BAILII
British and Irish Legal Information Institute


Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

European Court of Human Rights

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> W v Ireland Application - 9360/81 [1983] ECHR 17 (28 February 1983)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1983/17.html
Cite as: 32 DR 190, [1983] ECHR 17
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
APPLICATION/REQUETE N9 9360/8!
Mrs. W. v/IRELAND Mine. W. c/IRLANDE
DECISION of 28 February 1983 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 28 fevrier 1983 sur la recevabilite de la requete
Article 1 of the Convention : The High Contracting Parties are bound to guarantee the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention in connection with all acts or omissions of their agents, even where such public authority is exercised abroad.
The words "within their jurisdiction" apply to the direct victim of the alleged breach.
Article 2 of the Convention : The kitting of a man does not create for his widow a continuing situation of which she would be the indirect victim with regard to Article 2.
Article 25 of the Convention : Wife of a murdered person considered to be an indirect victim of an alleged breach of Article 2 of the Convention. The same solution applies to the unmarried brother of the applicant.
Article 26 of the Convention : In the absence of local remedies the six months' period runs from the date of the act or decision complained of in the application.
Commission1! Competnce ratlone personae : The fact that an individual is killed by terrorists does not exclude the Commission's competence since the High Contracting Parties have a duty to protect the right to life.
The Commissions competence is determined with regard to the situation of the direct victim and not that of the indirect victim.
Article 1 de la Convention : Les tiauies Parties Contractantes sont lenues de garantir les droits el liberies inoncis dans la Convention pour tous Us acles ou omissions de leurs agents, y compris lorsqu'ils exercent I'autorite publique hors du territoire national.
- 211 -
Les mots 'relevant de leur juridiciion» s'appliquent a la victime directe de la violation alleguee.
Article 2 de la Convention : L'assassinat d'un homme ne fait pas naitre pour sa veuve une situation continue do/it elle serait victime indirecte au regard de {'article 2.
Article 25 de la Convention : Epouse d'une personne assassinee consideree conime victime indirecte d'une violation alleguee de iurticle 2 de la Conven­tion.
Meme solution s'agissant de I'assassinat du frere celibataire de la reque-mule.
Article 26 de la Convention : En /'absence de voie de recours interne le delai de six nwis court a partir de I'acte incrimine dans la requite.
Competence ratlone personae de la Commission : Qu'une personne soil tuee par des terroristes ne permet pas d 'exclure la competence de la Commission. en raison du devoir des Hautes Parties Coutractantes de proteger le droit a la vie.
La competence de la Commission se determine en fonction de la situation de la victime directe. non de celle de la victime indirecte.
THE FACTS                                                                    ifrancais: voir p. 216)
See decision on the Admissibility of Application N° 9348/81, page 191 above.
THE LAW
1.       The applicant complains of the murder of her husband in the Republic of Ireland on 28 June 1980 and of her brother in Northern Ireland on 16 April 1081.
2.       In its examination of the complaint concerning the murder of the applicant's husband in the Republic of Ireland the Commission has con­sidered :
—  whether the applicant can claim to be a "victim" within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention ;
—  whether the complaint is inadmissible ratione personae on the ground that it concerns acts of private persons ;
—  whether the Commission is competent ratione loci- in relation to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland ; and
-212-
— whether the complaint is inadmissible, under Article 26 of the Convention, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or non-observance of the six months' rule.
3.       The Commission holds that the applicant, as the wife who was affected by the death of her husband, may claim to be a "victim", in the sense of Article 25. The Commission here refers to its decision on the admissibility of Application No. 2578/66 (Collection of the Decisions, 30, 11/ Yearbook on the European Convention on Human Rights 12, 175) as confirmed in Application No. 8416/79 (Decisions and Reports 19, 244, 248).
4.       The Commission also finds that the applicant's complaint, concerning the killing of her husband by terrorists in the Republic of Ireland, raises the question of the responsibility of the respondent State for the protection of the right to life within its jurisdiction, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint cannot be declared inadmissible, under Article 27, paragraph 2, as being incompatible with the Convention ratio/ie personae, on the ground that it is directed against acts of private persons.
5.       The Commission further considers that, in determining its competence ratione loci in relation to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, regard must be had to the possition, at the relevant time, of the direct victim (i.e. the applicant's husband) and not of the indirect victim (the applicant herself) of the alleged violation of the Convention. The Commission holds that, at the time of his death at G. Sales Yard, the applicant's husband was "within the jurisdiction" of the Republic of Ireland, in the sense of Article 1 of the Con­vention. It follows that the applicant's complaint concerning the death of her husband is compatible ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention although she herself was not in the Republic of Ireland at the material time.
6.       The Commission finally observes that, under Article 26 of the Conv­ention, it may only deal with a matter "after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken". The Commission notes the applicant's submission that the murder of her husband in the Republic of Ireland was made possible by Ireland's failure to prevent terrorism and that, in respect of this failure, the exhaustion rule did not apply and that, moreover, there was no domestic remedy available to her in the courts of the Republic of Ireland.
7.       The Commission does not find, on the basis of this submission, that there was a domestic remedy which the applicant was required to exhaust, but it considers that the application has been lodged out of time.
8.       The Commission notes the applicant's submission that the six months' rule is inapplicable because her case is based upon continuing violations by
- 213 -
the Republic of Ireland. It is true that, according to the Commission's case-law, where there is "a permanent state of affairs which is still con­tinuing", the question of the six months' rule "could only arise after the state of affairs has ceased to exist" (De Becker case. Yearbook 2, 214, 244 ; First Greek case, second decision on admissibility. Collection 26, 80, 100/Year-book II. 730, 778). The Commission does not find, however, that, as regards the death of her husband in the Republic of Ireland, the applicant, residing in Northern Ireland, can rely on the notion of a continuing situation in respect of her own position. It follows that the six months' rule is fully applicable to this complaint.
9.         The Commission has previously held that, "where no domestic remedy is available, the act or decision complained of must itself normally be taken as the 'final decision' for the purposes of Article 26 (Application N° 7379/76, X v. the United Kingdom, Decisions and Reports 8, 211, 212-213). It follows in the present case that, as no question of domestic remedies arose, the six months' limitation period ran from 28 June 1980, the date of the death of the applicant's husband. The application was introduced more than six months later, on 24 April 1981.
10.     The complaint concerning the applicant's husband must therefore be rejected under Articles 26 and 27, paragraph 3, of the Convention for non-observance of the six months' rule.
11.     The Commission has next examined the applicant complaint concerning the murder of her brother, and her own security, in Northern Ireland.
12.     Noting that her brother was single the Commission finds that the appli­cant, as next-of-kin affected by his death, may claim to be a "victim", in the sense of Article 25, of her brother's murder. It also considers that she may claim to be a victim of a continuing situation in respect of her own security.
13.     The Commission observes that this "complaint, directed against the Republic of Ireland, concerns an alleged violation of the Convention in Northern Ireland. In its examination of this complaint the Commission has had regard to the applicant's extensive submissions under Article I of the Convention.
14.     The Commission recalls that, in this provision, the High Contracting Parties undertake to secure the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 to everyone "within their jurisdiction" (in the French text : "relevant de leur. juridiction"). This term is not equivalent to or limited to the national territory of the High Contracting Party concerned. It emerges from the language, in particular of the French text, and the object of this article, and from the purpose of the Convention as a whole, that the High Contracting Parties are bound to secure the said rights and freedoms to all persons under their actual authority and responsibility, not only when the authority is exercised within
— 214 -
their own territory but also when it is exercises abroad. The Commission refers in this respect ot its decision in Application Nos 6780/74 and 6950/75 -Cyprus v. Turkey (Decisions and Reports 2. 125, 136). 6231/73 - Use Hess v. the United Kingdom (Decisions and Reports 2, 72, 73), and Nos. 7229/75 and 7349/76 - X and Y v. Switzerland (Decisions and Reports 9, 57-76). As stated by the Commission in Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75, the authorised agents of the Slate, including diplomatic or consular agents and armed forces, not only remain under its jurisdiction when abroad but bring any other persons or property "within the jurisdiction" of that State, to the extent that they exercise authority over such persons or property. Insofar as, by their acts or omissions, they affect such persons or property, the responsibility of the State is engaged (loc. cit. p. 136).
15.       In the light of its above case-law, and of its findings concerning its competence ratione loci in regard to the applicant's first complaint, the Com­mission has examined whether it is competent ratione loci, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, to deal with the applicant's second complaint concerning the murder of her brother, and her own security, in Northern Ireland. This condition would be fulfilled if, at the time of his death at M., the applicant's brother, being the direct victim of the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, had been "within (the) jurisdiction" of the Republic of Ireland, in the sense of Article 1, and if the applicant, resident in Northern Ireland, could also be said to be within that jurisdiction. The Com­mission cannot find that this was, or is, the case.
16.     As regards, firstly, the question whether Northern Ireland, or parts thereof, can be considered as national territory of the Republic of Ireland, for the purposes of Article 1, the applicant herself states that the constitutional claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, contained in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland, is not accepted by the international community as constituting a basis for jurisdiction over Northern Ireland.
17.     Secondly, in the Commission's view it cannot be sait that, at the time of his death in Northern Ireland on 16 April 1981, "authorises agents" of the Republic of Ireland "exercises authority" over her brother, in the sense of the Commission's decision in Applications Nos. 6780/74 and 6950/75. The appli­cant has failed to show that any specific acts or omissions, by Irish authorities at that time, have contributed to the murder of her brother. In this respect the Commission has taken into account the applicant's statement that the person charged with this murder was resident in B., Northern Ireland.
18.     Having regard to the applicant's general submissions concerning Ireland's alleged failure to contribute to the prevention of terrorism in Northern Ireland the Commission also does not find that, as regards her own security in Northern Ireland, the applicant has shown that, in the concrete
-215 -
circumstances of her case, her right to life is affected by any specific act or omission of the respondent State.
10. It follows that the applicant's complaint, against the Republic of Ireland, concerning the murder of her brother by terrorists, and her own situation, in Northern Ireland is ratione loci incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2.
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
EN FAIT
Voir la decision sur la recevabilite de la requite n° 9348/81, page 201 ci-avant.
(TRADUCTION)
EN DROIT
1.       La requerante se plaint de l'assassinat de son man, perpetre le 28 juin 1980 en Republique d'Irlande et de celui de son frere, perpetre en Irlande du Nord le 16 avril 1981.
2.       Dans son examen des griefs relatifs au meurtre du man de la requerante en Republique d'Irlande, la Commission a examine :
—  si la requerante peut se pretendre « victime» au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention ;
—  si le grief est irrecevable ratione personae parce que concernant des actes commis par des particuliers ;
—  si la Commission est comp£tente ratione loci en ce qui concerne la juridiction de la Republique d'Irlande ; et
—  si le grief est irreceyable au regard de l'article 26 de la Convention pour dlfaut d'epuisement des voies de recours internes ou non respect du delai de six mois.
3.       La Commission estime que la requerante peut, en tant qu'epouse affectee par le decis de son mari, se pretendre «victime • au sens de I'article 25. Elle renvoie ici a sa decision sur la recevabilite de la requete n° 2758/66 (Recueil 30, p. 11 et Annuaire 12, p. 175), confirmee dans la decision n° 8416/79 (D.R. 19, pp. 244, 248).
— 216 —
4.       La Commission estime egalement que le grief de la requ6rante, qui concerne l'assassinat de son man par des terroristes en Republique d'lrlande, pose la question de la responsabiliti de l'Etat dans la protection du droit k la vie dans sa juridtction, aux tcrmes des articles 1 et 2 de la Convention. II s'ensuit que ce grief ne saurait etre declare irrecevable au sens de Varticle 27, paragraphs 2 pour incompatibility ratione personae avec la Convention, au motif qu'U conceme des actes commis par des particuliers.
5.       La Commission estime en outre qu'en determinant sa competence ratione loci par rapport a la juridiction de la Republique d'lrlande, elle doit tenir compte de la situation dans laquelle, a l'epoque des faits, se trouvait la vic-time directe (c'est-a-dire le man de la requ£rante) et non pas la victime indi-recte (la requerantc elle-memc) de la violation alleguee de la Convention. Elle estime qu'au moment de son deces sur le foirail de G., le mari de la reque­rante ■ relevait de la juridiction» de la Republique d'lrlande, au sens de l'ar-ticle 1" de la Convention. II s'ensuit que le grief de la requerante concernant le meurtre de son mari est compatible ratione loci avec les dispositions de la Convention, bien que l'interesse ne se trouvat point elle-meme sur le territoire de la Republique d'lrlande a l'epoque des faits.
6.       La Commission rappelle enfin qu'aux tcrmes de I'article 26 de la Convention, elle ne peut etre saisie «qu'apres epuisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international genera-ment reconnus et dans le delai de six mois, a partir de la date de la decision interne definitive. > Elle a pris note de 1'argument de la requerante selon lequel l'assassinat de son mari en Republique d'lrlande a ete rendu possible par l'incapacite de l'lrlande a prevenir le terrorisme et qu'au regard de cette inca­pacity, la regie de l'epuisement n'est pas applicable ; qu'en outre, aucune voie de recours interne n'etait ouverte a la requerante devant les tribunaux de la Republique d'lrlande.
7.       Tenant compte de cette argumentation, la Commission n'estime pas qu'il existait une voie de recours interne que la requerante etait tenue d'epuiser, mais elle estime que la requete est tardive.
8.       La Commission a note l'argument de la requerante selon laquelle la regie des six mois lui serait inapplicable parce que sa requite se fonde sur des violations continues de la Convention par la Republique d'lrlande. 11 est exact que, selon la jurisprudence de la Commission, lorsqu'il existe «une situation continue qui se prolonge>, le probleme du delai de six mois me peut surgir qu'apres disparition de cette situation" (affaire De Becker, Annuaire 2, pp. 214, 244 ; premiere Affaire grecque, deuxi£me decision sur la recevabilite, Rec. 26, pp. 80, 110 ; Annuaire 11, pp. 730, 778).
La Commission n'estime pas cependant qu'en ce qui conceme le dices de son mari en Republique d'lrlande, la requerante, qui habite en Irlande du Nord, puisse invoquer la notion de situation continue a propos de son cas. 11 s'ensuit que la regie des six mois est pleinement applicable a ce grief.
— 217 —
9.       La Commission a precedemment declare que ■lorsqu'il n'existe pas de voie de recours interne, l'acte ou la decision incrimines doivent eux-memes etre considers comrae la decision interne definitive visee a l'article 26» (Requete n° 7378/76, X c/Royaume-Uni, D.R. 8, pp. 211. 212-213). II s'ensuit qu'en I'espece, faute de recours interne, le delai de six mois a commence a courir le 28 juin 1980, date du deces du.mari de la requerante.
Or la requete a ete introduite plus de six mois plus tard, soit le 24 avril 1981.
10.     Le grief relatif au man de la requerante doit done etre rejet£ conforme-ment aux articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention pour inobservation du delai de six mois.
11.     La Commission a examine ensuite le grief formule par la requerante a propos de l'assassinat de son frere, et de sa propre securite, en Irlande du Nord.
12.     Le frere de la requerante etant celibataire, la Commission estime que la requerante, en tant que plus proche pa rente affectee par sa mort, peut se pietendre «vie time», au sens de 1'article 25, de l'assassinat.de son frere. Elle estime aussi que l'interesste peut se pretendre victime d'une situation continue en ce qui concerne sa propre securite.
13.     La Commission fait observer que ce grief, dirige centre la Republique d'Irlande, concerne une violation alleguee de la Convention en Irlande du Nord. Dans l'examen de ce grief, la Commission a pris en consideration 1 'argumentation tres detaillee fournie par la requerante sur l'article 1" de la Convention.
14.     La Commission rappelle que, dans cette disposition les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent a reconnaitre a toule personne .relevant de leur juri-diction> (dans le texte anglais : •within their jurisdiction') les droits et liberies definis au titre I de la Convention. Ce terme n'est pas equivalent ou limits au seul territoire national de la Haute Partie Contractante en cause. II ressort du libelle, notamment de la version francaise, et de l'objet dudit article, ainsi que du but de la Convention toute entire, que les Parties Contractantes sont tenues d'assurer ces droits et liberies a toute personne relevant effectivement de leur autorite et de leur responsabilite, que cette autorite s'exerce sur leur territoire ou a l'£tranger. La Commission rappelle a ce sujet ses decisions sur les requites n° 6780/74 et 6950/75 (Chypre c/ Turquie, D.R. 2, pp. 125, 136), n° 6231/73 (Use Hess c/Royaume-Uni, D.R. 2, pp. 72, 73) et n° 7229/75 et 7349/76 (X. et Y. c/Suisse, D.R. 9, pp. 57-76). Com me l'a precise la Commission dans ses decisions sur les requeues n° 6780/74 et 6950/75, les representants d'un Etat, y compris les agents diplomatiques ou consulages et les forces armees, non seulement demeurent sous sa juridiction quand Us sont i l'etranger, mais font que < relevent de la juridiction» de cet Etat toute personne ct tout bien dans la mesure ou ses representants exercent leur autorite sur ces personnes ou ces biens. La responsabilite de l'Etat est
-218-
engag£e dans la mesure ou, par leurs actes ou omissions, ils portent atteinte a ces biens ou a ces personnes (loc. cit. p. 136).
15.     A la lumiere de sa jurisprudence precitee et de ses conclusions sur sa competence ratione loci en ce qui conceme le premier grief de la requerante, la Commission a examine ensuite si elle est competente ratione loci en ce qui concerne la juridiction de la Republique d'Irlande pour examiner le second grief de la requerante concemant l'assassinat de son frtre, et sa sicurite personnelle, en Irlande du Nord. Cette condition serait remplie si, a l'epoque de son deeds a M., le frtre de la requerante, victime directe de la violation alleguee de l'article 2 de la Convention, «relevait de la juridiction > de la Republique d'Irlande au sens de l'article 1, et si la requerante, residant en Irlande du Nord, pouvait egalement etre consideree com me relevant de cette juridiction. La Commission ne saurait estimer que tel etait ou que. tel est le cas.
16.     En ce qui concerne, premierement, la question de savoir si l'Irlande du Nord ou partie de ce territoire peut etre consid^rt comme territoire national de la Republique d'Irlande au sens de l'ariicle 1", la requerante elle-mfme declare que la pretention constitutionnelle au territoire d'Irlande du Nord, qui figure dans les articles 2 et 3 de la Constitution d'Irlande, n'est pas reconnue par la communaut£ des nations comme constituent le fondement d'une juri­diction sur l'lrlande du Nord.
17.     Deuxi£mement, selon la Commission, on ne saurait dire qu'a I'epoque du dices de son Mre en Irlande du Nord le 16 avril 1981, «des repr£sentants de l'Etat • de la Republique d'Irlande aicnt <exerce leur autorite> sur cette personne, au sens oil la Commission l'entendait dans ses decisions sur les requetes n° 6780/74 et 6950/75. La requerante n'a pas montre que, par des actes ou omissions concretes, les autorites irlandaises de l'epoque aient contri-bue a l'assassinat de son frere. A cet egard, la Commission a pris en conside­ration la declaration de la requerante selon laquelle le rueur chargi de cet assassinat habitait B., en Irlande du Nord.
18.     Vu I'argumentation d'ordre g6n£ral developpee par la requerante sur I'incapacite alleguee de l'lrlande a contribuer a la lutte contre le terrorisme en Irlande du Nord, la Commission n'estime pas qu'en ce qui concerne la securite personnelle de la requerante en Irlande du Nord, I'interessee ait montre que, dans les circonstances de I'espece, son droit a la vie ait ete affecte par quelqu'acte ou omission concrct que ce soit de I'Etat defendeur.
19.     II s'ensuit que le grief de la requerante dirig£ contre la Republique d'Irlande et concemant 1'assassinat dc son frere par des terroristes," ainst que sa propre situation en Irlande du Nord est ratione loci incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de 1'article 27, paragraphe 2.
Par ces motifs, la Commission
DECLARE LA REQUETE IRRECEVABLE.
- 219 -
About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010