3 C.L.R. 1986 January 4 [TRIANTAFYLLIDES, P.] IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 146 OF THE CONSTITUTION TAKIS S MYR1ANTHIS ALrAS 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\ ICase No. 65/S41 Name—Births' Registei—Correction of—The Births and Dealt* Rt'i;;\!rciion Lew 85/73, section 33—A correciion .i<n only he made in case of error—"Error" in the sense of section 33. Constitutional Law—Equality—Constitution, ca}·,he no claim to equality in illegality. Article 28—Then- Constitutional Law—Right to private life—Constitution Article 15.1—The Births and Dea'hs Registration Law 85/73, section 33—Does not offend against such right The District Officer of Limassol lurned. down applicant application for the altera'ion of his name in the Birth1» Register from Takis S. Myrianthis to Minis Mini!, on tht> ground that under section 33 of law 8573 the Reiii'-ii'i can only be corrected in case of an error*. Hence the present recourse. * It must be noted tnat at the .nateridl time tiie 3inns u nd UeoiN·, Registration Law 46/79 had not yet come into force 2567 Myrianthis v. Republic
(1986)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 5 (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 10 change of name was approved, this cannot help the appl;cant 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, safeguarded by 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 order to render them applicable in the manner desired by the applicant. Recoursedismissed. No order as to costs. Cases referred to: Koniotis v. The Republic
(1967)3 C.L.R. 376; Karayianniv. The Educational Service Committee
(1979)25 3 C.L.R.
- Recourse. Recourse against the refusal of the respondent District Officer of Limassol to approve applicant's application for •he alteration of his name in the Births Register. 30 E. Efstathiou, for the applicant. A. Vladimirou, for the respondents. Cur adv. vulr. TRIANTAFYLLIDES P. read the following judgment. By means of the present recourse the applicant complains 35 2568 15 20 3 C.L.R. Myrianthis v. Republic Triantafyllides P. against the refusal of the respondent District Officer of Limassol to approve his application for the alteration of his name in the Births Register. 5 Ό 15 20 The applicant was born on the 27th April 1916 and was registered in the Births Reg:ster with the name Takis, his father's name being Spyros D. Myrianthis. On the 7th December 1983 the applicant filed an affi davit 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 appli cant that his application could not be approved as under the relevant provisions of section 33 of the Births and Deaths Registration Law,
- (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/
- 25 30 35 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 AaOoc") as stated in subsection
(2)of section 33, or an error as regards the facts or the substance ("AaOoc περί τά 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 2569 rriantafyllides P. Myrianthis v. Republic
(1986)Constitution as in other cases similar applications for alteation of names in the Births Register were approved; and, ilso. 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 5 jerson has been referred to by counsel for the applicant in upport of the contention that the applicant is the victim >f a violation of the right to equality, which is safeguarded ly Article 28 of the Constitution. But even assuming that η a case similar to the present one an application for the 10 ;hange of a name was approved without coming within he ambit of section 33 of Law 85/73 this could not be reated as rendering the complaint by the applicant in this :ase well-founded because there can be no valid claim to quality in illegality (see, inter alia, Koniotis v. The Repu- 15 die,
(1967)3 C.L.R. 376, 383 and Karayianni v. The Educational Service Committee,
(1979)3 C.L.R. 371, 378). Regard : ng, next, the complaint of the applicant that the tib" judice decision violates his right to respect for his pri vate life, which is safeguarded by Article 15
(1)of the Con- 20 titution. it suffices to point out that it is not within the .Ompetence of this Court to amend the clear and unambi guous provisions of section 33 of Law 85/73, which as such lo not violate his said right, in order to render them ap)licable in the manner desired by the applicant. 25 In the light of all the foregoing the present recourse fails md it is hereby dismissed; but there should be no order as ο its costs. Resourse dismissed. No order as to costs. 2570 30