Men will now be asked to include their marital status in notarial deeds, a requirement which up until now was only imposed on women, Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar announced on Friday.

A legal amendment to the Notarial Profession and Notarial Archives Act will end the exemption which applies only to men.

“Through this amendment, we will be strengthening our commitment towards a truly equal society,” Cutajar said.

Parliamentary Secretary Alex Muscat, whose remit as a member of Cabinet includes the public registry, said that it will be updated to make searches in individuals possible through the use of identity card numbers rather than through the civil status of the person.

He said that the government is looking to address other anomalies when it comes to the matter of identity, such as the allowance of Maltese letters in first names.

Cutajar said that if Parliament approves the amendment then it would be something which not only eliminates discrimination, but increases certainty for both notaries and the public registry.

 

Cutajar also spoke of how in the coming months, she will be presenting the first National Strategy and Action Plan for Gender Equality and Integration, through which the government will address matters related to equality across all sectors of life.

Cutajar said the amendment will bring justice to Marie Therese Xuereb, a citizen who had challenged the law in court and won.

In 2017, then Marie Therese Cuschieri filed a case before the First Hall of Civil Court, in its Constitutional Jurisdiction, against the Attorney General, objecting to a legal requirement in the Notarial Profession and Notarial Archives Act that required her to list the name of her ex-husband when signing a promise of sale agreement despite having been divorced.

She had said that she felt intimidated and disgusted that her divorced marital status, and the name of her ex-husband, needed to feature in a promise of sale for the acquisition of a San Gwann property for her company.

Cuschieri had also claimed that the proviso which made the inclusion of her marital status necessary constituted undue interference in her private life.