Vol. 477 No. 2
72 Mr. E. Byrne asked the Minister for Health if he will have investigations made into the case of a person (details supplied) in County Wexford who as a divorcée has been refused permission to remarry here in the Republic in a registry office; if a decision (details supplied) is a matter of regulation or a matter for an individual's discretion; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8769/97]
Limerick East): The administration of the civil registration system is a matter for An tÁrd Chláraitheoir (Registrar-General) of Births, Deaths and Marriages and for local registrars who act under his general direction. The provisions governing marriage in front of a registrar of marriages are contained in the various Marriage Acts, 1844 to 1995, including the Marriage (Ireland) Act, 1844 and the Registration of Marriages (Ireland) Act, 1863, and also in regulations made in 1892 under those Acts, which are binding on registrars. Paragraph 34 of these regulations provides that where notice is served for the marriage of a divorced person the register should at once refer the case to An tÁrd Chláraitheoir and not proceed further until authorised to do so. The powers for the investigation of the freedom of the parties to marry derives from the provisions of the 1844 Act and the 1863 Act referred to above.
The provisions of section 5 (1) of the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986, apply to the divorce in question, and accordingly the divorce would be recognisable in Irish law if either party to the divorce was domiciled in the jurisdiction in which the divorce was granted on the date of institution of divorce proceedings. The burden of proving that a person has relinquished his-her domicile of origin is an onerous one and where this question has arisen it is necessary to have regard to the circumstances surrounding a foreign divorce to establish whether a lawful impediment exists in relation to a particular proposed marriage. An tÁrd Chláraitheoir has advised that, in the case in question, the evidence furnished to his office did not clearly and unequivocally point to the relinquishment of the domicile of origin and the acquisition of a domicile of choice in the relevant jurisdiction in respect of either party to the divorce. Accordingly, it was advised that the proposed marriage should not take place.
