COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Ireland Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 2020 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2020-09-30
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Ireland, administrative transparency, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 30.9.2020  SWD(2020) 306 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2020 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Ireland Accompanying the document COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS  2020 Rule of Law Report      The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2020) 580 final} - {SWD(2020) 300 final} - {SWD(2020) 301 final} - {SWD(2020) 302 final} - {SWD(2020) 303 final} - {SWD(2020) 304 final} - {SWD(2020) 305 final} - {SWD(2020) 307 final} - {SWD(2020) 308 final} - {SWD(2020) 309 final} - {SWD(2020) 310 final} - {SWD(2020) 311 final} - {SWD(2020) 312 final} - {SWD(2020) 313 final} - {SWD(2020) 314 final} - {SWD(2020) 315 final} - {SWD(2020) 316 final} - {SWD(2020) 317 final} - {SWD(2020) 318 final} - {SWD(2020) 319 final} - {SWD(2020) 320 final} - {SWD(2020) 321 final} - {SWD(2020) 322 final} - {SWD(2020) 323 final} - {SWD(2020) 324 final} - {SWD(2020) 325 final} - {SWD(2020) 326 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

A number of reforms of the justice system were carried out in 2019 or are under preparation. 
In particular, an independent Judicial Council was established at the end of 2019. While the 
perception  of  judicial  independence  is  already  high,  the  Council  will  contribute  to  further 
promoting  judicial  independence  from  the  executive  and  legislative  powers.  Its  Judicial 
Conduct Committee will be in charge of disciplinary proceedings, while the final decision on 
dismissal of judges remains a prerogative of the Oireachtas (Parliament). A planned reform 
aims at amending the system for judicial appointment and promotion. It is important that this 
reform  safeguard  judicial  independence,  taking  into  account  the  Council  of  Europe 
recommendations. A working group is to consider the number and type of judges required to 
ensure the efficient administration of justice over the next five years. The ongoing review of 
civil  justice could  provide an opportunity to  improve access  to  justice in particular through 
the  legal  aid  system.  Digitalisation  and  the  resources  of  the  justice  system,  including  the 
number of judges, remain a challenge.  

Ireland has carried out several reforms aiming at strengthening the fight against corruption, in 
particular  through  the  Criminal  Justice  (Corruption  Offences)  Act  of  2018.  The  Criminal 
Justice  Act  included  several  offences  relating  to  corruption.  However,  it  contains  a  dual 
criminality provision, which may limit the scope for prosecuting foreign bribery. Ireland has 
in place a legal and institutional framework on asset declarations and interests, and codes of 
conduct  and  tax  clearance  obligations,  which  is  currently  under  review.  The  Public  Sector 
Standards Bill 2015 lapsed with the dissolution of the Dáíl (lower House of the Parliament) 
in January 2020. The Programme of the new Government contains a commitment to reform 
and  consolidate  the  Ethics  in  Public  Office  legislation.  Ireland’s  defamation  laws  raise 
concerns as regards the ability of the press to expose corruption. A comprehensive review of 
Ireland’s  anti-corruption  framework  is  currently  being  carried  out,  and  a  review  of 
defamation legislation is currently being finalised.  

Regarding media pluralism, constitutional guarantees and solid regulatory structures operate 
within  a  political  culture  that  avoids  intervention  in  editorial  content  of  media  outlets  and 
prevents conflicts of interests in terms of media ownership. The media regulator took steps to 
update  and  publish  information  on  media  ownership  on  an  annual  basis.  Freedom  of 
expression  and  the  right  to  access  official  information,  are  well  established  principles.  The 
frequent  use  and  high  costs  of  defamation  cases  raise  concerns.  An  independent  private 
scheme  established  and  funded  by  the  print  media,  consisting  of  the  Press  Council  and  the 
Press Ombudsman, ensures handling of press complaints, on the basis of a Code of Conduct. 

As  regards  checks  and  balances,  there  is  an  established  practice  of  consultation  on  draft 
legislation  by  the  Government  and  Parliament,  and  of  ex-ante  impact  assessments.  The 
scrutiny  over  private  Members'  bills  that  pass  a  certain  stage  of  the  legislative  process  is 
similarly developed. The independent Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is well 
equipped to carry out its functions. While the space for civil society organisations in Ireland 
is  generally  considered  open,  concerns  have  been  raised  by  civil  society  organisations  as 
regards  constraints  on  civil  society  actions  in  relation  to  the  impact  of  the  current 
interpretation  of  the  Electoral  Act,  which  imposes  restrictions  on  funding  possibilities  for 
civil society organisations. 

1 

 
 
 
I.   JUSTICE SYSTEM  

Ireland is  a common law jurisdiction, whose judiciary is divided into a civil and a criminal 
branch. The court system comprises a court of final appeal (the Supreme Court), a Court of 
Appeal,  and  courts of first  instance which include a High Court with  full jurisdiction in  all 
criminal and civil matters and courts of limited jurisdiction: the Circuit Court and the District 
Court organised on a  regional basis.  Two Special Criminal  Courts deal  with  criminal  cases 
about  paramilitary,  subversive  and  organised  crimes1.  Moreover,  a  number  of  specialised 
tribunals operate in different areas including workplace relations2. Since December, 2019, all 
holders  of  judicial  office  are  members  of  a  newly  established  Judicial  Council.  Judicial 
appointments are made by the President of Ireland, acting on the advice of the Government. 
The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board is tasked with the selection of suitable candidates 
for appointment. The prosecution service is  not  part of the judicial branch. The Director of 
Public  Prosecutions  independently  enforces  the  criminal  law  in  the  courts.  The  conduct  of 
trials on indictment is handled by barristers who are nominated by the Director on a case-by-
case basis and prosecute in accordance with the Director’s instructions. The Attorney General 
is  the  legal  adviser  to  the  Government.  The  legal  profession  has  two  types  of  lawyers  – 
solicitors, represented by the Law Society, and barristers, represented by the Bar of Ireland3. 
The  Legal  Services  Regulatory  Authority,  an  independent  body  established  in  2016,  is 
Ireland’s national statutory regulator for both branches of the legal profession.  

Independence 

An  independent  Judicial  Council  tasked  with  safeguarding  judicial  independence  was 
established  at  the  end  of  2019.  A  lengthy  reform  process  had  led  to  the  establishment  of 
Ireland’s  first  permanent  council  for  the  judiciary.  Its  main  functions  under  the  Judicial 
Council  Act  are  to  consider  complaints  in  relation  to  judicial  misconduct,  to  ensure  the 
continuous  education  and  training  of  judges4  and  to  draft  guidelines  on  certain  issues 
including  personal  injuries’  damages.  For  these  purposes,  the  Council  has  established  a 
number  of  Committees  including  a  Judicial  Conduct  Committee,  a  Judicial  Studies 
Committee,  a  Personal  Injuries  Committee,  and  a  Sentencing  Guidelines  Committee.  The 
Council  is  composed  of  all  serving  members  of  the  judiciary  (around  160  judges),  with  a 
board  consisting  of  11  judges:  five  ex-officio  members  (the  Chief  Justice  and  four  court 
presidents), five judges elected by their peers and one judge co-opted by the other members 
of  the  board5.  The  establishment  of  the  Judicial  Council  could  contribute  to  ensuring  the 

1   A panel of serving judges from the High Court, Circuit Court and District Court are appointed to the Special 

Criminal Court. 

2   Tribunals also deal with income tax appeals, claims under the equality legislation, immigration applications, 
town  planning  and  employment  matters.  These  tribunals  are  presided  by  qualified  specialists  and  the 
executive is often involved in their appointment procedures. Their decisions are subject to appeal or review 
by the Circuit Court or High Court on points of law. 

3   Most  solicitors  work  in  private  practice  offering  services  directly  to  the  public.  Other  solicitors  are  ‘in-
house’  solicitors,  employed  for  example  by  the  State  or  by  business.  Most  barristers  specialise  in  court 
advocacy and the provision of legal advice and opinions, although they can also work as ‘in-house’ lawyers. 
4   This  also  responds  to  GRECO  recommendations.  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report, 

para. 161; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, paras. 48-51. 

5   According to the data of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), the resources available 

to the Council are comparatively low. Contribution from the ENCJ for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

2 

 
                                                 
independence  and  quality  of  the  justice  system,  in  line  with  the  Group  of  States  against 
Corruption (‘GRECO’) recommendations6.  

The perceived independence of courts and judges among the general public and among 
companies is high. The level of independence of courts and judges is perceived as ‘fairly or 
very good’ by 74% of the general population and by 76% of companies7. This high level of 
perceived judicial independence has been consistent over the last years. 

A  planned  reform  aims  at  reorganising  the  system  for  judicial  appointments  and 
promotion. Discussions  on this  reform  have been ongoing for a number  of  years.  In 2017, 
the Government submitted to Parliament a draft law on this matter, which lapsed with the end 
of the previous parliamentary term. In the current system, for first-time judicial appointments, 
the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board (JAAB)8 recommends to the Minister for Justice 
and Equality at least seven candidates for each vacancy9. The candidates on the list are not 
ranked  in  order  of  priority  and  the  Government  is  not  bound  to  select  from  the  list  only. 
Promotions of judges10 are made by the President of Ireland on the advice of the Government 
and  are  not  subject  to  the  procedure  conducted  by  the  JAAB11.  Concerns  were  raised  by 
GRECO12  as  regards  the  wide  discretion  left  to  the  executive  power.  The  draft  law  on  the 
Judicial  Appointments  Commission  provided  for  the  setting  up  of  a  new  judicial 
appointments  commission  that  would  include  a  non-judicial  chairperson,  and  a  majority  of 
lay  members.  The  draft  law  aimed  at  restricting  the  number  of  proposed  candidates  to  a 
maximum  of  three,  ranked  in  the  order  of  the  Commission’s  preference,  for  each  judicial 
vacancy. The draft also  proposed that all judicial appointments be subject to this procedure 
(as distinct from the current process which only deals with first-time judicial appointments). 
These draft provisions could limit political discretion in judicial appointments. However, the 
envisaged composition of the new commission raised concerns13,14 as it foresaw a majority of 
lay members. The Programme of the new Irish Government formed in June 2020 contains a 
commitment to enact the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill within the first six months 
of  its  mandate.  The  Government  has  committed  to  engage  with  stakeholders  to  make 
appropriate amendments to the current draft law, to ensure that it enjoys broad support. Such 
amendments would include ensuring that the Chief Justice is the ex-officio chairperson of the 
body. It is important that this reform take into account Council of Europe recommendations 

6   GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  –  Evaluation  Report,  para.  124;  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation  Round  – 

Interim Compliance Report, para. 26. 

7   Figures  44,  46  and  48,  2020  EU  Justice  Scoreboard.  The  level  of  perceived  judicial  independence  is 
categorised as follows: very low (below 30% of respondents perceive judicial independence as fairly good 
and  very  good);  low  (between  30-39%),  average  (between  40-59%),  high  (between  60-75%),  very  high 
(above 75%). 

8   The JAAB is made up of the five court presidents, the Attorney General, a representative from both the Law 
Society and the Bar Council, and three lay members appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality. 

9   Section 16(4) of the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995.  
10   The process is referred to as ‘elevation’.  
11   Members  of  the  judiciary  may  write  to  the  Attorney  General’s  Office  requesting  a  promotion  to  a  higher 
court. Those expressions of interest are considered by the Government while nominating a candidate to fill a 
judicial vacancy in the relevant court. 

12   An  outstanding  recommendation  of  GRECO  stressed  the  need  to  review  the  current  system  for  selection, 
recruitment, promotion and transfers of judges with a view to target the appointments to the most qualified 
and  suitable  candidates  in  a  transparent  way,  without  excessive  influence  from  the  executive  powers.  The 
need of providing appropriate resources to JAAB has also been raised. GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round  – 
Evaluation Report, para. 132; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, para. 37. 
13   European  Commission,  Country  Reports  Ireland,  2018  (SWD(2018)  206  final),  2019  (SWD(2019)  1006 

final), 2020 (SWD(2020) 506 final). 

14   GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, paras. 35-36.   

3 

 
                                                 
relating  to  the  composition  of  the  authority  taking  decisions  on  the  selection  and  career  of 
judges and its role in the appointment procedure15.  

A new body in charge of disciplinary proceedings against judges has  been established, 
improving  accountability  of  judges.  The  Judicial  Council  has  established  a  Judicial 
Conduct Committee to consider complaints in relation to judicial misconduct, preparing draft 
guidelines  on  judicial  conduct  and  ethics  for  adoption  by  the  Council.  Furthermore,  the 
Committee  provides  advice  and  recommendations  on  judicial  conduct  and  ethics.  The 
Committee  is  composed  of  the  five  court  presidents  as  ex-officio  members,  three  judges 
chosen  by  their  peers,  and  five  lay  members  appointed  by  the  Government  from  those 
recommended by the Public Appointments Service. Prior to this reform, the only disciplinary 
sanction applicable to judges was the removal from office upon resolutions of both houses of 
Parliament for cases of ‘stated misbehaviour or incapacity’16. However, such a sanction has 
never been applied. The reform of the disciplinary sanctions regime could lead to improve the 
accountability of judges; it should preserve judicial independence in line with EU law17 and 
taking into account Council of Europe recommendations18. Removal from judicial office on 
disciplinary  grounds  remains  one  of  the  possible  sanctions.  Where  such  a  sanction  is 
envisaged,  the  Judicial  Conduct  Committee  will  be  in  charge  of  making  a  referral  to  the 
Minister  for  Justice  and  Equality  to  bring  motions  to  the  houses  of  Parliament  seeking  the 
removal  of  the  judge.  Parliament  remains  in  charge  of  deciding  the  removal  from  office  of 
judges and retains its margin of discretion in that regard19, which could raise concerns about 
the  politicisation  of  the  process.  Finally,  the  scope  of  judicial  review  available  in  cases  of 
disciplinary  sanctions  or  removal  from  office  is  limited  to  the  lawfulness  of  the  procedure 
only, without a possibility to challenge its substance20.  

The newly established Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee is in charge of compiling 
general  guidelines  as  to  the  level  of  damages  that  may  be  awarded  by  courts.  The 
establishment of this Committee21 follows a recommendation contained in the Report of the 

15   See Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,  paras 46-
47. The European Court of Justice has, in the context of judicial appointments made by the executive branch 
upon a request from a council for the judiciary, indicated that for such council to contribute to making the 
process  more  objective,  it  should  be  sufficiently  independent  of  the  legislative  and  executive  and  of  the 
authority to which it is required to deliver a judicial appointment proposal. Judgment of the Court of Justice 
of 19 November 2019, AK, joined cases C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 and C‑ 625/18, paras. 137, 138.  

16   Article 35.4.1 of the Constitution. 
17   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018, LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU, para. 67, see footnote 18. 
18   See Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para.  69. 
An  outstanding  GRECO  recommendation  refers  to  the  need  to  formally  establish  a  code  of  conduct  for 
judges  and  to  connect  such  an  instrument  to  an  accountability  mechanism.  GRECO  Fourth  Evaluation 
Round, para. 146; GRECO Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim Compliance Report, para. 43. 

19   Section 89 of the Judicial Council Act 2019. 
20   In this context, the Court of Justice has held that  ‘the possibility of bringing legal proceedings challenging 
the disciplinary bodies’ decisions constitute[s part of] a set of guarantees that are essential for safeguarding 
the independence of the judiciary’ (judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2018,  LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU, 
para. 67). Furthermore, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that judicial review of disciplinary 
penalties against judges ‘must be appropriate to the subject-matter of the dispute, that is to say […] to the 
disciplinary nature of the administrative decisions in question. This consideration applies with even greater 
force  to  disciplinary  proceedings  against  judges,  who  must  enjoy  the  respect  that  is  necessary  for  the 
performance of their duties’ (judgment of European  Court  of Human  Rights of 6 November 2018,  Ramos 
Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal, application no. 55391/19, 57728/13 and 74041/13, para. 196; see also 
paras. 176-186. See also Judgment of European Court of Human Rights of 5 May 2020, Kövesi v. Romania, 
application no. 3594/19, para. 154.)   

21   The Personal Injuries Guidelines Committee comprises seven judges nominated by the Chief Justice. 

4 

 
                                                 
Personal Injuries Commission22 and aims at promoting consistency in the level of damages. 
Moreover,  the  Sentencing  Guidelines  and  Information  Committee23  is  tasked  with  the 
drafting of sentencing guidelines. While the guidelines are non-binding, the Judicial Council 
Act  requires  a  court  to  have  regard  to  these  guidelines  and  to  state  the  reasons  for  any 
departure  from  such  guidelines24.  This  provision  allows  to  assess  the  extent  to  which  the 
guidelines  are  being  followed  and  could  be  used  by  the  appellate  courts  in  determining 
whether or not the reasons given for the departure are justified. In the implementation of such 
guidelines due regard should be given to the respect of judicial independence not only from 
undue influences outside the judiciary, but also from within25. 

Quality 

The justice system budget and the number of judges remain below EU average. While 
the  budget  per  capita  for  the  justice  system,  which  was  EUR  55.7  in  2018,  has  constantly 
increased in the last years, the budget as a percentage of GDP has stagnated26. Moreover, a 
new Courts Act  increased the maximum number of ordinary judges of the Court of Appeal 
from 9 to 15. However, according to 2018 data, the number of judges in Ireland was 160, the 
lowest  number  per  capita  in  the  EU27.  The  Programme  for  Government  announced  in  June 
2020 includes a commitment to establish a working group to consider the number of and type 
of judges required to ensure the efficient administration of justice over the next five years. 

A Review Group has been established to assess the administration of civil justice, with a 
view  to  inter  alia  improve  access  to  justice  and  reducing  the  cost  of  litigation28.  The 
Review  Group  will  report  and  make  recommendations  to  the  Minister  for  Justice  and 
Equality  later  in  2020.  These  review  could  address  the  concerns  raised  as  regards  the 
resources available for the civil legal aid system and the time needed for the Legal Aid Board 
to  assess  eligibility  for  civil  legal  aid29.  Moreover,  proceedings  before  tribunals  (e.g.  for 

22   Second  and  Final  Report  of  the  Personal  Injuries  Commission,  Department  of  Business,  Enterprise  and 

Innovation of Ireland, July 2018.  

23   The Sentencing Guidelines Committee comprises eight judges nominated by the Chief Justice and five lay 

members appointed by Government from persons recommended by the Public Appointment Service. 

24   Sections 92 and 99 which amend Section 22 of Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004. 
25   Council of Europe standards requiring the respect of judicial independence not only from undue influences 
outside  the  judiciary,  but  also  from  within.  Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  22 
December  2009,  Parlov-Tkalčić  v  Croatia,  para.  86:  ‘…This  internal  judicial  independence  requires  that 
they  be  free  from  directives  or  pressures  from  the  fellow  judges  or  those  who  have  administrative 
responsibilities in the court such as the president of the court or the president of a division in the court. The 
absence of sufficient safeguards securing the independence of judges within the judiciary and, in particular, 
vis-à-vis  their  judicial  superiors,  may  lead  the  Court  to  conclude  that  an  applicant’s  doubts  as  to  the 
(independence and) impartiality of a court may be said to have been objectively justified’. According to the 
Venice Commission, the practice of guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court or another highest court and 
binding  on  lower  courts  is  problematic  as  regards  internal  independence  (Venice  Commission  opinion 
(CDL-AD(2010)004-e, para. 70). 

26   Figure 33, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard.   
27   Figure 35, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
28   The  Review  Group  is  also  looking  at  improving  procedures  and  practices  to  ensure  timely  hearings,  the 
removal  of  obsolete,  unnecessary  or  over-complex  rules  of  procedure,  reviewing  the  law  of  discovery, 
encouraging  alternative  methods  of  dispute  resolution,  reviewing  the  use  of  electronic  methods  of 
communications including e-litigation, examining the extent to which pleadings and submissions and other 
court documents should be available or accessible on the internet, identifying steps to achieve more effective 
outcomes for court users with particular emphasis on vulnerable court users. 

29   Irish Law Society, contribution of February 2018 to the Review of the Administration of Civil Justice; the 
Council  of  the  Bar  of  Ireland,  submission  of  25  November  2019  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  Justice  and 
Equality on Access to Justice and Legal Costs. 

5 

 
                                                 
claims before the Workplace Relations Commission and the Labour Court) are excluded from 
legal aid, except for the purposes of asylum cases. This was raised as a concern by the Irish 
Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission  in  201930.  The  Review  Group  will  also  look  at 
possible  ways  to  encourage  the  alternative  methods  of  dispute  resolution,  which  could 
improve  the  incentives  to  use  alternative  dispute  resolution  methods  for  which  Ireland 
currently  performs  very  low31.  Based  on  the  Review  Group  Report,  the  Programme  for 
Government  includes  a  commitment  to  implement  reforms  to  the  administration  of  civil 
justice  covering  matters  such  as  the  more  efficient  and  effective  deployment  of  court  and 
judicial resources. Moreover, work on the preparation of a new Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) 
Bill is at an advanced stage. The purpose of the new legislation is to update and strengthen 
the  system  of  granting  criminal  legal  aid,  including  transferring  responsibility  for  the 
administration of the Scheme from the Department of Justice and Equality to the Legal Aid 
Board. 

The  Legal  Services  Regulatory  Authority  is  taking  measures  to  tackle  remaining 
barriers in the legal services market. Since the adoption of the Legal Services Regulation 
Act  2015,  restrictions  remain  in  place  in  the  provision  of  legal  services,  hampering 
competition  and  thus  increasing  legal  costs32.  In  2019,  the  Legal  Services  Regulatory 
Authority introduced a new business model framework for Limited Liability Partnerships. A 
new framework for Legal Partnerships, which can include barrister-barrister partnerships and 
barrister-solicitor  partnerships,  is  scheduled  to  be  introduced  in  2020.  A  new  provision 
inserted  into  the  Legal  Services  Regulation  Act  in  2019  strengthens  requirements  for 
solicitors  to  keep  clients  updated  with  accurate  information  in  respect  of  legal  costs33.  The 
Authority  will  also  be  revisiting  the  subject  of  multi-disciplinary  practices  (involving  legal 
practitioners  and  other  professions)  and  has  opened  a  public  consultation  in  relation  to  the 
possible unification of the professions of barristers and solicitors.  

Work  is  ongoing  on  the  digitalisation  of  the  justice  system34.  Ireland  scores  below  EU 
average on the availability of electronic means, information and communications technology 
for  case  management  and  court  activity  statistics35.  The  Courts  Service  has  developed  a 
strategic  document36  with  the  objective  of  delivering  digitalisation  and  supporting  the 
judiciary in the process. This approach seeks to minimise the number of cases that need to be 
dealt  with  by  the  courts  system,  requiring  attendance  at  hearings  only  where  necessary, 
holding and managing hearings and case information digitally, as well as adopting a digital 
model for the filing of court documents. The Courts Service Online (CSOL) project aims to 

30   Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), Ireland and the Convention on the Elimination of 

Racial Discrimination, November 2019, p. 142. 

31   Figure 30, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. The establishment of the Mediation Council, as provided for under 
the  Mediation  Act  2017,  is  currently  being  progressed  with  a  view  to  establishment  at  the  earliest 
opportunity. 

32   European Commission, Country Report Ireland, SWD(2020) 506 final. 
33   Moreover, on 7 October 2019, the Office of the Taxing Master was replaced by the Office of the Legal Costs 
Adjudicators as provided in Part 10 of the  Legal Services  Regulation  Act 2015. It provides for a new and 
enhanced  legal  costs  regime,  leading  to  greater  transparency,  and  modernised  and  reformed  the  previous 
system for the adjudication of legal costs. A Chief Legal Cost Adjudicator and one Legal Cost Adjudicator 
were appointed in October 2019. The second Legal Cost Adjudicator has been appointed and will commence 
work in October 2020. 

34   It  is  also  noted  that  the  current  statistical  data  on  the  justice  system  does  not  allow  reporting  on  data 

concerning the disposition time in civil and administrative proceedings in the EU Justice Scoreboard.  

35   Figures 27 and 40, 2020 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
36   Courts  Service,  Long-Term  Strategic  Vision  to  2030:  Supporting  Access  to  Justice  in  a  modern,  digital 

Ireland.   

6 

 
                                                 
deliver  a  single  civil  case  management  system  to  provide  a  common  platform  for  the  civil 
processes of all jurisdictions. The new system incorporates the facility to make applications 
and payments online, collect orders and file certain documents electronically. Areas of work 
benefitting from the new platform include insolvency and small claims, and the procedures in 
front of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. In 2019, CSOL was further extended to 
facilitate e-filing of  applications  to  the Office of the  Legal  Costs Adjudicator. The ongoing 
review  of  the  civil  justice  system  also  looks  at  reviewing  the  use  of  electronic  methods  of 
communications,  including  e-litigation  and  the  extent  to  which  pleadings,  submissions  and 
other court documents should be accessible online.  

Measures  have  been  taken  to  facilitate  the  continued  operations  of  courts  during  the 
COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, a programme to facilitate remote hearings commenced 
in  April  2020  and  the  number  of  virtual  hearing  sessions  has  since  increased  steadily.  In 
addition,  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Court  of  Appeal  have  made  extensive  use  of  virtual 
hearings in  appeal  cases. As regards criminal  proceedings, there has been a raise in  remote 
applications in criminal matters. Remote hearings are increasingly used for remand hearings, 
bail applications and adjournments where the accused is in custody37. A new Act of August 
2020 allows for the increased use of remote hearings in civil matters and in criminal appeals. 
It also extends the possibility of electronic filing and transmissions in civil matters, and the 
possibility of holding remote meetings38. Minor offences continue to be tried in the District 
Court,  albeit  with  reduced  capacity  in  the  courthouses.  Priority  is  given  to  cases  where  the 
accused  is  in  custody.  The  Courts  Service  has  also  prepared  a  public  information  video  on 
visiting courts service premises during the period of COVID-19 restrictions. 

Efficiency 

The  ongoing  review  of  the  civil  justice  system  looks  at  improving  procedures  and 
practices to ensure timely hearings. The average length of proceedings at first instance in 
the High Court and Circuit Court was around 750 days in 2018, with an increase of around 70 
days from 2017 for the Circuit Court39. The average length of proceedings in the High Court 
which hears commercial cases at first instance had increased from 287 days in 2017 to 321 in 
2018,  while  the  length  of  personal  injuries  cases  was  around  980  days  in  201840.  The 
Government  has  also  pledged  to  reconsider  the  number  of  and  type  of  judges  required  to 
ensure timely hearings, in order to address certain efficiency challenges41.  

The criminal trial procedure is in course of revision. A revision of the general scheme of 
the  Criminal  Procedure  Bill  was  approved  by  the  Government  in  June  2015,  but  the 
publication of the Bill itself has since been deferred on several occasions. The main purpose 
of this legislation would be to provide greater efficiency and fairness in the trial process and 
to reduce delays in the criminal justice system generally. Insofar as possible, all contentious 
matters concerning the process of the trial and the evidence to be admitted would be settled 
before  starting  the  process  in  front  of  the  jury  and  reducing  the  likelihood  of  unnecessary 

37  There  were  approximately  400  remote  court  sessions  held  in  July  2020.  In  addition,  there  have  been  up  to 
3 000 video-link applications per month to the criminal courts from prisons. Jury trials, which were largely 
put on hold from March to June, have recommenced. 

38   Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020.  
39   749 days at High Court in 2018 (753 days in 2017); 749 days at Circuit Court in 2018 (678 in 2017); and 

163 days in District Court in 2018 (120 in 2017).  

40    Personal injuries cases were 983 days long on average in 2018 and 994 days in 2017.  
41   European Commission, Country Report Ireland, SWD(2020) 506 final.  

7 

 
                                                 
interruptions  of  the  trial  for  legal  argument.  This  could  also  benefit  the  fight  against 
corruption. 

A compensation scheme for cases of excessive length of court proceedings is still lacking. 
Legislation establishing a compensation scheme to award damages in the event of protracted 
court proceedings is required by a European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) judgment42 
but remains to be tabled in Parliament. The Government approved the draft Bill that provided 
for a compensation mechanism in the form of a non-court-based remedy43. In May 2019, the 
Parliament  Joint  Committee  on  Justice  and  Equality  welcomed  the  attempt  to  establish  the 
remedy, but expressed doubts that the non-court based model was the most efficient means to 
do so. The execution of ECtHR judgement is under enhanced supervision by the Council of 
Europe’s Committee of Ministers44.  

II.  ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK 

The  competences  and  responsibilities  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  anti-
corruption  policies  as  well  as  to  preventing,  detecting,  investigating  and  prosecuting 
corruption are shared between several authorities. The investigation of corruption offences is 
the  responsibility  of  the  Garda  National  Economic  Crime  Bureau,  which  has  set  up  a 
specialised  Anti-Corruption  Unit.  The  Public  Sector  Standards  Bill  2015  lapsed  with  the 
dissolution  of  the  Dáíl  (lower  House  of  the  Irish  Parliament)  in  January  2020.  The 
Programme  of  the  new  Government  contains  a  commitment  to  reform  and  consolidate  the 
Ethics  in  Public  Office  legislation.  The  Standards  in  Public  Office  Commission  (SIPO)  is 
responsible for enforcing the Electoral Acts, the Ethics Acts and the Regulation of Lobbying 
Act 2015. A comprehensive review of Ireland’s anti-corruption framework is currently under 
way. The Government announced in its recent Programme to tackle corruption as a result of a 
comprehensive  review  of  the  anti-corruption  framework  and  increase  the  effectiveness  of 
anti-corruption measures.  

In  the  2019  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  of  Transparency  International,  Ireland 
scored 74/100 and ranked 8th in the EU and 18th globally45. 68% of Irish respondents to 
the most recent Eurobarometer survey46 think that corruption is widespread in their country 
(EU average: 71%), and 25% of people feel personally affected by corruption in their daily 
lives (EU average: 28%). As regards businesses, 33% of companies consider corruption to be 
widespread  (EU  average:  63%).  11%  of  companies  consider  that  corruption  is  a  problem 
when doing business (EU average: 37%). 35% of people find that there are enough successful 
prosecutions  to  deter  people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average:  36%)  while  26%  of 
companies  believe  that  people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are 
appropriately punished (EU average: 31%)47. 

The legal and institutional framework for fighting corruption has seen some important 
modifications recently. The most recent revision concerns the Criminal Justice (Corruption 

42   Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights of 10 September 2010, McFarlane 

v. Ireland, application no. 31333/06.  

43   Compensation for delays in Court Proceedings Bill.  
44   Last Resolution by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, CM/Del/Dec(2019)1362/H46-13, 

3-5 December 2019.  

45   Transparency International, 2019 Corruption Perception Index. 
46   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2019). 
47   Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019).  

8 

 
                                                 
Offences) Act48, which was signed into law on 5 June 2018 and commenced operation on 30 
July  2018.  The  Act  repealed  and  replaced  previous  anti-corruption  legislation,  while  also 
introducing  new  offences  and  higher  penalties  for  corruption  offences.  Following 
recommendations  issued  by  the  Mahon  tribunal  of  inquiry49,  new  offences  have  been 
introduced by the Act, such as making payments to a third party whilst being aware that those 
payments  will  be  used  for  a  bribe.  It  also  includes  extensions  to  the  presumptions  of 
corruption, which had been included in the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act 2001. 
Corporate criminal liability has been introduced in the revised legislation in 2018, and a track 
record is still to be established. The criminal procedure legislation has also been revised (see 
Justice Section). To be noted that the Government announced in June 2020 that a revision of 
the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018 is further envisaged in order to increase 
the efficiency of the white-collar crime prosecution50. 

The competences and responsibilities for the development and implementation of anti-
corruption  policies  as  well  as  for  preventing,  detecting,  investigating  and  prosecuting 
corruption are shared between several authorities in Ireland. An Garda Síochána (Police) 
has  the  responsibility  for  carrying  out  all  policing  duties  in  the  Irish  State,  including  the 
criminal investigations in the fight against corruption. An Garda Síochána also has members 
on secondment to external agencies to support and co-ordinate the investigation of financial 
crime,  including  the  office  of  the  Director  of  Corporate  Enforcement,  the  Competition  and 
Consumer  Protection  Commission,  and  the  Department  of  Employment  Affairs  and  Social 
Protection. The investigation of corruption offences is the responsibility of Ireland’s national 
police service, An Garda Síochána. The Garda National Economic Crime Bureau (GNECB), 
has  set  up  a  specialised  Anti-Corruption  Unit  which  has  exclusive  responsibility  for  the 
investigation of foreign bribery and corruption and for the investigation of domestic bribery 
and  corruption  of  national  importance.  The  Anti-Corruption  Unit  acts  as  a  centre  of 
excellence for the investigation, prevention  and disruption of bribery and corruption, and in 
this regard the unit provides assistance to other national and local units, when required. The 
Unit  was  established  to  act  as  organisational  lead  for  the  investigation  of  corruption  and 
bribery. Its operational scope includes prevention, detection, disruption and investigation of 
cases of bribery and corruption. The Unit proactively seeks out cases and gathers bribery and 
corruption  related  intelligence.  In  relation  to  the  overall  resources  dedicated  to  fighting 
corruption, the Anti-corruption Unit within GNECB is currently operating at limited capacity, 
with only three out of six positions filled51.  

Following  completion  of  corruption  investigations  by  An  Garda  Síochána,  a  file  is 
submitted  to  the  office  of  the  Director  of  Public  Prosecutions,  unless  the  investigation 
was discontinued due to insufficient evidence. Corruption investigations conducted by the 
GNECB  are  supported  by  relevant  national  operational  units,  such  as  the  Financial 
Intelligence Unit and, regarding the seizure of assets deemed to be the proceeds of crime, the 
Criminal  Assets  Bureau, which is  an independent  multi-agency body. Upon completion, all 
corruption investigations conducted by  An Garda Síochána are referred  to  the office of the 
Director  of  Public  Prosecutions  (DPP).  The  DPP  has  no  investigative  functions  but 
cooperates  regularly  with  An  Garda  Síochána  and  other  investigating  agencies  during  the 

48   The Act was signed into law on the 5 June 2018. 
49   The Mahon Tribunal was an inquiry into certain planning matters and payments to politicians and issued six 

recommendations related to the fight against corruption: https://planningtribunal.ie/. 

50   Programme for Government June 2020. 
51   The issue of resources has been raised as a challenge when it comes to investigations, as well as obtaining 
electronic surveillance  for such corruption cases can be difficult as they rank lower in terms of priority in 
relation to terrorist or organised criminal group cases.  

9 

 
                                                 
course  of  criminal  investigations,  particularly  in  providing  relevant  legal  and  prosecutorial 
advice.  There  are  also  a  number  of  complex  corruption  investigations  where  a  file  will  be 
submitted for legal guidance to the DPP, usually to the Special Financial Crime Unit before 
the investigation is completed. In June 2019, the Garda Inspectorate began a review into how 
the Gardaí tackle corruption within their own ranks. 

An  assessment  of  the  anti-corruption  structures  and  procedures  in  criminal  law 
enforcement is ongoing. In 2018, the Minister for Justice and Equality appointed a former 
DPP  and  anti-corruption  expert,  to  chair  the  review  into  whether  the  various  State  bodies 
involved in  anti-corruption measures  are cooperating effectively, with  a view to  identifying 
any  gaps  or  impediments.  The  Review  Group  is  due  to  present  its  findings  later  in  autumn 
2020.  The  Government  announced  in  its  Programme  adopted  in  June  2020  to  tackle 
corruption  and  follow-up  the  review  and  increase  the  effectiveness  of  anticorruption 
measures. 

Some  high-level  corruption  cases  have  been  dealt  with  by  Tribunals  of  Inquiry.  Such 
procedures are generally very lengthy and, in some cases courts, considered the evidence as 
inadmissible. Tribunals have been labelled ‘a lengthy, expensive but unsatisfactory means of 
exposing  corruption’  by  Transparency  International  Ireland52.  There  have  been  10  tribunals 
since 1991. The Moriarty Tribunal into payments to politicians and the Mahon Tribunal into 
planning matters, ran for fourteen and sixteen years, respectively.  

Prevention of corruption and promotion of integrity measures are in place. These are set 
out  in  a  number  of  pieces  of  legislation,  including  the  Ethics  Acts53  and  the  Regulation  of 
Lobbying  Act  201554.  The  Regulation  of  Lobbying  Act  has  made  it  mandatory  to  make 
information  on  lobbying  activities  and  outreach  to  public  officials  publicly  available  on  a 
web-based Register of Lobbying. Established under the Ethics Acts, SIPO is an independent 
supervisory authority with a number of responsibilities in preventing corruption and conflicts 
of  interest.  Inter  alia,  it  is  tasked  with  the  administration  of  the  ethics  frameworks  for  the 
public sector and with lobbying regulation. Under the Regulation of Lobbying Act, SIPO can 
to investigate non-compliance, and prosecute other contraventions on a summary basis, such 
as failure to submit a return by the statutory deadline. The part of the Act, which provides for 
investigation and enforcement provisions entered into force on 1 January 2017. The Register 
of Lobbying is overseen by SIPO.  

General  rules and procedures concerning conflicts of interest are set  out in the Ethics 
Acts.  SIPO  publishes  guidelines  on  compliance  with  the  provisions  of  these  Acts. 
Furthermore, SIPO is responsible for managing the disclosure of interests and tax clearance 
regimes,  as  well  as  for  investigating  and  reporting  on  possible  contraventions  of  the  Ethics 
legislation. These SIPO functions relate to office holders (including Ministers and Ministers 
of State), the Attorney General, special advisers and holders of designated directorships and 
occupiers of designated positions in the public sector. The Protected Disclosures Act, which 
establishes  a  comprehensive  legal  framework  for  the  protection  of  whistle-blowers  and 
protection  against  reprisals,  is  in  place  since  2014.  Transparency  International  reports  that 
while  the  enactment  of  whistleblowing  legislation  in  2014  was  followed  by  an  increase  of 
115%  in  persons  demanding  specialist  legal  advice  or  guidance  since  2011,  some  issues 

52   Transparency  International  Ireland,  ‘Submission  to  the  Department  of  Justice  and  Equality  Review  Group 

consultation on anti-fraud and anti-corruption structures and procedures’, 2019.   

53   The Ethics in Public Office Act of 1995 and the Standards in Public Office Act of 2001. 
54   Regulation of Lobbying Act 2015.  

10 

 
                                                 
remain  regarding  follow-up  action55.  Results  from  a  Eurobarometer  survey  show  that  32% 
respondents think that there is no protection for those who report corruption56.  

The  investigation  and  monitoring  of  ethics  compliance  faces  some  legislative  and 
structural  obstacles.  The  Ethics  Acts  allow  SIPO  to  appoint  an  inquiry  officer  to  do  a 
preliminary  inquiry  following  a  complaint,  which  may  avert  reputational  damage  when  the 
allegations  turn  out  to  be  without  foundation.  However,  when  SIPO  launches  an  own-
initiative inquiry, it cannot appoint an inquiry officer. This has the practical impact that the 
threshold to launch a full investigation on its own initiative is quite high. Furthermore, a full 
investigation hearing may only proceed when all six members of SIPO are present, while the 
rest  of  SIPO’s  work  can  be  pursued  with  a  quorum  of  three  members.  Resources  are  also 
rather limited in view of the wide remit of competence of SIPO.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

The  Irish  Constitution  names  the  State  as  guarantor  for  the  exercise  fundamental  rights, 
amongst  them  freedom  of  expression  and  freedom  of  the  press,  subject  to  public  order  and 
morality57. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland was established by the Broadcasting Act of 
2009. Access  to  information is  covered by the Freedom  of  Information  Acts  of 1997, 2003 
and 2014, and protection to whistle-blowers is provided by the Protected Disclosures Act of 
2014. A consultation on the review of the  Irish defamation law took place in late 2016 and 
the Government taking office in 2020 has pledged reforms in this area58. 

The  regulator  for  audiovisual  media  services,  the  Broadcasting  Authority  of  Ireland 
(BAI) is considered to be effective, transparent and independent59. The Broadcasting Act 
of 200960 contains a number of provisions seeking to ensure that the BAI is legally distinct 
from  the  government  and  functionally  independent  of  government  and  any  other  body.  Its 
independence was assessed to be at very low risk by the Media Pluralism Monitor Report on 
Ireland in 2018-2019 (MPM 2020). The BAI is comprised of nine members. Five members, 
including  the  Chairperson,  are  appointed  by  the  Government  following  nomination  by  the 
Minister for Communications, and four members are appointed by the Government following 
nomination  by  the  same  Minister,  but  having  regard  to  the  advice  of  a  parliamentary 
committee.  The  Act  sets  a  high  threshold  for  the  removal  of  a  member  of  BAI  by  the 
Government,  requiring that ‘resolutions  are passed by each House of Parliament calling for 
his or her removal’. 

In  January  2020,  the  Minister  for  Communications  introduced  a  draft  Online  Safety 
and Media Regulation Bill in order to transpose parts of the revised AVMSD. The new 
Governement’s  programme  envisages  to  enact  the  Bill.  The  revised  Audiovisual  Media 
Services  Directive  (AVMSD)  sets  out  a  range  of  specific  guarantees  for  the  independence 

55   Transparency International, Speak up report 2017. 
56   Special Eurobarometer 502 (2019). 
57   Personal Rights, Article 40, para. 6.1. 
58   Ireland  ranks  13th  in  the  2020  World  Press  Freedom  Index,  2  places  up  from  2019.  Reporters  without 
Borders,  Ireland.  The  Defamation  Act  2009  provides  that  the  Minister  for  Justice  can  give  statutory 
recognition to a self-regulating body for the print media to be known as the “Press Council”, provided that it 
satisfies  the  criteria  as  to  independence  and  other  matters,  set  out  in  Schedule  2  of  the  Act.  In  2010,  the 
Minister for Justice made an Order under the 2009 Act to recognise the Press Council of Ireland as the Press 
Council for the purposes of the Defamation Act. The Press Council is therefore a non-statutory body but is 
recognised by statute. 

59   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 10, as confirmed by information received in the context of country visit. 
60   Broadcasting Act 2009. 

11 

 
                                                 
and  effectiveness  of  national  media  regulators.  Ireland  is  currently  in  the  process  of 
transposing the revised AVMSD. The new Bill also creates an Online Safety Commissioner 
and reconfigures the existing  BAI  into a Media  Commission  with  the responsibility  for the 
entire audiovisual sector (broadcasting, on-demand audiovisual services and online platforms, 
including social media).  

The  Press  Council  of  Ireland  (PCI)  and  the  Office  of  the  Press  Ombudsman  (PO) 
consider  press  complaints61.  They  cover  newspapers  (print  and  online),  magazines  and 
online-only  news  publications  that  are  members  of  the  Press  Council.  The  PCI  has  13 
members. Seven, including the Chair, are independent members appointed following a public 
competition.  The  remaining  six  members  are  drawn  from  the  press  industry.  The  PCI 
appoints the PO following a public competition. The PO receives complaints from members 
of the public and seeks to resolve them by conciliation or mediation. If not possible, the PO 
will  make  a  decision  based  on  the  Code  of  Practice.  The  PCI  decides  on  appeals  from 
decisions of the PO and on complaints referred to it directly by the PO. 

In  2019  the  BAI  concluded  a  contract  with  Dublin  City  University  to  update  and 
publish annually the information on ownership and control arrangements and changes 
thereto.  Irish  company  law  does  not  require  any  company,  media-related  or  otherwise,  to 
disclose  publicly  who  holds  the  beneficial  interest  in  its  shares62.  As  regards  BAI-licenced 
radio and television media outlets, the public may consult – at the BAI offices – any contracts 
signed  by  the  BAI,  which  include  information  relating  to  media  companies’  ownership 
structures. Furthermore, the 2014 Competition and Consumer Protection Act states that in the 
case of media mergers or acquisitions, the undertakings involved must notify the Minister for 
Communications  of  details  relating  to  the  ownership  of  those  undertakings.  The  Act  also 
requires  the  BAI  to  prepare  and  publish  a  report  describing  the  ownership  and  control 
arrangements for undertakings operating a media business in Ireland. Furthermore, the report 
sets  out  changes  to  ownership  and  control  arrangements  of  such  undertakings  over  the 
previous  three  years  and  provides  an  analysis  of  the  effects  of  such  changes  on  media 
pluralism in Ireland. Two such reports have already been produced: one covering the period 
of 2012-2014 and the other covering 2015-201763. The revised AVMSD encourages Member 
States  to  adopt  legislative  measures  providing  that  media  service  providers  under  their 
jurisdiction make accessible information concerning their ownership structure, including the 
beneficial  owners.  The  MPM  2020  Report  for  Ireland  deems  transparency  of  media 
ownership  to  be  at  medium  risk,  slightly  improving  from  previous  assessments  due  to 
changes  following  the  transposition  of  the  EU’s  Anti-Money-Laundering  Directive 
(November 2018) and the abovementioned Competition and Consumer Protection Act. 

There  are  no  specific  rules  on  state  advertising  in  media.  The  MPM  2017  Report  for 
Ireland64  raised  the  issue  of  the  lack  of  specific  rules  other  than  standard  procurement 
provisions,  concerning  the  placement  of  state  advertising  in  media.  The  legal  framework 
remains the same. Nevertheless, it appears that the only noteworthy issue reported since then 

61   The  PCI  and  PO  result  from  a  process  originating  in  2004  when  the  industry  formed  a  Press  Industry 
Steering  Committee  comprising  representatives  of  publishers  and  journalists.  The  process  led  to  the 
establishment  of  the  PCI  in  2007  and  PO  in  2008  and  the  elaboration  of  a  Code  of  Practice. 
https://www.pressombudsman.ie/. 

62   A registry of beneficial ownership was set up in Ireland. Members of the public can request to acquire access 

to a restricted set of beneficial ownership information.  
be 

accessed 

reports 

can 

the 

63   Both 

at 

following 

link: 

https://www.bai.ie/en/news-and-

information/publications/.  

64   2020 Media Pluralism Monitor, p. 10. 

12 

 
                                                 
was  the  controversy  over  local  and  regional  newspapers  being  asked  to  publish  content 
promoting a government development plan ‘Ireland 2040’ in a manner that seemed to blur the 
boundary between editorial and advertising content65.  

The  Irish  Government  has  taken  a  number  of  measures  to  ensure  that  journalistic 
investigations do not lead to intimidation and reprisals. While Ireland does not have any 
specific national mechanism aimed at ensuring the safety of journalists, the framework for the 
protection  of  journalists  appears  to  be  robust.  For  example,  the  Protected  Disclosures  Act 
2014  protects  workers  who  speak  up  about  wrongdoings  in  the  workplace.  No  alerts  have 
been  posted  in  relation  to  Ireland  on  the  Council  of  Europe  platform  to  promote  the 
protection of journalism and safety of journalists, since its establishement in 2015. 

The new Government has pledged to reform the defamation laws. The objective would be 
to ensure a balanced approach to freedom of expression, the right to protection of good name 
and  reputation,  and  the  right  of  access  to  justice.  Frequent  defamation  suits,  high  costs  of 
defence  and  high  damages  awarded  by  Irish  courts  are  seen  as  an  inducement  to  self-
censorship  and  a  constraint  to  media  freedom,  also  to  the  detriment  of  the  fight  against 
corruption. A consultation on the review of the Irish defamation law took place in late 2016 
and early 2017, and is currently being finalised with a view to reforming legislation early in 
202166.  In  2017,  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  held,  in  the  context  of  a  EUR  1.25 
million award in a defamation case in Ireland, that unpredictably large awards of damages in 
defamation cases are considered capable, in principle, of having a chilling effect on media’s 
right  to  freedom  of  expression  and  therefore  require  particularly  careful  scrutiny.  The  case 
was brought and decided under the Defamation Act 196167.  

Access to information is overall ensured68. The Freedom of Information Acts of 1997, 2003 
and 2014 oblige government Departments and other public bodies to publish information on 
their activities and to make information they hold available to citizens. Compliance with the 
Act is generally good. The imposition of a fee for freedom of information requests  in 2003 
diminished the number of requests, but the fee was removed following the 2014 Act. 

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Ireland  has  a  bicameral  parliamentary  system:  Parliament  (Oireachtas)  comprises  a  Lower 
House  (Dáil  Éireann),  and  an  Upper  House  (Seanad  Éireann).  Government  Ministers  and 
members of Parliament have the right of legislative initiative. The Constitution states that the 
Government  must  answer  to  the  Lower  House.  Constitutional  review  is  carried  out  by  the 
High  Court  with  a  right  of  appeal  to  the  Court  of  Appeal  and  the  Supreme  Court.  The 
President  may,  after  consultation  with  the  Council  of  State69,  refer  a  Bill  to  the  Supreme 
Court  for  constitutional  review.  The  Irish  Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission  is 
Ireland’s national human rights and equality institution.  

65   Irish Times, Regional newspapers reject claims about Government ‘advertorials’, 27 February 2018. 
66   It should also be recalled  that ‘Member States  should put in place a comprehensive legislative  framework 
that  enables  journalists  and  other  media  actors  to  contribute  to  public  debate  effectively  and  without  fear’ 
(Recommendation (CM/Rec(2016)4) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe). 

67   Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  15  June  2017,  Independent  Newspapers  (Ireland) 

Limited v. Ireland, application no. 28199/15.     

68   The indicator ‘Protection of Right to Information’ in the MPM 2020 Report scores a low risk, p. 10. 
69   A  body  composed  of  current  and  former  office  holders  representing  the  executive,  the  legislature  and  the 
judiciary,  and  persons  appointed  by  the  President,  advising  the  President  on  the  exercise  of  his  or  her 
discretionary powers. 

13 

 
                                                 
A  practice  of  consultation  process  of  draft  Bills  and  Laws  exists.  Parliament  is  not 
required to hold public consultations when it considers draft legislation, although it regularly 
chooses  to  do  so,  either  by  a  general  call  for  submissions  or  by  engaging  with  the  most 
relevant  stakeholders.  Moreover, before the Government  publishes a  Bill,  there is  usually a 
consultation  process.  The  relevant  Department  may  publish  a  Green  Paper  setting  out  the 
Government’s ideas and inviting opinions from individuals and organisations. Before a Bill is 
finalised,  a  general  scheme  of  the  Bill  may  be  published.  The  general  scheme  of  a 
Government Bill undergoes scrutiny by a parliamentary Committee before the text of the Bill 
is  finalised.  The  relevant  Committee  may  invite  stakeholders  to  participate  by  attending 
meetings to discuss the general scheme of the Bill. At the end of the pre-legislative scrutiny, 
the  Committee  produces  a  report  and  lays  it  before  the  Houses  of  Parliament.  The  report 
makes  recommendations  on  the  Bill  based  on  the  Committee’s  scrutiny.  Documents  laid 
before  the  Houses  of  Parliament  are  available  to  the  public  online.  Private  Members’  Bills 
undergo  a  similar  process  of  scrutiny  by  a  parliamentary  Committee  only  if  they  pass  the 
second stage in the Lower House70. Policy briefings of the research service of the Parliament 
include  an  appraisal  of  the  ex-ante  impact  assessment  prepared  by  the  Government.  The 
research service also prepares policy analysis in relation to private Members’ bills71. 

Legislative  measures  to  tackle  the  COVID-19  pandemic  were  adopted  via  normal 
legislative  procedure,  with  a  focused  discussion.  These  legislative  measures  include  the 
Health  (Preservation  and  Protection  and  other  Emergency  Measures  in  the  Public  Interest) 
Bill  202072  and  the  Emergency  Measures  in  the  Public  Interest  (COVID-19)  Bill  202073, 
which grant the Minister for Health extensive powers to restrict the freedom of all individuals 
in order to prevent the further spread of COVID-19 in Ireland. The emergency powers remain 
in operation until 9 November 2020, when they will cease to have effect unless a resolution is 
passed by both Houses of Parliament to approve the continuation of the measures. The High 
Court  has  dismissed  a  challenge  against 
to  be 
disproportionate and unconstitutional74. The so-called guillotine motions  were used on both 
Acts. Guillotines are used in cases of some urgency where the Houses decide to shorten the 
time allocated to table amendments, debate a Bill and vote on all remaining stages. In 2019, 
there  were  two  guillotine  questions  used  out  of  a  total  of  53  Acts/Bills  enacted  that  year. 
Moreover, emergency procedures exist, but have not been used in recent times75.  

laws  which  claimed 

these 

them 

70   Input from Ireland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report and information received in the context of the country 

visit. 

71   European Parliament Research Service, Better Regulation practices in national parliaments, p. 27. 
72   The  Health  (Preservation  and  Protection  and  other  Emergency  Measures  in  the  Public  Interest)  Act  2020, 
was signed into law by the President of Ireland on 20 March 2020. The Act provides powers to the Minister 
for Health to make regulations to introduce measures to slow down the spread of the virus. These include the 
power to: restrict travel to and from and within Ireland; restrict gatherings of people; ensure that businesses 
implement safeguards to protect staff and customers; and close premises, such as schools.   

73   The  Emergency  Measures  in  the  Public  Interest  (COVID-19)  Act  2020  was  signed  into  law  on  27  March 
2020 by the President of Ireland. The Act provides the Government with the means to introduce a range of 
extraordinary  measures  and  safeguards  to  prevent,  minimise,  limit  or  reduce  the  risk  of  persons  being 
infected with COVID-19. Under the Act, measures can be introduced in areas such as housing and planning, 
health and social care, mental health, defence, temporary wage subsidies, redundancies and other areas. 
74   Judgment  of  the  High  Court  of  13  May  2020,  O’Doherty  &  Waters  v.  Minister  for  Health  &  Attorney 

General.  

75   The Constitution provides a mechanism whereby the Prime Minister may request the Parliament to abridge 
the time that the Upper House spends considering a Bill if it is considered that the legislation ‘is urgent and 
immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace and security, or by reason of the existence of 
a public emergency, whether domestic or international’. This request must be agreed to by Lower House and 
the President. However, any legislation enacted on foot of this provision would only remain in force for 90 

14 

 
                                                 
The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission is accredited with ‘A’ status76. In its 
recommendations, the UN Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions encouraged 
the  Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission  to  advocate  for  adequate  funding  while 
safeguarding its financial independence.  

Ireland has a vibrant and diverse civil society, although funding restrictions have raised 
some  concerns.  Civic  space  in  Ireland  is  open77  but  concerns  have  been  raised  by  civil 
society organisations as regards constraints on civil society actions in relation to the impact of 
a  prohibition  under  the  Electoral  Acts  for  donations  to  be  given  for  political  purposes  to  a 
candidate,  political  party/accounting  unit,  elected  official,  or  third  party,  by  a  person  other 
than  an  Irish  citizen,  who  is  not  ordinarily  resident  on  the  island  of  Ireland,  or  by  a  body 
corporate or unincorporated body of persons that does not maintain an office on the island of 
Ireland  from  which  at  least  one  of  its  principal  activities  is  based.  The  prohibition  applies 
regardless  of  the  amount.  SIPO  has  interpreted  the  relevant  legislation  as  also  comprising 
certain  activities  carried  out  by  civil  society  organisations,  such  as  advocacy  work  also 
outside  electoral  periods.  This  has  raised  concerns  among  civil  society  organisations78.  In 
January 2019, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission published a policy statement 
on  the  Electoral  Acts  and  Civil  Society  Space  in  Ireland79.  It  outlined  concerns  that  the 
definition  of  the  terms  ‘political  purposes’  and  ‘third  party’  in  the  Electoral  Act  are  overly 
broad and include a range of Irish civil society organisations, which are therefore constrained 
in  their  advocacy  functions.  The  Irish  Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission  was  of  the 
view  that  such  regulatory  measures  should  avoid  placing  undue  restrictions  on  wider  civil 
society activity that engages in legitimate advocacy and aims to influence political decision-
making, including with regard to human rights and equality issues. SIPO stated80 that it will 
look  at  these  matters  in  the  context  of  a  link  to  elections  or  referendums,  e.g.  donations  to 
organisations for the purpose of lobbying to have a referendum. EU law requirements81 and 
Council  of  Europe  standards82  should  be  duly  taken  into  account  with  regard  to  access  to 
funding for civil society organisations.  

days unless both Houses agree that it should remain in force for a specified longer period. This mechanism 
has never been used. The Constitution also allows for the Houses of Parliament to resolve that a ‘time of war 
or  armed  rebellion’  exists,  and  during  that  time  a  small  category  of  legislation  passed  (quite  narrowly 
applied) can be removed from judicial oversight. Its last use ended in 1995.  

76   The Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission was accredited with ‘A’ status in November 2015 by the 
UN  Global  Alliance  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (GANHRI),  Sub-Committee  on  Accreditation 
(SCA), Accreditation Report – November 2015.  

77   Rating by CIVICUS; ratings are on a five-category scale defined as: open, narrowed, obstructed, repressed 

and closed.   

78   Amnesty International Ireland, Front Line Defenders, The Wheel, Transparency International Ireland, Uplift 
and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (2020), Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights to 
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Mr Clément Nyaletsossi Voule.  

79   IHREC, Policy Statement on the Electoral Acts and Civil Society Space in Ireland, January 2019. 
80   SIPO, Annual Report for 2019.  
81   Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 June 2020, Commission v. Hungary, C-78/18.  
82   Recommendation  CM/REC(2017)14  of  the  Committee  of  Ministers  of  the  Council  of  Europe;  2014  Joint 
Guidelines  on  Freedom  of  Association  of  the  Venice  Commission  and  OSCE  Office  for  Democratic 
Institutions and Human Rights.  

15 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                        
Annex: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law report 
can be found at (COM website). 

Amnesty International Ireland, Front Line Defenders, The Wheel, Transparency International Ireland, 
Uplift and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (2020), Submission to the UN Special Rapporteur on 
the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Mr Clément Nyaletsossi Voule. 

Centre  for  Media  Pluralism  and  Media  Freedom  (2020),  2020  Media  Pluralism  Monitor. 
https://cmpf.eui.eu/media-pluralism-monitor/mpm-2020.   

CIVICUS, Monitor tracking civic space: Ireland. https://monitor.civicus.org/country/ireland/.  

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2019),  Resolution  CM/ResDH(2016)358  of  the 
Committee of Ministers on excessive length of criminal and civil proceedings and lack of effective 
remedies. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2016),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2016)4  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on the protection of journalism and safety of journalists 
and other media actors. 

Council of Europe: Committee of Ministers (2017), Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers 
of the Council of Europe CM/REC(2017)14 on the Legal Status of Non-Governmental Organisations 
in Europe. 

Council of Europe (2020), Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists. 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission (2010), Report on the Independence of the Judicial System 
Part I: The Independence of Judges adopted by the Venice Commission at its 82nd Plenary Session 
(CDL-AD(2010)004-e). 

Council of Europe: Venice Commission and OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human 
Rights (2014), Joint Guidelines on Freedom of Association. 

Council of the Bar of Ireland (2019), submission to the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality on 
Access to Justice and Legal Costs of 25 November 2019. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgement of 25 July 2018, LM, C‑ 216/18 PPU. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgement of 19 November 2019, AK, joined cases 
C‑ 585/18, C‑ 624/18 and C‑ 625/18. 

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgement of 18 June 2020, European Commission v 
Hungary, C-78/18. 

Courts Service, Long-Term Strategic Vision to 2030: Supporting Access to Justice in a modern, 
digital Ireland. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2020), Special Eurobarometer 502: Corruption. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2019), Flash Eurobarometer 482: Businesses and corruption. 

European  Audiovisual  Observatory  (2019),  The  independence  of  media  regulatory  authorities  in 
Europe. 

European Centre for Press & Media Freedom (2020), Mapping Media Freedom.  

European Commission (2020), EU Justice Scoreboard.   

European Commission (2018), Country Report Ireland, (SWD(2018) 206 final).  

European Commission (2019), Country Report Ireland, (SWD(2019) 1006 final). 

16 

 
European Commission (2020), Country Report Ireland, (SWD(2020) 506 final). 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  22  December  2009,  Parlov-Tkalčić  v  Croatia, 
application no. 24810/06. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 10 September 2010, McFarlane v Ireland, application 
no. 31333/06. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  15  June  2017,  Independent  Newspapers  (Ireland) 
Limited v. Ireland, application no. 28199/15. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 6 November 2018, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. 
Portugal, application no. 55391/19, 57728/13 and 74041/13. 

European  Court  of  Human  Rights,  judgment  of  5  May  2020,  Kövesi  v.  Romania,  application  no. 
3594/19. 

European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (2020), Contribution from the European Network of 
Council for the Judiciary for the stakeholder consultation for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Parliament  (2016),  A  comparative  analysis  of  media  freedom  and  pluralism  in  the  EU 
Member States.  

European Parliament Research Service, Better Regulation practices in national parliaments. 

Freedom House (2020), Freedom in the World 2020. 

GRECO (2014), Fourth Evaluation Round – Evaluation report on Ireland on Corruption prevention in 
respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

GRECO (2018), Fourth Evaluation Round – Interim compliance report on Ireland on on Corruption 
prevention in respect of members of Parliament, judges and prosecutors. 

High  Court,  judgment  of  13  May  2020,  O’Doherty  &  Waters  v.  Minister  for  Health  &  Attorney 
General. 

Irish Government (2020), Input from Ireland for the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (2019), Ireland and the Convention on the Elimination 
of Racial Discrimination, Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial 
Discrimination on Ireland’s Combined 5th and 6th Report, October 2019. 

Irish  Human  Rights  and  Equality  Commission  (2019),  Policy  Statement  on  the  Electoral  Acts  and 
Civil Society Space in Ireland, January 2019. 

Irish  Law  Society  (2018),  Contribution  to  the  Review  of  the  Administration  of  Civil  Justice  of 
February 2018. https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/61144.  

Irish  Times  (2018),  Regional  newspapers  reject  claims  about  Government  ‘advertorials’. 
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/regional-newspapers-reject-claims-about-government-
advertorials-1.3408081.  

Personal Injuries Commission (2018), Second and Final Report, Department of Business, Enterprise 
and Innovation of Ireland, July 2018. 

Reporters without Borders, Ireland. https://rsf.org/en/ireland.  

Transparency 
https://transparency.ie/sites/default/files/17.12.13_speak_up_report_ie_final.pdf.  

International 

(2017), 

Speak 

up 

report.  

Transparency International, 2019 Corruption Perception Index. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi.  

Transparency  International  Ireland  (2019),  Submission  to  the  Department  of  Justice  and  Equality 
Review  Group  consultation  on  anti-fraud  and  anti-corruption  structures  and  procedures. 
https://www.transparency.ie/sites/default/files/19.04.26_ti_ireland_wcc_submission_final.pdf.  

17 

 
UN Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (2015), Sub-Committee on Accreditation 
(SCA), Accreditation Report – November 2015. 

Virtual country visit to Ireland in the context of the 2020 Rule of Law Report. 

18 

 
 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Ireland  

The Commission services held virtual meetings in June 2020 with: 

  Bar of Ireland  
  Broadcasting Authority of Ireland   
  Chair  of  the  Review  Group  on  structures  and  strategies to  prevent, investigate and  penalise 

economic crime and corruption and former Director of Public Prosecutions 

Irish Council for Civil Liberties 
Judicial Appointments Advisory Board 
Judicial Council 

  Department of Justice and Equality 
  Garda Economic Crime Bureau  
  Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission 
 
 
 
  Law Society of Ireland 
  Legal Services Regulatory Authority 
  National Union of Journalists 
  Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement (ODCE) 
  Office of the Director of Public Prosecution 
  Public Appointments Service 
  Standards in Public Office Commission (SIPO) 
  Supreme Court of Ireland 
  Transparency International Ireland 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International 
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe 
  Conference of European Churches  
  EuroCommerce 
  European Center for Not-for-Profit Law  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom 
  European Civic Forum  
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Front Line Defenders 
 
ILGA-Europe 
 
International Commission of Jurists 
 
International Federation for Human Rights  
 
International Press Institute  
  Lifelong learning Platform  
  Open Society Justice Initiative/Open Society European Policy Institute 
  Reporters without Borders  
  Transparency International EU  

19