AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 9584/81
by J.G.
against Ireland
The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 8 May 1987, the following members being present:
MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President
G. SPERDUTI
F. ERMACORA
G. JÖRUNDSSON
G. TENEKIDES
S. TRECHSEL
B. KIERNAN
A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J. C. SOYER
H. G. SCHERMERS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs. G. H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. F. MARTINEZ
Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 30 October 1981
by J.G. against Ireland and registered on 19 November 1981
under file N° 9584/81;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr J.G., is a citizen of Ireland,
at present residing in Julianstown, Co. Meath. He is, at present,
unemployed but formerly worked as a sales manager. He is represented
in the proceedings before the Commission by Mr Alan Shatter,
Solicitor, Mary Robinson S.C., and Inge Clissman, barrister.
In 1962 the applicant married Anne Marie Briscoe in a Roman
Catholic church in Drogheda, Ireland. There were six children born of
the marriage. Since 9 December 1977 the applicant and his wife have
lived apart after the applicant's wife deserted him. The applicant
claims that his wife's conduct caused the marriage relationship
between them to break down irretrievably. When Mrs Gill left the
matrimonial home in December 1977, she took with her the two youngest
children whom she kept until March 1978 when she returned them to the
care of their father. All six children have since remained in the
care and custody of the applicant. Since the above date it is claimed
that Mrs Gill has not assumed any maternal responsibility for the
children and has seen them only on visits.
In April 1969 the applicant states that he left the Roman
Catholic church and became a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of
the Latter Day Saints. He attends services of this church and he has
instructed young members of the church at Sunday School. The teaching
of this church is not opposed to divorce in all circumstances, and the
applicant believes that he would be entitled in good conscience and in
conformity with his religious beliefs to apply for and obtain the
remedy of divorce if such legal remedy were available in Ireland.
The applicant has sought legal advice concerning his family
situation and was informed that the only circumstances in which he
could obtain a divorce which would be recognised by the Irish courts
would be if he established a domicile in a foreign jurisdiction and
obtained a divorce from the courts of that jurisdiction. He states
that he is not in a financial position to do this and is not prepared
to uproot his children from their home environment and schooling in
order to seek a divorce in a foreign jurisdiction.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 12 of the
Convention that he is unable to seek a divorce and to re-marry under
Irish law.
He further complained that the prohibition of divorce
constitutes a breach of Article 9 since the church to which he belongs
does not oppose divorce.
He also complained, under Article 14 of the Convention, that
he is discriminated against on grounds of property in that he cannot
afford to travel abroad and establish a domicile with a view to
seeking a divorce in a foreign jurisdiction.
Finally he complained that he has no effective remedy in
respect of his complaints in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 30 October 1981 and
registered on 19 November 1981. It was first considered by the
Commission on 3 March 1982 when it was decided to bring the
application to the notice of the respondent Government without asking
for observations on the applicant's complaints and to adjourn the
application pending the decision of the European Court of Human Rights
in the Johnston case which raised identical issues.
The European Court of Human Rights gave judgment in the
Johnston case on 18 December 1986 (Series A no. 112) and found that
the right to divorce cannot be derived from either Article 8 or
Article 12 of the Convention and rejected similar complaints to those
made by the applicant under under Articles 9, 13 and 14 of the
Convention.
In the light of this decision, the applicant's legal
representatives indicated, in a letter dated 5 March 1987, that the
applicant no longer sought to pursue his application before the
Commission.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission notes that the applicant complained of the
absolute prohibition on divorce in Ireland with the result that he is
unable to re-marry. He invoked Articles 8 (Art. 8), 9 (Art. 9),
12 (Art. 12), 13 (Art. 13) and 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention. The
Commission also notes that the applicant now seeks to withdraw his
application in the light of the decision of the European Court of
Human Rights in the Johnston case (judgment of 18 December 1986). The
Commission finds that the applicant no longer seeks to pursue his
application before the Commission and that there are no reasons
relating to the general interest to continue an examination of the
application.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H. C. KRUGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)