Marriage will be annulled despite husband's objection

The Court of Appeal has approved the registration of a final judgment of nullity of marriage delivered by the Ecclesiastical Tribunal despite the husband's opposition.

The judgment was delivered by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano sitting with Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti following an application for registration filed by the wife.

In March 2005, the woman asked the Court of Appeal to order the Director of Public Registry to register the decision delivered by the Metropolitan Tribunal of Malta, as a tribunal of first instance, in April 2004.

This decision was confirmed by the regional tribunal of second instance in December 2004 and the decree confirming that the decisions could be executed was delivered in January 2005.

In terms of these decisions, the Catholic marriage celebrated between the couple in July 1983 was declared null and void.

However, the husband objected to the wife's request for the registration of the judgment of nullity on the basis that the request was not in conformity with law and that the judgment of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal, as confirmed by the said tribunal of second instance, was null and void and contrary to local and European law.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that the husband then proceeded to exhibit 12 documents (totalling 370 pages) before it.

He complained, through his lawyer Emmy Bezzina, that the tribunal's decisions were null and void because he had not been given access to all the documents exhibited before the tribunal, nor had he been given access to legal assistance.

The husband further claimed that he had only had limited legal assistance before the tribunal.

He told the Court of Appeal he had been able to have the assistance of Dr Bezzina before the tribunal.

Although he had given the tribunal a long list of witnesses to be heard, the tribunal had only heard two of them.

Furthermore, the husband submitted that he had only been given access to the tribunal documentation after the Defender of the Bond had filed his report in favour of the nullity of the marriage.

He said the tribunal was arrogant, that the witnesses heard had a conflict of interest and that there was gross negligence in the workings of the tribunal.

The Court of Appeal noted that its function was not that of examining the merits of the case already decided by the tribunal. All that the Court of Appeal could do was examine whether the legal requirements in terms of the marriage Act for the registration of the ecclesiastical decisions were satisfied.

In terms of law the parties to a suit before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal were to be informed of their rights in a manner that was substantially similar to the principles of the Constitution, and that they had to be given a fair hearing in a manner that was substantially similar to that to which they were entitled before the courts.

The law did not demand that the proceedings before the tribunal be identical to those before the courts but that the procedures were sufficient to guarantee a fair hearing and equality of arms between the parties.

The Court of Appeal added that no concrete indications had been given by the husband to show that the proceedings before the Ecclesiastical Tribunal (of first and second instance) were not independent and impartial.

The fact that the majority of the members of such tribunals were priests and Roman Catholics did not render the tribunals partial or non-independent for the purposes of determining the dispute between the parties.

The fact that the lawyers who could practise before the Ecclesiastical Tribunals had to be approved by the local Ordinary did not of itself violate the Marriage Act. No evidence had been forthcoming to show that the number of such lawyers was so small as to render the husband's choice of lawyer ineffective.

It resulted that the husband had been assisted by another lawyer before the tribunal but that at one stage, this lawyer had renounced to the case. The husband then felt he could not trust any of the other lawyers who were approved by the local Ordinary, and had defended himself.

The Court of Appeal noted that it was also possible for a person to defend himself before the courts without the assistance of a lawyer.

The fact that neither the husband nor the wife could be present when witnesses testified before the tribunals was not in violation of the Marriage Act, for the parties could be represented by their lawyers for such sessions.

The Court of Appeal added that it did not result that the husband had been deprived of access to documents by the tribunal.

It found the husband's objections unjustified and ordered the Director of Public Registry to register the judgments of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal.