CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG15
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 4 octobre 1995
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-66635
- Date
- 4 octobre 1995
- Publication
- 4 octobre 1995
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleApplication dismissed
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }      In the case of O'Reilly v. Ireland (1),        The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 58/1995/564/650.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.   2.   Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). _______________        Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 27 September 1995, and composed of the following judges:        Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,      Mr F. Gölcüklü,      Mr B. Walsh,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,        Having regard to the application against Ireland lodged with the Court on 28 June 1995 by Mr Patrick O'Reilly, an Irish national, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;        Whereas Ireland has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;        Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;        Having regard to the Commission's report of 22 February 1995 on the application (no. 21624/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr O'Reilly on 24 September 1992;        Whereas the applicant complained of the length of criminal proceedings which had been brought against him before the Irish courts, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...";        Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the grounds of an alleged gross and unconscionable delay on the part of the authorities, and that he was entitled to compensation;        Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.    Finds that      (a)     the case raises no serious question affecting the           interpretation or application of the Convention, as the           Court has already established case-law on the "reasonable           time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the           Convention; and      (b)     the case does not, for any other reason, warrant           consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding           that there has been a breach of the Convention, the           Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award           the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any           proposals made by the Commission;   2.    Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be      considered by the Court.        Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 4 October 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG
- Formation
- 15
- Date
- 4 octobre 1995
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-66635
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral