Search
document

Document text Analytics

McMORROW v. IRELAND

Doc ref: 16500/90 • ECHR ID: 001-736

Document date: September 4, 1990

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

McMORROW v. IRELAND

Doc ref: 16500/90 • ECHR ID: 001-736

Document date: September 4, 1990

Cited paragraphs only

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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant