1177e réunion – 11 septembre 2013
Annexe 12
(Point H46-1)
Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)160
Mizzi contre Malte
Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme
(Requête no 26111/02, arrêt du 12 janvier 2006, définitif le 12 avril 2006)
(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 septembre 2013,
lors de la 1177e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)
Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées « la Convention » et « la Cour »),
Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et les violations constatées ;
Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire :
- de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum ; et
- de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;
Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer aux obligations susmentionnées ;
Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)652) ;
S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,
DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et
DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.
Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights – Action report
Mizzi v. Malta (Application No. 26111/02, judgment final on 12/04/2006)
(anglais uniquement)
Case summary
1.Case description:
The case concerned a violation of the applicant’s right of access to a court in that he was denied the possibility of obtaining a judicial determination of his claim that he was not the biological father of a child born to his wife in 1967 several months after their separation. Until 1990, the applicant was prevented from bringing such a claim since the Maltese Civil Code permitted the denial of paternity only in cases of adultery and where the birth had been concealed, which did not apply. Following an amendment, the law permitted claims in paternity cases within 3 months after birth. This time-limit was raised to 6 months in 1993. The applicant was barred at the material time from using this remedy. Despite these legal limitations, the Civil Court in 1997 accepted the applicant’s request based on DNA evidence establishing that he was not the child’s father, holding that Maltese law violated Article 8 of the Convention. This judgment was quashed by the Constitutional Court.
The European Court held that the wording of the relevant provisions of the Civil Code coupled together with the Constitutional Court’s refusal to grant the applicant leave for introducing an action for disavowal led to the practical impossibility of denying paternity and impaired the essence of the applicant’s right to a court (violation of Article 6 § 1).
The European Court also held that a fair balance had not been struck between the general interest of the protection of the legal certainty of family relationships and the applicant’s right to have the legal presumption of his paternity reviewed in light of the biological evidence (violation of Article 8).
Finally, the Court held that, as a result of the rigid application of the time limits coupled with the Constitutional Court’s refusal to allow any exceptions which meant that the applicant was deprived of the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 8, the difference in treatment between the applicant and other interested parties (whose right to challenge the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock were not subject to any time-limit) was not proportionate to the aims sought to be achieved (violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Articles
6 § 1 and 8).
Individual measures
2.Just satisfaction:
The just satisfaction (for non-pecuniary damage and legal costs and expenses) awarded has been paid and evidence previously supplied.
3.Individual measures:
The Civil Code (Chapter 16 of the Laws of Malta) was amended in 2007 (by the addition of Article 70 (4)) to permit persons in the same position as the applicant to issue an action for disavowal (for details on the legislation, see the general measures set out below). As a result, the applicant instituted such an action before the Civil Court. The Maltese authorities are of the opinion that the judgment does not require the adoption of any further individual measures.
General measures
4.General measures:
Article 70(4) of the Civil Code was brought into force in 2007. This provided that any applicant who brought a claim which related to a child born prior to 1993 might benefit from the reforms enacted in 1993 provided that they brought their claim before 31 December 2008. Therefore, people in the same position as the applicant (and the applicant himself) had a period of one year from 2007 (when the amendment came into force) until 31 December 2008 to bring an application repudiating paternity before the Maltese Courts.
Article 73 of the Civil Code was amended by the insertion of two new provisions allowing, upon the authorisation of the Court, the institution of an action for the repudiation of a child even after the time limits established by law. Domestic courts are now permitted, after examination of the circumstances of the case, to authorise a husband to institute an action to disown a child born in wedlock outside the relevant time limits.
The above changes in legislation will avoid any further similar violations in the future.
5.Publication and dissemination:
The judgment was published and disseminated to the Constitutional Court. All judgments of the European Court in which Malta features as a party are automatically sent out to the competent authorities and are publicly available via the website of the Ministry for Home Affairs and National Security which provides a direct link to the European Court’s website.
The judgment received media coverage by local newspapers (article published on the Times of Malta online website of 13 January 2006 entitled “Maltese courts wrong to disallow DNA evidence”).
Judgment features in the publication in the names “Malta at the European Court of Human Rights
1987 – 2012”, Sammut, Cuignet & Borg, 2012.
State of execution of judgment
The Maltese authorities consider that all necessary individual and general measures have been taken to execute the judgment and that the case should be closed.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy