European Court of Human Rights

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Four cases against Ireland - 50389/99 [2011] ECHR 2161 (2 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2161.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 2161

---

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)224¹

Execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Four cases against Ireland

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”)²,

Having regard to the judgments listed below, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

	Case name (App. No.)	Judgment of	Final on
1	Doran (50389/99)	31/07/2003	31/10/2003
2	McMullen (42297/98)	29/07/2004	29/10/2004
3	O’Reilly and others (54725/00)	29/07/2001	29/10/2004
4	Barry (18273/04)	15/12/2005	15/03/2006

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate, of individual measures to put an end to the violations and as far as possible to remedy their consequences for the applicant and general measures to prevent new, similar violations;

Having invited the authorities of the respondent state to provide an action plan concerning the measures proposed to execute each of the judgments listed in the table above;

Having, in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention, examined the action report for each case provided by the government (see appendices);

Having noted that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction, as provided in the judgments;

DECLARES, that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)224

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Four cases against Ireland

ACTION REPORT

Doran v. Ireland

McMullen v. Ireland

O’Reilly & Others v. Ireland

Barry v. Ireland

Introduction

The above cases against Ireland are currently under examination by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe (CM-DH) and concern the issues of excessive length of domestic proceedings (Article 6) and the need for an effective remedy (Article 13).

Ireland has provided previous updates on measures taken with regard to Article 6(1). This Action Report provides a general overview of all steps taken.

It is clear that considerable progress has been made in reducing delays in litigation and that the situation is being kept under review. Consequently, Ireland’s view is that it is now appropriate for the Committee of Minsters to adopt a final decision concluding its supervision of the general measures regarding delays in litigation in Ireland.

The issues arising under Article 13 and the need for an effective remedy for persons alleging a delay under Article 6(1) will continue to be examined in the context of the Committee of Ministers’ supervision of the judgment in Mc Farlane.

Individual measures

All the applicants’ domestic proceedings are now closed. Ireland considers that no further individual measures are required.

General measures as regards Article 6

Steps already taken

Supreme Court:

1. Superior Court Fast Track System: The Irish Supreme Court operates a priority list system to expedite urgent cases. Cases such as Hague Convention/Child Abduction and European Arrest Warrant Act appeals, are automatically prioritised in accordance with Judicial practice directions dealing with these type of cases. In all other cases, it remains open to any party to apply to the Court for priority, once urgency or some other basis for the application can be shown. Also, exceptionally urgent matters can be heard at extremely short notice. For example the High Court delivered judgment in a particular child abduction case on 27th July 2010 (Coventry City Council v. S [2010] IEHC 303), and the Supreme Court heard and disposed of the appeal on the 30th July 2010. This system of the division of cases between an ordinary list and a priority list continues to be an effective method by which urgent cases can be given priority. On average, waiting time is reduced to about a quarter of the average in the cases where the fast track is applied.

2. Court of Appeal: The Report of the Working Group on a Court of Appeal was published in August 2009. In recognition of the importance of this issue, the establishment of a Court of Appeal is included in the Programme (published 6 March 2011) of the new coalition Government. Establishment of an interim Court of Appeal is likely to require a Constitutional referendum and work has commenced on the legislation necessary to achieve this. No decision has yet been taken as to the timing of the necessary referendum.

High Court:

3. Register of Reserved Judgments: Section 46 of the Courts and Courts Officers Act 2002 provides the establishment of a register of every reserved judgment in civil proceedings. If the judgment is not delivered within two months from the date upon which it was reserved, the President of the Court which heard the case must list the proceedings before the judge who reserved judgment at two-month intervals. That judge must specify the date on which he or she proposes to deliver the judgment. The register of reserved judgments enables the Courts Service of Ireland to remind Judges of outstanding judgments and support the Chief Justice/President of the High Court in ensuring that Judges who need it can be given time out of court to write reserved judgments.

4. Judicial Fellowships: The Judicial Fellowships which commenced in 2008 have been continued and ten fellows continue to assist High Court Judges with research and with drafting written judgments. This has had a positive impact in terms of delay generally in the High Court, particularly with regard to reserved judgments. The number of reserved judgments delivered by High Court Judges to 31 December 2009 increased by 30% over the previous 12 months period and there has been a significant reduction in the time taken for delivery of reserved judgments.

5. Civil Case Management System: The Courts Service of Ireland was established in 1999 by legislation in order “to manage the courts, support the judiciary and provide a high quality and professional service to all the courts”. The ICT unit of the Courts Service continues to work on the development of civil case management technology with the functionality to provide the necessary management information.

The Courts Service has reviewed court processes and a pilot system for on-line filing, managing and processing undefended liquidated claims for civil debt is currently being developed which will be the basis for a feasibility study in other areas of civil case management. Such a system will enable the Courts Service to identify ageing cases and those in which no action has been taken so that they can, if appropriate, be listed before a Judge to be progressed or struck out.

6. Creation of a Specialised Court - Commercial Court: The Commercial List was set up in January 2004 and continues to contribute greatly to reducing the disposal time for cases admitted to the High Court. The case load of the Commercial List has increased by 53% in the past 12 months. Despite this, dates are immediately available in this list. The average time for completion of cases is 20 weeks from commencement.

7. ‘Call overs’: Courts often use ‘call overs’ to ensure that cases progress through the system and that settled cases are not left in the court list. The legal representatives of the parties are required to attend court to confirm that their case remains ‘live’ and inform the court if they are ready to proceed. Any case in which the parties fail to appear is struck out and can only be re-entered by order of the court. In 2009, three full court days were dedicated to this exercise at the conclusion of which 1,359 cases had been removed from the list. The same exercise was performed in 2010, with 1,400 cases being listed and 1399 being allocated dates or removed from the list.

8. Reductions in High Court Waiting Times: Measures taken to reduce waiting times in the High Court, as outlined above, continue to have a significant positive impact on the High Court’s final caseload. Some examples of the direct result of these measures are as follows:

• Non Jury List - The non jury list deals mainly with contract disputes, debt recovery and negligence. There has been a 110% increase in the number of new actions commenced in the High Court for debt recovery for the year ending June 2010, compared to the year ending June 2008 and a 60% increase in the number of contract disputes in the same period. In the interests of the efficient deployment of Judges the President of the High Court has dispensed with the separate list for Circuit Court Appeals and transferred these cases into the non-jury list. The waiting time for this list is 4 months from the certificate of readiness.

• Chancery List - These cases are mainly company law cases and injunctive matters. There has been a 50% increase in the number of new chancery actions commenced in the High Court for the year ending June 2010, compared to the year ending June 2008. Notwithstanding the increased case load, the waiting time for this list has been maintained at 3 months from the certificate of readiness.

• Judicial Review - The waiting time for this list has been reduced from 4 months (as at October 2009) to 3 months (as at August 2010) and is 2 months as at January 2011. Cases taking less than 2 hours are disposed of within 5 weeks. Judicial review of in the area of asylum/immigration cases are still experiencing delay but the Courts Service of Ireland has focused resources on clearing cases in which leave has been granted and the President of the High Court continues to dedicate judicial resources to clearing the backlog.

9. Appointment of Additional Judges: A total of 8 additional judges were appointed to several courts in November 2004, three of those to the High Court. The additional judges have been deployed in reducing the waiting time for serious criminal trials, cases relating to asylum and immigration matters, applications arising from child abduction and for European Arrest Warrants. As a result, in the Central Criminal Court, the waiting time from return for trial to disposal of murder and rape cases has been brought down from 18-24 months in 2004 to 10-11 months in 2009. In May 2007 the government appointed four additional High Court Judges to assist in reducing the waiting time for trials in the High Court.

10. Court Venues: Normally the Superior Courts would sit only in Dublin, however in response to pressure on courtroom space, a practice was initiated to utilise larger, recently refurbished courthouses in regional locations. Thus, non-jury matters (e.g., civil proceedings related to debt recovery, contract disputes, allegations of negligence and misrepresentation) and judicial review cases were heard in regional courthouses. As a consequence, many cases, which otherwise would remain without a hearing date, were fixed for these venues.

The new Criminal Courts of Justice Complex was officially opened in January 2010 and has been constructed to deal specifically with criminal business of Dublin District Court, Dublin Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court, Special Criminal Court and Court of Criminal Appeal. The building has over 450 rooms including 22 courtrooms. These new state of the art facilities will significantly reduce the pressures on Dublin venues.

11. Management of backlogs:

• Extra sittings have been arranged to deal with backlogs of Appeals from the Circuit Court in some of the regions.

• There are ongoing amendments to court rules with a view to introducing greater efficiencies in court practice and procedure. For example, Case Progression Hearings in the Circuit Court came into operation for family law matters on 1 October 2008 (S.I. No. 358 of 2008 Circuit Court Rules ( Case Progression in Family Law Proceedings) 2008 and for civil matters from 1 January 2010 (Circuit Court Rules (Case Progression (General)) 2009 - S.I. No.539 of 2009). The purpose of case progression is to ensure that proceedings are prepared for trial in a manner which is just, expeditious and likely to minimise the costs of the proceedings, for example through recourse to ADR where appropriate, and that the time and other resources of the court are employed optimally.

• In 2009 and 2010, special additional sittings were held in every district and county and additional District Court sittings were held in Dublin during the court’s vacation in August and September (facilitating the earlier disposal of approximately several thousand cases).

12. Mediation: Order 56A , S.I. No. 502 of 2010, Rules of the Superior Courts (Mediation and Conciliation) 2010, came into effect on 16 November 2010 and provides that a High Court judge may now adjourn legal proceedings to allow the parties engage in an Alternative Dispute Resolution Process. The Circuit Court Rules, S.I. 539 of 2009, signed into law with effect from 1st January 2010, permit a Circuit Court Judge or the County Registrar at a case progression hearing to adjourn certain civil proceedings for a period not exceeding 28 days to allow the parties to use mediation, conciliation and arbitration or any other dispute resolution process to settle or determine the proceedings issue.

Conclusions

13. Ireland is of the opinion that the issue of execution of the Court’s judgment as regards individual measures and general measures for the Article 6 violation concerning length of proceedings is properly addressed. It is our assessment that the matter is ready for closure.