38 RAMADAN v. MALTA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINION his first marriage. Hence, it cannot be argued, as the Government did, that when the applicant got married for the second time, to a foreigner, he was aware that the persistence of his new family in Malta would be precarious from the outset49. 16. When the Government submitted that the applicant’s failure to inform the national authorities showed his bad faith, it could be countered that, as a matter of fact, the revocation of the citizenship so many years after its lawful cause had been established constitutes venire contra factum proprium, taking into account the fact that the national authorities had, in the meantime, repeatedly acted in such a way as to confirm the lawful status of the applicant as a Maltese citizen and businessman. If anyone is to be reproached for bad faith in the present case, it is certainly not the applicant, but rather the national authorities. 17. The Government’s point that such measure was justified by the protection of public order50 does not help much to understand the ministerial decision, since it is not conceivable why the applicant, who did not put public order at risk for eight years, would in 31 July 2007 represent such a risk. It is also worth noting that the 2007 ministerial decision of revocation of citizenship was not based on the applicant’s criminal record. This disregard for his criminal record makes perfect sense, since the act of aggression had occurred in 1994 in the context of an episode of domestic violence, was not followed by any subsequent similar incidents and the applicant was given a mere suspended sentence, which ultimately shows that the competent court did not find the offence serious enough to require imprisonment and, on the contrary, found the offender able to live a crime-free life in Maltese society. I find it very unfortunate, to say the least, that the respondent Government now invoke this argument51 when the competent Minister himself did not find it necessary or even appropriate to do so in 2007. In fact, as it will be demonstrated, his order was totally silent on any public order consideration. The revocation of the applicant’s citizenship in 2007 and its consequences 18. The revocation of the applicant’s citizenship was ordered in the following terms: 49. I cannot therefore share the majority’s reproach of a “pattern of inaction on the part of the applicant” (paragraph 93 of the judgment). If there has been any inaction, it is certainly on the part of the domestic authorities. The Government cannot blame their own tardiness on the applicant. 50. See paragraph 78 of the judgment. 51. Ibid.