An appeals court has vindicated a man’s six-year battle to have his Croatian surname spelt correctly in the public registry after being told that the registry’s software did not recognise characters from foreign languages.

In 2017, Michael Debono married his wife Viktoria in Croatia, after which he adopted the last name Debono Mrđen, incorporating his wife’s surname with his own.

However, upon returning to Malta and attempting to register the marriage, he was told by the public registry that it did not have the capability to register his last name with the inclusion of the dyet (đ).

While the registry was able to recognise the marriage, due to the software’s inability to process the character it instead listed his name as Debono Mrden. Debono Mrđen in turn launched a legal challenge, determined to have his name registered correctly.

Earlier this year, he won a partial victory when the First Hall, Civil Court declared the correct surname to be Debono Mrđen, however, acknowledging that the public registry did not currently recognise the dyet, ordered that it be written as Debono Mrdjen as this would be phonetically identical.

In the event that it becomes possible for the public registry system to allow foreign characters, the public registry should officially change his surname to “Debono Mrđen”, the court ruled.

Both parties ultimately appealed the ruling.

The appeals court, presided over by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, Judge Christian Falzon Scerri and Judge Josette Demicoli ordered the Director of the Public Registry to carry out the changes necessary within the system in order to correctly register the surname as Debono Mrđen. The court said this should be carried out within six months or else the registry would be fined €20 per day for every day over the stipulated time limit that it fails to make the necessary corrections.

The appeals court said that it could not agree with the first court’s assertion that it would be in the public’s best interest if the public registry’s computer system remains in its current state, arguing it would be of greater public interest if this were to be modernised to meet the necessities of the day. This would also serve to ensure that no issues are created for citizens if there are differences between the acts registered overseas and those registered in Malta.

“In this case, if the appellant’s surname is Debono Mrđen, then it is just that his surname is registered in Malta as it is,” the judgment says.

“This court does not see how this will create a rebus if the surname is registered as written. It is more likely to create a rebus if the surname is registered differently because the difference in the surname indicated in the acts of a foreign state and those of the Maltese state could lead to conflict in determining the identity of the person.”