Who truly decides who can become a Maltese citizen? Is it a legal right, or purely a matter of state discretion? This question took centre stage in a recent court case that tested the limits of Malta’s power to grant or refuse citizenship.

In a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja on 30th of September 2025, the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, in the case Av Dr Cedric Mifsud noe vs the Minister of Justice et, examined whether denying an application for Maltese citizenship, without giving any reason or right of appeal, could breach a person’s fundamental right to private and family life.

The case sheds light on how far Malta’s sovereignty extends when it comes to deciding who gets to call the island home.

Facts of the case

Yuri Sergeevich Danilov, a Russian national, applied for Maltese citizenship under Legal Notice 47 of 2014, the Individual Investor Programme of the Republic of Malta Regulations.

In his application, he listed his wife and daughter as dependents. After submitting all the required documents and payments to then-Identity Malta, Danilov was informed on 27th of August 2015 that his application had been refused, without any explanation or reasons provided.

He challenged the decision through an application for judicial review, but the refusal was upheld on appeal.

Through his representative in Malta, Mr Danilov instituted constitutional proceedings, arguing that Article 19 of the Maltese Citizenship Act (Chapter 188) — which prevents any appeal or court review of such decisions — violated his right to respect for private and family life as protected by both the Maltese Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights (‘ECHR’).

Preliminary pleas

The court first noted that, since the proceedings concerned the constitutional validity of a law, the Ministry for Justice and Identity Malta were not the proper respondents. In such cases, only the State Advocate can represent the State.

 It also clarified that the applicant’s earlier judicial review proceedings, filed under Article 469A of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta, did not prevent him from bringing a separate constitutional claim. This was because judicial review and constitutional proceedings serve fundamentally different purposes — the former challenges administrative decisions, while the latter addresses alleged breaches of human rights.

The court emphasised that remedies for human rights violations can only be granted through constitutional proceedings.

Although the right to respect for private and family life is protected by Article 32 of the Constitution, the court noted that article is not one that allows an individual to claim a human rights breach under Article 46 since it is not an enforceable provision. However, the court observed that Danilov had also invoked Article 8 of the ECHR, which protects the same right. On that basis, his claim was deemed valid, but only under the ECHR and not the Constitution.

While acknowledging that citizenship is not a civil right but rather a prerogative of the State, the court nonetheless held that Article 8 of the ECHR is not automatically excluded in cases concerning the refusal of citizenship. In certain circumstances, if such a refusal is arbitrary, it may amount to a violation of the right to private and family life.

The court further clarified that any declaration of inconsistency or nullity in such matters would only apply inter partes — that is, between the parties directly involved in the case. It could not lead to the law being struck off the statute books as null for everyone.

The court’s decision

The court drew heavily on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), noting that in certain situations, an arbitrary denial of citizenship could amount to interference with a person’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. Courts must therefore assess, first, whether a refusal of citizenship was arbitrary, and then examine its potential impact on the applicant’s private life.

In Danilov’s case, however, the court observed that his claim focused solely on Article 19 of the Maltese Citizenship Act (Chapter 188) — the provision that grants the ministry absolute discretion to refuse an application without giving reasons and without allowing for appeal or judicial review. Danilov argued that this lack of transparency breached his right to respect for private and family life.

The court reaffirmed that the granting or denial of citizenship is an expression of ius imperii — a sovereign act that reflects the State’s supreme authority over its own territory and people. Referring to the landmark Nottebohm judgment delivered by the International Court of Justice in 1955, the court recalled that international law recognises a state’s exclusive right to determine its citizenship rules, with recognition by other states depending on proof of a genuine link between the person and the country concerned.

Exceptions to this rule, the court explained, are limited to cases such as statelessness or discrimination, neither of which applied to Danilov’s situation. Sovereignty in matters of citizenship, the court emphasised, remains a deeply entrenched principle of international law.

The judgment also cited Commission vs Malta (C-181/23), decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) on 29 April 2025, which reaffirmed that citizenship continues to fall within the exclusive competence of each Member State. While the EU may establish safeguards to preserve the integrity of EU citizenship, the power to grant or withhold national citizenship ultimately lies with the State itself.

On the issue of non-disclosure, the court held that the Ministry’s refusal to provide reasons for rejecting Danilov’s application could be justified by ‘ragion di stato’ — reasons of state, or considerations that are better left undisclosed in the public interest.

Although Danilov referred to the UK case of Al Fayed, where the UK Court of Appeal upheld the importance of procedural fairness in citizenship decisions, the Maltese court noted that he had not demonstrated how the absence of reasons in his case interfered with his private or family life.

The court acknowledged that while a desire for transparency and procedural fairness may be valid from an administrative law perspective, it can legitimately be limited in matters concerning citizenship. In certain situations, withholding such information may be necessary under Article 8(2) of the ECHR — for example, to protect national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, or to prevent disorder or crime.

Ultimately, the court concluded that Article 19 of the Maltese Citizenship Act concerns the sovereign right of the State to decide who it admits as a citizen, and therefore falls outside the scope of the ECHR. The court found the provision to be a proportionate measure aligned with the legitimate objectives of national and public security as recognised under Article 8(2).

Accordingly, the court dismissed Danilov’s claims, confirming that Article 19 of Chapter 188 does not breach the right to private and family life. The judgment may be appealed.

Arthur Azzopardi is managing partner, and Alizée Micallef, paralegal at AB&A Advocates.