In what way, if at all, have the recent (2008) amendments to the law on

adoption affected the best interests of the child?

Under the old law, adoption was applied more in favour of the interest of the adopter than
in that of the adoptee. It was only by ordinance XXI of 1962 that the adoptee came to be
the real subject of adoption, in the eyes of the law, clearly shown in Article 1191 of the
Civil Code. The institute of adoption consequently took on a fresh role making it more
practical, more socially acceptable and more in line with modern thought and
circumstances.

The Case of PINI and Others vs. Romania 2 is a recent landmark judgement which has had
significant ramifications for the rights of children. The case concerned two Romanian
girls, Florentina and Marina, who had been adopted at age nine, by two Italian couples.
Despite various attempts by the adoptive parents to have the children sent to Italy, the
institute where the children resided, the Romanian authorities and the two children
opposed the request.

Eventually the two Italian couples instituted proceedings against Romania before the
ECHR alleging, among others, that there had been a breach of Article 8 of the European
Convention on Human Rights. The ECHR however held that Article 8 had to be
interpreted in the light of The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and
Cooperation in respect of Inter-country Adoption (1993), the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (1989) and the European Convention on the Adoption of
children.3

The Court, when formulating its decision, referred to a previous judgement4 which held
that adoption means: “providing a child with a family, not a family with a child” and
ultimately ruled in favour of the children. Malta itself is a signatory to all the previously
aforesaid conventions.

in Martin Vella vs. Malta5. When Vella approached the European Commission, it
concluded that all the decisions taken by the Maltese and European Courts had been
taken in the best interest of the child and therefore Martin Vella “had no right to
withhold consent.”

1
Article 119(1)(b) of the Maltese Civil Code (Chapter 16): The court before making an adoption decree shall be
satisfied - that the decree if made will be for the welfare of the person to be adopted.
2
Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 22.06.2004.
3
Opened for signature in Strasbourg on the 24.04.1967
4
The case of Frettè vs. France delivered on 26.02.2002
5
Delivered by the European Court of Human Rights on 09.04.1992