divest him of his Maltese citizenship. A committee was set up for this purpose in accordance with Article 14(4) of the Act. A number of hearings were held before the committee where the applicant was assisted by a lawyer. He was allowed to make oral and written submissions and submit evidence, including witness testimony. It appears from the documents available that the applicant contested the basis of the annulment decision and claimed that he had not been aware that he could have appealed against it. He also contested the findings of a court of criminal jurisdiction that had found him guilty of injuring his wife and causing her a permanent disability. 21. The applicant’s ex-wife, a citizenship department official and a priest also gave testimony. 22. The committee’s final recommendation to the Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs was not made available to the applicant. Requests by the applicant’s lawyer for a copy of the acts of those proceedings remained unsatisfied. 23. On 31 July 2007 the Minister ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship with immediate effect, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Act. 24. By a letter dated 2 August 2007 from the Director of the Department of Citizenship and Expatriate Affairs, the applicant was informed that the Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs had concluded that the applicant had obtained citizenship by fraudulent means and that therefore on 31 July 2007, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Act, the Minister had ordered that he be immediately divested of his citizenship. He was required to return his certificate of registration as a Maltese citizen and his passport. 25. The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings, complaining under Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention. He claimed that he had not had a fair trial and appropriate access to court for the determination on his right to citizenship. Moreover, the revocation of his citizenship had not been in accordance with the law. The prerequisites for such action had not existed as his first marriage had not been one of convenience. 26. By a judgment of 12 July 2011 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 6, finding that the committee set up for that purpose had not been a tribunal, but solely an investigative body capable of giving recommendations but not making final decisions. The court, however, found that the applicant’s Article 8 rights would be breached if, as a result of his being divested of his citizenship, he became an alien. His de jure family (in respect of the second marriage) would suffer irremediable upset if, as a father (of the two Maltese children of that marriage), he were required to move to another country. Thus, the revocation of citizenship in the present case was in breach of Article 8. Consequently, the court annulled the order of 31 July 2007 and considered that it was not necessary to rule on any further complaints. 27. On appeal, by a judgment of 25 May 2012 the Constitutional Court overturned the first-instance judgment in part. It rejected the Article 6 complaint on the basis that the provision was not applicable in the absence of a civil right. In that connection, it rejected the applicant’s contention that the revocation of citizenship affected his right to a family life and therefore was civil in nature, as citizenship was a matter of public law and fell under the prerogatives of the State. It also reversed the part of the judgment in respect of Article 8, commenting that it had not been established that the applicant had a family life in Malta, and, even if this were so, the revocation of his citizenship would not necessarily result in his having to leave Malta. Indeed, it had not transpired that the applicant would be denied Maltese residence or that he had applied for it and had been refused, nor had a removal order been issued. 28. Following the lodging of the application with the Court, on 16 November 2012 the applicant’s lawyer wrote to the relevant authorities informing them that the case was pending before the Court and that therefore no action should be taken on the basis of the order of 31 July 2007. No feedback, apart from an acknowledgment of receipt, was received concerning that letter. However, although the order to deprive the applicant of his citizenship with immediate effect remains in force, no action has been taken to date in pursuit of the order and no removal order has been issued. 29. Although the applicant considers that the implementation of the order is only a matter of time, he is currently still residing and carrying out his business in Malta. He has a trading licence, which is periodically renewed. He continued using a Maltese passport to travel until 2014, when it expired, as he had failed to return it to the authorities despite their request. 30. The applicant does not appear to have any contact with his first son, but claims to be in a family environment with his second wife and their children. Following the revocation of his citizenship, the applicant’s second wife lost her exempt person status and the attached freedom-of-movement rights.