|
ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΣ ΔΙΚΗΓΟΡΙΚΟΣ ΣΥΛΛΟΓΟΣ
|
|
|
(1986) 3 CLR 2567
1986 January 4
[TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.]
IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146OF THE CONSTITUTION
TAKIS S MYRIANTHIS ALIAS MINIS MIRAL.
Applicant,
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, THROUGH
THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR AND/OR
THE DISTRICT OFFICER OF LIMASSOL,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS.
Respondent's.
(Case No. 65/84).
Name—Births' Register—Correction of—The Births and Death Registration Law 85/73, section 33—A correction can only he made in case of error—"Error" in the sense of section 33.
Constitutional taw—Equality—Constitution, Article 2-8-—There can he no claim to equality in illegality.
Constitutional Law—Right to private life—Constitution. Article 15.1—The Births and Deaths Registration Law-85/73, section 33—Does not offend against such, right.
The District Officer of Limassol turned down applicant's application for the alteration of his name in the Births Register from Takis S. Myrianthis to Minis Miral on the ground that under section. 33 of law 85 73 the Register can only be corrected in case of an: error.
Hence the present recourse.
Held, dismissing the recourse: (1) The said section 33 is drafted in such a manner that leaves no room for doubt that a correction of the Register can only be made in case of an error. Such error should be a clerical error (subsection 2) or an error as regards the facts or substance (subsection 3). In this case there is no "error" in such sense.
(2) Applicants complaint of discriminatory treatment against him has not been substantiated. Even assuming that in a case similar to this one an application for a change of name was approved, this cannot help the applicant as there can be no valid claim to equality in illegality.
(3) As regards applicant's complaint that the sub judice decision violates his right for private life, safeguardedby Article 15.1 of the Constitution, it suffices to point out that this Court cannot amend the clear provisions of s. 33, which, as such, do not violate such a right, in orderto render them applicable in the manner desired by the applicant.
Recourse dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Cases referred to:
Koniotisv.The Republic (1967) 3 C.L.R. 376;
Karayianniv.The Educational Service Committee (1979) 3 C.L.R. 371.
Recourse.
Recourse against the refusal of the respondent District Officer of Limassol to approve applicant's application for the alteration of his name in the Births Register.
E. Efstathiou, for the applicant.
A. Vladimirou, for the respondents.
Cur adv. vult.
TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant complains against the refusal of the respondent District Officer of Limassol to approve his application for the alteration of his name in the Births Register.
The applicant was born on the 27th April 1916 and was registered in the Births Register with the name Takis, his father's name being Spyros D. Myrianthis.
On the 7th December 1983 the applicant filed an affidavit with the District Court of Limassol applying for the alteration of his name in the Births Register from Takis S. Myrianthis to Minis Miral.
On the 13th December 1983 the District Officer of Limassol, as the appropriate authority, informed the applicant that his application could not be approved as under the relevant provisions of section 33 of the Births and Deaths Registration Law, 1973, (Law 85/73), the Births Register could only be corrected in case of an error.
At the material time there had been published, but had not yet come into force, the Births and Deaths Registration Law, 1979 (Law 46/79), section 46 of which makes provision about the possibility of altering a name in the Births Register.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the sub judice decision was reached because of a misconceived strict interpretation of section 33 of Law 85/73.
The said section 33 is drafted in such a manner that it leaves no room for doubt that a correction of the Births Register can only be made in case of error. Such error should be a clerical error ("γραφικόν λάθος") as stated in subsection (2) of section 33, or an error as regards the facts or the substance ("λάθος περί τα γεγονότα ή την ουσίαν)" as stated in subsection (3) of section 33.
As in the present case it cannot be said that there is an "error", in the sense of section 33, above, in the Births Register, the application of the applicant was. in. my view, rightly refused.
Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the sub judice decision is contrary to Article 28 of the Constitution as in other cases similar applications for alteration of names in the Births Register were approved; and, also, that such decision offends against the right to respect or the private life of the applicant.
No specific instance of different treatment of any other person has been referred to by counsel for the applicant in support of the contention that the applicant is the victim of a violation of the right to equality, which is safeguarded by Article 28 of the Constitution. But even assuming that n a case similar to the present one an application for the change of a name was approved without coming within he ambit of section 33 of Law 85/73 this could not be reacted as rendering the complaint by the applicant in this well-founded because there can be no valid claim to quality in illegality (see, inter alia, Koniotisv. The Republic, (1967) 3 C.L.R. 376, 383 and Karayianniv.The educational Service Committee(1979) 3 C.L.R. 371, 378).
Regarding, next, the complaint of the applicant that the sub judice decision violates his right to respect for his private life, which is safeguarded by Article 15(1) of the Constitution it suffices to point out that it is not within the competence of this Court to amend the clear and unambiguous provisions of section 33 of Law 85/73, which as such not violate his said right, in. order to render them applicable in the manner desired by the applicant.
In the light of ail the foregoing the present recourse fails and it is hereby dismissed; but there should be no order as o its costs.
Recourse dismissed.
No order as to costs.