Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850516-1058183
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 05:26:08+00:00

Document:
NORRIS, NATIONAL GAY FEDERATION c. IRLANDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche NORRIS, NATIONAL GAY FEDERATION c. IRLANDE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10581/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-05-16;10581.83 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) EGALITE DES ARMES, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-2) PRESOMPTION D'INNOCENCEParties : Demandeurs : NORRIS, NATIONAL GAY FEDERATIONDéfendeurs : IRLANDETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10581/83 David NORRIS, ) v/IRELAND NATIONAL GAY FEDERATION ) cIIRLAND E DECISION of 16 May 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 16 mai 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de lÃ¢ requEt e
A rt icle I of the Convention : Where the Contmission declares admissible a complaint founded on a substantive provision of the Convention . (here is no need for a separare e.rnmination under Anicle 1, invoked in conjunctias wâ¢ith the admissible coinplaint . Article 8 of the Convention : Legislarion prohibiting homosexual practices berween males allegedlv imerfering with a Itomosextml's right to respect for his private life (Complaim (lectared admissible) . Article 13 of the Convention : 77i is provision does not guarantee a remedy which would provide a review of the conformi!v of legislation witlt the Convention. Article 25 of the Convention : An association which cannot itself claim to be a"vicrim"mapnm introduce an application againsi a measure which affects its members . A person nmv corrtplnin of a laiv itself where . in viewâ¢ ofhis pariicular Ã«ircumstances, he is directly ajfecred by it.
Article / de la Convention : Lorsque la Commission dÃ©clare recevable un grief tirÃ© d'une disposition substantielle de la Convention, un examen sÃ©parÃ© sous l'angle de l'anicle 1, invoquÃ© en combinaison avec le grief retetiu . ne s'impose pas. Article 8 de la Convention : AllÃ©gation qu'une lÃ©gislation ittterdisant les pratiques homosexuelles entre hommes porte atteinte an droit an respect de la vie privÃ©e d'un homose.ruel (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
Article 13 de la Convention : Cette disposition tie garamir pas un recours en vertu duquel s'opÃ©rerait un comr0le de la conformirÃ©d'une lÃ©gislation avec la Conrention . Article 25 de la Convention : Une association n'a pas quafitÃ©, faute de pouvoir se prÃ©remlre elle-mÃªme Â«victime~, , pour imroduire une requÃªte dirigÃ©e contre une mesure qui frappe ses membres . Une personne peut se plaindre d'une disposition lÃ©gale prise contme relle lorsque, compte term de sa situmion parriculiÃ¨re, ceue personne en .subit directernent les effers .
(jran(,ais : voir p . 137)
The first applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1944, and at present residing in Dublin . He is a homosexual . The second applicant is the National Gay Federation, an organisation working for the rights and welfare of homosexual men and women in Ireland . By resolution of 19 September 1983, the administrative council of the National Gay Federation nominated the first applicant, hintself a member of the said council, to represent the Federation in the application brought before the Commission . In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr . John Jay of Herman Good . Hubert Wine and Company, Solicitors, Dublin . The first applicant has been an active campaigner for homosexuals' rights i n Ireland since about 1971 and in 1974 becante a founding member and chairman of the Irish Gay Rights Movenienl . On 23 November 1977, the first applicant issued High Court proceedings against the Attorney General, being the appropriate person to aÃ§t as defendant in a constimtional action . The first applicant claimed, inier alia : I . A Declaration that Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 are inconsistent with the provision of the Constimtion, were not continued by Article 50 of the Constitution and no longer form part of the Law of the State . 2 . A Declaration that Section I I of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1885 is inconsistem with the provisions of the Constitution, was not continued by Article 50 of the Constitution . and no longer forms part of the Law of the State . On 10 October 1980 the claim Was dismissed and the first applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the action . The first applicant, subsequently, appealed to the Supreme Court . The Court dismissed the appeal on 22 April 1983 by a judgment delivered by three judges, against iwo dissenting opinions .
On the question of costs, the Supreme Court, referring to the exceptional circumstances of the case, ordered that the first applicant be awarded his costs both of the proceedings before the High Court and of the appeal to the Supreme Court . In considering the first applicant's claim under Article 8 of the Convention , with reference to the Dudgeon case ( Eur . Coun H .R ., judgment of 22 .10 .81), the Supreme Court, in the majority judgment, stated that neither the Convention nor the Dudgeon judgnteni were in any way relevant to the question which had to be considered .
The Supreme Coun considered inter a(ia that on the grounds of the Christian nature of the Irish State, and on the grounds that the deliberate practice of homosexuality is tnorally wrong, that it is damaging to the health of both individuals and the public as well as potentially harmful to the institution of marriage, the laws making such conduct criminal were consistent with the Irish Constitution, and no right of privacy could prevail against them . COMPLAINT S The hrst applicant, who has stated that he is a homosexual, has complained inter afin on his own behalf and on behalf of the National Gay Federation, being the second applicant, that the maitenance in force of legislation prohibiting male homosexual activity (Sections 61 and 62 of (heOffences against thePerson Act 1861 and Section I I of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1885) constitutes a continuing interference with his right to respect for his private life (which includes sexual life) of himself as well as of the members of the National Gay Federation within the meaning of Article 8 para . I of the Convention . The first applicant has referred to para . 81 of the judgntent of the Court in the Dudgeon Case . In addition the first applicant has complained that the continued defence of the impugned legislation by the Attorney General as valid law, together with the finding by the Supreme Coun that neither the Convention nor the decision of the Court in the Dudgeon case were in any way relevant to the issues before the Suprente Coun, amount to a breach of Article I in conjunction with Anicle 8 of the Convention . Finally, the first applicant has claimed that he and other members of the National Gay Federation have been denied and deprived of an effective remedy before a national authority for the continued interference with their right to respect for private life under Article 8 . He alleges a violation of Article 13 .
THE LA W I . The first applicant has complained on his own behalf and on behalf of the National Gay Federation, that the ntaintenance in force of legislation prohibitin g 134
male hoinosexual activiry ( Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and Section I I of the Criminal Law (AmendmenQ Act 1885) constitutes a continuing interference with the right to respect for private life of himself as well as of the members of the National Gay Federation, within the meaning of Article 8 para . I of the Convention . Article 8 para . I of the Convention provides as follows : "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his honte and his correspondence . " The Government have submitted that neither the first applicant nor the National Gay Federation can claint to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention . As regards the National Gay Federation, the Commission finds that the Federation as such is not directly affected by the impugned legislation and, consequently, may not claim to be a victini of the alleged violation of the Convention within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention . As regards the first applicant himself, the Commission recalls tha t "Article 25 of the Convention entitles individuals to contend that a law violates their rights by itself, in the absence of an individual measure of complementation, if they run the risk of being directly affected by it ." (Eur . Court H .R ., Marckx judgntent of 13 June 1979, Series A no . 31 . para . 27) . Moreover, the Commission has had regard to the Court's assessment of identical legislation in Northern Ireland in para . 41 of its judgment in the Dudgeon case, where it held that "In the personal circumstances of the applicant, the very exist- ence of this legislation continuously and directly affects his private life . . . ; either he respects the law and refrains front engaging - even in private with consenting male partners - in prohibited sexual acts to which he is disposed by reason of his honiosexual tendencies, or he contntits such acts and thereby becomes liable to criminal prosecution ." (Eur . Court H .R ., judgment of 22 October 1981 . Series A no . 45 ) The Commission, therefore, is of the opinion that the first applicant may claim to be a victim within the nieaning of Article 25 of the Convention . The Commission has funher carried out a preliminary examination of the panies' submissions under Article 8 of the Convention and finds that they raise imponant issues of law and fact under the Convention . This part of the application cannot . therefore, be rejected as nianifesdy ill-founded and must be declared admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established . 135
2 . The first applicant has further complained that the continued defence of the impugned legislation by the Attomey General as valid law, together with the finding by the Supreme Court that neither the Convention nor the decision of the Couri in the Dudgeon Case were in any way relevant to the issues before the Supreme Court, amount to a breach of Article I of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention . Article I of the Convention provides that
"The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within theirjurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention . " However, the Commission recalls tha t "Article I is drafted by reference to the provisions contained in Section I and thus comÃ©s into operation only when takÃ©n in conjunction with them : a violation of Article I follows automatically from, but adds nothing to a breach of those provisions : . . ." (Eur . Court . H .R ., Ireland v . the United Kingdomjudgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no . 25, para . 238 ) Having just found that the application must be declared admissible conceming the first applicant's complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, the Commission does not consider that any legal purpose is served by making a seperate finding under Anicle I of the Convention . The first applicant has also claimed that he has been denied an effective remed y .3 before a national authority for the continued interference with his right to respect for private life under Anicle 8 of the Convention,and he alleges a violation of Article 13 of the Convention, which provides tha t "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity :" Â° However, the Commission recalls that Anicle 13 of the Convention does not guarantee a remedy against legislation which as such is considered not to be in conformity with the Convention (cf . e .g . Young, James and Webster v . United Kingdom, Comm . Repon 14 .12 .79, para . 177, Eur . Coun H .R ., Series B no . 39, p . 49) . It follows that this pan of the application must be declared manifesily illfounded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . For these reasons . the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE concerning the complaints submitted on behalf of the National Gay Federation ;
2 . DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the first applicant's complaints that he did not havc an effective rentedy before a national authority : 3 . DECLARES ADMISSIBLE the remainder of ihe application . without in any way prejudging the merits .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Le prentier requÃ©rant est un ressortissant irlandais, nÃ© en 1944 . actuellentent domiciliÃ© Ã Dublin . 11 est homosexuel . Le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant est la National Gay Federation (FÃ©dÃ©ration nationale des homoxxuels), organisation qui o :uvre en faveur des droits et des intÃ©r@ts des homosexuel .a, honmies et femmes, en Irlande . Par RÃ©solution du 19 septembre 1983, le conseil d'administration de la FÃ©dÃ©ration nationale des homosexuels a dÃ©signÃ© le premier requÃ©rant, lui-niÃ¨me membre de ce conseil, pour reprÃ©senter la FÃ©dÃ©ration dans la requÃ©te introduite devant la Commission . Dans la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, les requÃ©rants sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s par M . John Jay . de l'Ã©tude Herntan Good . Hubert Wine and Company, Solicitors Ã Dublin . Le premier requÃ©rant fait activement campagne en faveur des droits des homosexuels en Irlande depuis 1971 et, en 1974, il est devenu membre fondateur et PrÃ©sident du Irish Gay Rights Movement (Mouvenient irlandais pour les droits des honiosexuels) . Le 23 novembre 1977, le premier requÃ©rant a intentÃ© une action devant la High Court contre le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral en sa qualitÃ© de dÃ©fendeur dans une action en inconstitutionnalitÃ© . Le premier requÃ©rant a demandÃ© notaniment :I . Une dÃ©claration selon laquelle les articles 61 et 62 de la loi de 1861 relativ e aux dÃ©lit, contre la personne sont inconipatibles avec les clauses de la Constitution, n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© maintenus en vigueur par l'Article 50 de la Constitution et ne font plus partie de la lÃ©gislation de l'Etat . 2 . Une dÃ©claration selon laquelle l'Article 11 de la loi (amendÃ©e) de 1885 relative Ã la lÃ©gislation pÃ©nale est incontpatible avec les dispositions de la Constitution, n' a 137
pas Ã©tÃ© reprise par l'article 50 de cette Constitution et ne fait plus partie de la lÃ©gislation de l'Emt . Le 10 octobre 1980, la demande a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e et le premier requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© aux frais . Par la suite, le premier requÃ©rant a recouru Ã la Cour SuprÃ©me . La Cour a rejetÃ© le recours le 22 avril 1983 par un arrÃªt prononcÃ© par trois juges . contre deux . exprimant une opinion dissidente .
Quant aux frais, la Cour SuprÃªme, vu les circonstances exceptionnelles de l'affaire, a ordonnÃ© le remboursement au premier requÃ©rant des frais encourus par lui tant pour la procÃ©dure devant la High Coun que pour le recours Ã la Cour Supr@nie . Lorsqu'elle a examinÃ© le grief tirÃ© par le premier requÃ©rant de l'article 8 de la Convention, la Cour SuprÃ¨me, se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã l'affaire Dudgeon (Cour Eur . D .H . . arrÃªt du 22 .10 .81), a indiquÃ© dans l'arrÃªt majoritaire que ni la Convention ni l'arrÃªt Dudgeon n'Ã©taient en quelque ntaniÃ¨re pertinents pour la question Ã examiner . La Cour SuprÃ¨me a considÃ©rÃ© notamment qu'en raison du fondement chrÃ©tien de l'Etat irlandais et du fait que la pratique dÃ©libÃ©rÃ©e de l'homosexualitÃ© esfmoralement critiquable, nuisible pour la santÃ© tant des particuliers que du public et virtuellement prÃ©judiciable Ã l'institution du mariage, les lois qui pÃ©nalisent ce comportement soni compatibles avec la Constitution irlandaise, aucun droit Ã la vie privÃ©e ne pouvant prÃ©valoir contre elles .
GRIEFS Le premier requÃ©rant . qui dÃ©clare Ãªtre homosexuel, allÃ¨gue notamment, en son nom prtipre et au nom de la FÃ©dÃ©ration nationale des homosexuels, qui est le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant . que le maintien en vigueur de la lÃ©gislation interdisant l'homosexualitÃ© masculine (Articles 61 et 62 deia loi de 1861 sur les dÃ©lits contre la personne et anicle 11 de la loi pÃ©nale (amendÃ©e) de 1885) constitue une irigÃ©rence permanente dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e (qui comprend la vie sexuelle) tant pour lui-mÃªme que pour les membres de la FÃ©dÃ©ration nationale des homosexuels, au sens de l'article 8 pa.r . I de la Convention . Le premier requÃ©rant s'est rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© au paragraphe 81 de l'arrÃ¨t de la Cour dans l'affaire Dudgeon . En outre, le premier requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue que le fait que leprocureur gÃ©nÃ©ral a constamment dÃ©fendu la lÃ©gislation attaquÃ©e comnte une lÃ©gislation valable, ainsi que la conclusion de la Cour SuprÃ©me selon laquelle ni la Convention ni l'arrÃ©t de la Cour dans l'affaire Dudgeon ne sont pertinents pour les problÃ¨mes soumis Ã la Cour SuprÃ¨nie . constituent une violation de l'article I en liaison avec l'article 8 de la Convention : ' '138
Enfin, le premier requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue que lui-mÃ©me et d'autres membres de la FÃ©dÃ©ration nationale des homosexuels se sont vu refuser le droit Ã un recours effectif devant une instance nationale et ont Ã©tÃ© privÃ©s de ce droit en ce qui concerne l'ingÃ©rence permanente dans leur droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e garanti par l'anicle 8 . Il allÃ¨gue une violation de l'article 13 .
EN DROI T 1. Le premier requÃ©rant, agissant en son nom et au nom de la .National Gay Federation ., se plaint que le maintien en vigueur de la lÃ©gislation interdisant les pratiques homosexuelles entre hommes (anicles 61 et 62 de la loi de 1861 sur les dÃ©lits contre les personnes et article 11 de la loi de 1885 sur le droit pÃ©nal (amendement)) constitue une ingÃ©rence permanente dans son droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e ainsi que dans celui des membres de la . National Gay Federation-, au sens de l'anicle 8, par . I de la Convemion . L'article 8 par . I de la Convention est ainsi libellÃ© : â¢ Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . Â» Le Gouvernement a soutenu que ni le premier requÃ©rant ni la â¢ National Gay FederationÂ» ne pouvaient se prÃ©tendre victimes au sens de l'Anicle 25 de la Convention . S'agissant de la â¢National Gay Federation ., la Commission estime que la FÃ©dÃ©ration en tant que telle ne subit pas directement les effets de la lÃ©gislation attaquÃ©e et que, par consÃ©quent, elle ne saurait se prÃ©tendre victime de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention, au sens de l'article 25 de celle-ci . S'agissant du premier requÃ©rant lui-mÃ¨me, la Commission rappelle qu e Â« L'article 25 de la Convention habilite les particuliers Ã soutenir qu'une loi viole leurs droits par elle-mÃ¨me, en l'absence d'acte individuel d'exÃ©cution, s'ils risquent d'en subir directement les effets . -(Cour Eur . D .H ., arrÃªt Marckx du 13 juin 1979, sÃ©rie A nÂ° 31, par . 27 . ) En outre, la Commission a tenu compte de l'apprÃ©ciation par la Cour d'une lÃ©gislation identique en Irlande du Nord, au paragraphe 41 de son arrÃ¨t dans l'affaire Dudgeon, oÃ¹ elle a dit qu e â¢ Dans la situation personnelle de l'intÃ©ressÃ©, [la lÃ©gislation attaquÃ©e] se rÃ©percute de maniÃ¨re constante et directe, par sa seule existence, sur la vie privÃ©e de celui-ci . . . : ou il la respecte et s'abstient de se livrer - mÃªme en privÃ© et avec des hontmes consentants - Ã des actes sexuels prohibÃ©s auxquels l'inclinent ses tendances homosexuelles, ou il en accomplit et s'expose Ã des poursuites pÃ©nales . â¢(Cour Eur . D .H ., arrÃªt du 22 octobre 1981, sÃ©rie A nÂ° 45 . )
I . :I Cnnunis.ian e :ume dune que le premier reyuÃ©ranl peul se prctrndre viclime . em ens tie l'urlicle 2 5 de lu Cunvenlian . La Commission :I aussi prociJc :I un examen prcliminaire de l' :u g umemalion des pnrlle au IIIrI' de l' :Irlucle 8 de la Cunvenliun . Flle clima yu'clle P usc des qu.xliuns innponanles Jc Jroil et de lall au regard de la Convention . Cetue partie de la requile nr peut Junc ilrc rclclie cnlntne m ;mileslemeni Inal Ibndie et Joil iâ¢Irr Ji.larre rerrvahlc . :mcun :nnre muliÃ d'irreievahililc n' :lyam cli clahli . 2 . Le premiar rcyuiranl allÃ¨gue cii uutre que . J'unc pnrl . le Iail que l' . Auarney General - persiste Ã souletlir yue la lipialalion avaquie esl cn viEueur eL J' :mtre parl . l'opinion de lit Cour suprÃ¨me selon laquelle ni la Convemiun ni l'arrCl de la Cnur dans l'allairr DuJgeun n'ânl le moindre rapport ave c les yucslions Jonl iâ¢l :lil saisie la Cour suprime . ronslimenl une viulatiun Je l'nrliile I dt la Co nv enliun .amhiuc il l'arlirlc 8 de celle-ci .
L'article I de la Convention esi ainsi libellÃ© : -I .es Haules Parties Comrarlnnles reconnaissent Ã nmle pcrsunnr rclevanl de letir IuriJiciinn les Jrails et liherlrs Jilini au Titre I (le la presenle Cunvi nl ian . ..
la Cununi . .iun rzppclle ncannmins yu 1 1 .'unirle 1 jÂ« nvuie aux clause du Tilre 1 et ne juue dunc yuc rumbinÃ© av e c eelles : s :l viulaliun rÃ© s ulie aurontaliyuenunl de lit leur, niais elle ny ujnute rien . . - K'our h:ur . I) .H . arriâ¢I Irlande conire Roy :nuue-Uni du 18 jcmvicr 1978 . aÃ©ric A n" 25 . pnr . 239) .
Comme elle vient de dire que la rryu Ã© le Jail ilre dÃ©clarÃ©e re.evahle cn ce yui concerne les tiriel du premier rcyuÃ©ranr au litrc de Iarlicle 8 de la Cunvemion . lu Cununissinn eslinu yu'une conclusion sÃ©parÃ©e au li tre Je l' :IrGclc I de la Convention ne ripnnJ Ã aucune eaiEence juriJiyuc . 3. Le prcmicr rcyurranl .csl plaitn iEalcluenl de se vuir reruscr nn reculu clliâ¢clil Jevanl une iuslance nmi onale pour l'inEcrence pernÂ¢menle qLi'il subit dans sun droit au respect de la vie priviâ¢e . rerunuu par l'nrlic le 8 Jr la Cmrvenlion . et il :Jliâ¢gue une violation de l'arlicle 13 de .elle-.i, qui prÃ©voit que â¢ Toute personne Jonl les druils et liheriÃ©s rerunnus dans la prÃ©senle ('unvenliun onl Cli violÃ© s a droit Ã l'otlrUi Jun rCCUurs C(leclil Jev :lnl une inilanCe nmionede . alors nl Ã¨ lne que la violaiion aurait Ã©tÃ© culnmise par des Ixrsunnes agissant Jan s l'exercice de leuri li,ncuons olGcielles . Â»
La Commission rappelle nianm,iins que l'arlicle 1 3 de la C'unvenliun ne Earanlil pas un recuurs Ã l'enconlre J'une lÃ©gislation qui . en I :ml que Iclle . scr:lil jugre non cunlianle :I la Convention lvuir . peu eaemple . Young . Lune s cl Web s( er c/Royauwe-Uni . rappurl Cumnl . 14 .1 2 .74 . par 177 . C'uur Fur . I) .H ., sÃ©rie B n" 39 . p . 49) . 140
11 s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte doit Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27 par. 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n 1 . DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE en ce qui concerne les griefs . prÃ©sentÃ©s au nom de la â¢National Gay Federationâ¢ ; 2 . DÃCLARE IRRECEVABLE le grief du premier requÃ©rant selon lequel il ne disposait pas d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale ; 3 . DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE pour le surplus, tous moyens de fond rÃ©servÃ©s .
141Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 16/05/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'Article 50
 l'Article 11
 l'article 50
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 13
 L'article 8
 l'article 25
 L'article 25
 l'article 27