The Constitutional Court presided over by Chief Justice Vincent de Gaetano had a difficult case to judge last week.

Ruth Debono Sultana and Silvio Debono alleged discrimination in the law regulating adoption and claimed their fundamental rights had been infringed.

They got married in 2007 after waiting five years for Mr Debono to obtain an annulment from a previous marriage. They wanted very much to adopt a child but when they went to Agenzija Appogg they were told they could not adopt, as they had not been married for three years. So, they claimed, the law is discriminating between those couples that are married and those that are a de facto couple.

The First Hall ruled that the section of the law that says that a married couple cannot adopt until they have been married for three years is discriminatory and ordered that the wording of the law be changed. The First Hall ordered that a copy of the sentence must be sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

The Director of Standards within the Ministry for Social Policy appealed.

The Constitutional Court said it is very clear that while a married couple cannot adopt until they have been married for three years, men or women who are not married or who form a de facto couple do not have such a time limitation.

There can be no doubt that the aim of the law is the best interests of the adopted child. Nor can there be any doubt that the legislator is not aiming to promote family life.

There can be no doubt, the court added, that the Debono couple are a family in the proper sense of the word and that the law should give them the right and privilege to adopt.

The Constitutional Court agreed with the First Court that there is discrimination against married couples in the law and that this discrimination has no legal right to exist. What the legislator is effectively doing, the court added, is to suggest that a married couple has more chance of splitting up in the first three years of married life than a de facto couple. The differential treatment has no objective and reasonable justification.

The Constitutional Court thus confirmed the first sentence and ordered that a copy of the judgement be sent to Parliament.