On August 7, 2022, the Lod Center District Court, sitting as a court for administrative matters, accepted a petition by two Israeli petitioners, one registered in the Israel Population Register as single and a Jew, and the other as single and having no religious affiliation, to register their marriage officiated via virtual conferencing on October 24, 2020. (AdminC (DC Center-Lod) 12316-03-21 Bril v. Ministry of Interior, PsakDin Database (in Hebrew).)
Marriage and divorce in Israel are generally subject to the application of personal status laws of the parties involved. Jewish law does not recognize intermarriage. Therefore, a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew cannot be officiated in Israel.
Circumstances of the Case
The marriage was officiated under the laws of the state of Utah in the United States by an officiant located in Utah, while the petitioners were in Israel. The petitioners’ marriage license and the apostille verifying the marriage certificate were both issued in Utah.
On December 27, 2020, the ministry informed some couples who were married in Utah via virtual conference, but not the petitioners, that they could register their marriages upon presentation of relevant authentic documents. On December 30, 2020, however, the ministry announced a halt to the registration of such marriages. The ministry had registered a number of couples as married before stopping the registration.
Applicable Law
Section 2(a) of the Population Registry Law, 5725-1965 provides for the registration in the population register of specified details and changes to them relating to residents of Israel, including their personal status as single, married, or divorced. Section 3 of the law recognizes that the registration of some of these details constitutes prima facie evidence of their correctness. The registration of details of nationality, religion, personal status, and spouse’s name, however, do not establish a presumption of their correctness. Section 19C(a) of the law authorizes the registry clerk to register any change in a resident’s registration information on the basis of an applicant’s declaration and a public certificate attesting to the change.
Decision of the Court
The court held, on the basis of prior Supreme Court rulings and Ministry of the Interior procedures, that as a rule, the registration clerk must register any change in personal status upon presentation of a valid official certificate attesting to the change, except if there is a concern that the registration details were false or the certificate was invalid. The validity of a marriage ceremony under the law of a foreign country is determined by the country that issued the certificate, not by the registration clerk.
The court recognized that the determination of the location of a marriage ceremony was a complex question whose answer was not within the discretion of the registration clerk and that determining the location was not necessary for purely registration purposes.
The court rejected the respondents’ suggestion that “the maximum affinities test [should be applied] for the purpose of determining the place of the ceremony, because the petitioners are residents and citizens of Israel, they were in Israel at the time of the ceremony, they gave their consent to the marriage while in Israel, and they also seek to exercise their marriage in Israel.” In today’s world, the court held, spouses of citizens of one country may get married in a ceremony in a second country and implement their marriage in a third country. Considering that in the current case the officiant of the ceremony was in Utah, the marriage license was issued in Utah, and the apostille verifying the marriage certificate was given in Utah, it was not even clear that the maximum affinities of the ceremony in question were specifically related to Israel.
The court further accepted the claim that the petitioners had experienced disparate treatment as compared with other couples whose marriages had been similarly officiated in Utah via virtual conference and registered from December 27, 2020, until the ministry halted the registration. The court added that the petitioners were unable to marry in Israel under Israeli law because they were not members of the same religion. At the time of their marriage, they were not able to leave Israel to celebrate their marriage overseas because of the pandemic. The court concluded that the petitioners had no other option besides marrying via virtual conference.
The court concluded that in the absence of any doubt regarding the place of celebration of the marriage, the clerk was required to register the petitioners’ marriage. Also, the principle of equality required that in the absence of any substantive distinction between the petitioners and others whose Utah marriages were registered at the time, the clerk should have registered the petitioners as married.
Ruth Levush, Law Library of Congress
January 12, 2023
Read more Global Legal Monitor articles.