Court of Appeal refuses to authorise registration of marriage annulment

The Court of Appeal has refused to authorise the registration of a judgment of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal which had found that a marriage celebrated between a couple was null and void.

The court, presided by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti, delivered its judgment following an application filed by the husband for registration in the Public Registry of his Church annulment.

The Ecclesiastical Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Malta had declared null and void a Catholic marriage celebrated in Malta in 2002 between the couple on the basis that the wife, at the time of the celebration of the marriage, was married to another man.

Neither the Public Registry nor the curators appointed to represent the interests of the wife, who does not reside in Malta, raised any objection to the registration of the Church decree in the Public Registry.

However, the Court of Appeal pointed out in its judgment that before authorising the registration of a decree of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal the Court had to be satisfied that all the requirements listed in the Marriage Act were followed. In this case, the Court of Appeal pointed out that in the course of the proceedings before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, the parties had to be assured a right of action and of defence in a manner that was similar to the principles of the Constitution. These principles, said the Court, included the right to a fair hearing.

When a person was absent from the country, he or she had to be represented in civil proceedings. This was the minimum requirement for an absentee to be awarded a fair hearing.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that the wife had not been present during the course of the annulment proceedings and her whereabouts could not be traced.

However, it did not result that the Ecclesiastical Tribunal took any steps to ensure that her interests were safeguarded.

All that was stated in the judgment of the Tribunal was that it was not possible to contact the wife as her whereabouts were unknown.

After examining the evidence of the husband and of two relatives of the wife the Tribunal proceeded to conclude the case.

Canon Law, said the Court of Appeal, did not require that a curator be appointed to represent the interests of an absentee. As a result, the proceedings in this case could have been perfectly legitimate and in accordance with Canon Law, but the Court has still to be satisfied that the principles established in the Marriage Act were observed.

In conclusion the Court of Appeal declared that it was not deciding whether the decision of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal was valid or otherwise. The Court was however not satisfied that the proceedings before the Metropolitan Tribunal had safeguarded the wife's right to a fair hearing as she had not been represented.

The Court of Appeal therefore declined to authorise the registration of the ecclesiastical annulment in the Public Registry.