4 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT 22. The committee’s final recommendation to the Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs was not made available to the applicant. Requests by the applicant’s lawyer for a copy of the acts of those proceedings remained unsatisfied. 23. On 31 July 2007 the Minister ordered that the applicant be deprived of his citizenship with immediate effect, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Act. 24. By a letter dated 2 August 2007 from the Director of the Department of Citizenship and Expatriate Affairs, the applicant was informed that the Minister of Justice and Internal Affairs had concluded that the applicant had obtained citizenship by fraudulent means and that therefore on 31 July 2007, in accordance with Article 14(1) of the Act, the Minister had ordered that he be immediately divested of his citizenship. He was required to return his certificate of registration as a Maltese citizen and his passport. B. Constitutional redress proceedings 25. The applicant instituted constitutional redress proceedings, complaining under Articles 6, 8 and 14 of the Convention. He claimed that he had not had a fair trial and appropriate access to court for the determination on his right to citizenship. Moreover, the revocation of his citizenship had not been in accordance with the law. The prerequisites for such action had not existed as his first marriage had not been one of convenience. 26. By a judgment of 12 July 2011 the Civil Court (First Hall) in its constitutional jurisdiction rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 6, finding that the committee set up for that purpose had not been a tribunal, but solely an investigative body capable of giving recommendations but not making final decisions. The court, however, found that the applicant’s Article 8 rights would be breached if, as a result of his being divested of his citizenship, he became an alien. His de jure family (in respect of the second marriage) would suffer irremediable upset if, as a father (of the two Maltese children of that marriage), he were required to move to another country. Thus, the revocation of citizenship in the present case was in breach of Article 8. Consequently, the court annulled the order of 31 July 2007 and considered that it was not necessary to rule on any further complaints. 27. On appeal, by a judgment of 25 May 2012 the Constitutional Court overturned the first-instance judgment in part. It rejected the Article 6 complaint on the basis that the provision was not applicable in the absence of a civil right. In that connection, it rejected the applicant’s contention that the revocation of citizenship affected his right to a family life and therefore was civil in nature, as citizenship was a matter of public law and fell under the prerogatives of the State. It also reversed the part of the judgment in respect of Article 8, commenting that it had not been established that the