CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 septembre 1990

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 16500/90 by Mary Cecilia McMORROW against Ireland             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 September 1990, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                 MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                      J.C. GEUS                      A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                   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 26 February 1990 by Mary Cecilia McMORROW against Ireland and registered on 24 April 1990 under file No. 16500/90;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:           The applicant is an Irish citizen born in 1930.   She is a dental surgeon by profession.           The applicant first complains that in civil proceedings against her before the Circuit Court on 14 July 1983 the trial judge removed the public from the court.   She also complains of the decision of the High Court, dated 11 October 1983, which upheld the finding against her by the Circuit Court in these proceedings.   Further, the applicant complains that she was imprisoned for a day and a night on 16 September 1986 for her refusal to pay an £18 fine imposed on her by a District Court for failure to pay a car tax.   However the Commission cannot deal with these aspects of the case as the applicant has failed to observe the six months' rule laid down in Article 26 of the Convention, the application to the Commission only having been effectively lodged on 26 February 1990.           Finally, the applicant alleges that she was imprisoned from 29 April to 19 May 1989 following a decision of the District Court on 7 December 1988 ordering her imprisonment for failure to comply with a previous District Court Order of 20 April 1983 ordering her to pay £1,035 towards her debts.   However, again the Commission cannot deal with this aspect of the case because the applicant has failed to observe the requirements of Article 26 of the Convention, in this instance the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies.   There is no evidence in the case-file that she made any challenge against the lawfulness of her imprisonment.   Furthermore, if she had no effective remedy at her disposal, she has failed to observe the six months' rule laid down in Article 26 of the Convention, her detention having apparently ended on 19 May 1989, whereas the complaint was not raised with the Commission until 7 April 1990 in her application form.           In these circumstances the whole application must be rejected pursuant to Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the Commission              President of the Commission               (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (C.A. NØRGAARD)