Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49

January 2003

Nee v. Ireland (dec.) - 52787/99

Decision 30.1.2003 [Section III]

Article 35

Article 35-1

Six-month period

Delay of one year between initial communication and lodging of application: inadmissible

The applicant was born in 1974. His parents never married. His father (PK), who had no other children, died intestate in 1987. Under Irish law at that time, the applicant had no claim on his late father’s estate. However, he wished to bring a case under the Convention and, when his request for a declaration from the solicitors acting for PK’s parents recognising him as PK’s son was denied, he initiated proceeding s in the Circuit Court in December 1989. His claim was struck out in May 1990. The applicant issued amended proceedings in May 1991 and appealed to the High Court, which in December 1993 ordered that blood samples be taken from the applicant and from PK’s mother and brother. In January 1998, the High Court declared that PK was the applicant’s father and ordered the administrator of the estate to pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings.

On 17 July 1998, the applicant’s solicitor submitted an outlin e of the facts of the case to the European Commission of Human Rights, along with supporting documentation, and requested that the application, relating to Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, be registered. The Commission sent her an application form the following month, indicating that it should be returned as soon as possible. In September 1998, the applicant’s solicitor acknowledged receipt of the form and indicated that it would be returned within six weeks. It was not in fact returned until 22 Septemb er 1999. The solicitor subsequently gave several reasons for the delay, including lack of familiarity with Convention case-law, the complexity of the domestic proceedings, and the fact that the applicant lived in England. She added that it was her understa nding that the key date was that of her first letter, namely 17 July 1998.

Article 35 § 1: The Court recalled and adopted the approach of the Commission regarding delays in pursuing an application after its initial submission. Thus, where there is a substa ntial interval before the applicant submits further information, the particular circumstances of the case must be examined in order to decide what date should be regarded as the date of introduction of the application, interrupting the running of the six-m onth time limit. In the present case, the initial submissions to the Commission were made almost ten years after the death of PK. If, as the applicant maintained, the lengthy proceedings that took place in the intervening period were for the sole purpose o f taking a case under the Convention, his legal representative could have been expected to exercise particular conscientiousness and diligence in the pursuit of the application. However, there had been no contact with the Commission or the Court for over a year, and no explanation for the delay had been submitted when the application form was eventually submitted. Furthermore, the reasons provided thereafter were not convincing. The substantive Convention issue was relatively straightforward and directly re levant jurisprudence had been published. The domestic proceedings involved only two parties, the subject matter was not complex, and the documentation submitted was not voluminous. Consequently, it could not be said that the completion of the application w as especially intricate or complex. In addition, the applicant’s residence in the England could have been responsible for only minor delays. The solicitor’s belief that the important date was that on which she first contacted the Commission was incorrect, the position having been clearly explained in the letter accompanying the application form. As to the alleged lack of any identifiable prejudice to the State on account of the lapse of time, notice of an intention to pursue a Convention application was qui te different from the legal certainty established by the resolution of the application by way of a final decision or judgment of the Court. The date of introduction was therefore 22 September 1999 and the application had consequently been introduced outsid e the six-month time-limit.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes