Judge decides to hear case on rights of cohabiting couples

A judge yesterday dismissed two procedural pleas filed in a constitutional case instituted by a woman who claimed that the state was not protecting the rights of unmarried persons who cohabited.

In her constitutional application, the woman asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to rule that her fundamental human rights had been violated.

She filed her case against the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and Home Affairs, the Minister for Social Security and the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Justice.

The woman told the court she had been married but her marriage had been annulled by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal. She had then cohabited with another man who was married but whose marriage had broken down. Their relationship was serious and intimate and had lasted for a number of years. However, eventually the relationship also broke down and the man left home.

The woman continued to live in the home she had shared with her partner. However, the man had filed judicial proceedings against her in 2004 demanding that she moves out of the house they had shared.

She argued that the state did not protect the interests of persons who had cohabited. This failure was in violation of her right to respect for her private and family right.

She also argued that she had been discriminated against, because the law distinguished between married couples and cohabiting couples.

The authorities submitted that the woman lacked the juridical interest to move the constitutional application. They pleaded that the court ought to decline to hear the case on grounds that the woman had other remedies at her disposal.

Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef pointed out that the woman was claiming discrimination between married couples and others like herself who had cohabited outside marriage. This, of itself, was sufficient to prove that the woman had sufficient juridical interest to file the case. The fact that the woman's relationship had terminated did not mean that her juridical interest had terminated also. It was precisely because the relationship had ended that the woman was allegedly sustaining prejudice.

The court then referred to the authorities' second plea, namely that the woman had other remedies at law. In order to refrain from hearing the case as other avenues existed, the court had to have evidence that such other remedy existed.

In this particular case the court ruled that it ought not to stop hearing the case. The case revolved around an allegation that there was a lack of legal recognition of the effects that arose from a relationship based upon cohabitation. Such an alleged violation of human rights ought not to be investigated by any other court but a court of constitutional jurisdiction.

In conclusion, Mr Justice Micallef dismissed the two procedural pleas and ordered the case to continue being heard before him.