Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19830228-936081
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 15:31:17+00:00
Document Index: 21855142

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 2", "l'article 2", "l'article 25", "l'article 26", "l'article 25", "l'article 1", "l'article 26", "l'article 1", "l'article 27"]

W. c. IRLANDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche W. c. IRLANDE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la ConventionNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9360/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-02-28;9360.81 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : W.Défendeurs : IRLANDETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9360/8 1 Mrs . W . v/IRELAN D Mme . W . c/IRLAND E DECISION of 28 February 1983 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 28 fÃ©vrier 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article I of the Convention : The High Contracting Parties are bound to guarantee the rights and freedoms set forth in the Conveutlon ur connection with all acts or omissious of their agents, even where such public authori ty is exercised abroad. The words "withiu their jurisdiction" apply to the direct victinr of the alleged breach . Article 2 of the Convention : The killing of a mau does rrot create for his widow a continuing situatiorr of which she would be the indirect victirn with regard to Article 2 . Artlcle 25 of the Convention : Wife of a nrurdered person considered to be an indirect victinr of an alleged breach of Article 2 of the Couveution . The same solution applies to the unmarried brother of the applicant . Arllcle 26 of the Convention : br the absence of local remedies the six nronths' period runs from the date of the act or decision complained of in the applicalion .
Commission's Competnce ratione pereonae : The fact that arr individital is killed by tenorists does not exclude the Cornmission's contpetence since the High Contracting Pa rties have a du ty to protect the right to life. The Commission's competence is determined with regard to the situation oj the direct victinr and not that of the indirect victinr .
Article 1 de la Convention : Les Hautes Parties Contractantes sont tenues de garantir les droits et libertÃ©s Ã©noncÃ©s dans la Convention pour tous les actes ou omissions de leurs agents, y compris lorsqu'ils exercent l'autoritÃ© publique hors du territoire national . - 21 1 -
Les mots â¢ relevant de leur juridiction . s'appliquent Ã la victime directe de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e. Artlcle 2 de la Conventlon : L'assassinat dun hontme ne jait pas naÃ®tre pour sa veuve rure situation contiuue dont elle serait victime indirecte au regard de l'article 2 . Article 25 de la Convention : Epouse d'une personne assassinÃ©e considÃ©rÃ© e contnte victime indirecte d'mte violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 2 de la Convenlion . MÃ©nte solution s'agissant de l'assassitmt du jrÃ¨re cÃ©libataire de la requÃ©rante . Article 26 de la Convention : En l'absence de voie de recours ituerne le dÃ©lai de six nrois court Ã partir de l'acte incriminÃ© dans la requÃªte . CompÃ©lence ratlone personae de la Commission : Qu'une personne soit tuÃ©e par des terroristes ne permet pas d'exclure la compÃ©tence de la Commission . eu raison du devoir des Hautes Parties Corrtractames de protÃ©ger le droit Ã la vie .
La compÃ©tence de la Commission se dÃ©termine en fonction de la situation de la victime directe . non de celle de la victime indirecte.
(fran(!ais : voirp . 216)
See decision on the Admissibili ty of Application NÂ° 9348/81, page 191 above . THE LA W 1 . The applicant complains of the murder of her husband in the Republic ot' Ireland on 28 June 1980 and of her brother in Northern Ireland on 16 April 1981 . 2 . In its examination of the complaint concerning the murder of the applicant's husband in the Republic of Ireland the Commission has considered : - whether the applicant can claim to be a"victim" within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention ; - whether the complaint is inadmissible ratiotre personae on the ground that it concerns acts of private persons ; - whether the Commission is competent ratione loci . in relation to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland ; an d
- whether the complaint is inadmissible, under A rt icle 26 of the Convention, for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or non-obse rvance of the six months' rule . 3 . The Commission holds that the applicant, as the wife who was affected bv the death of her husband, may claim to be a"victim", in the sense of Article 25 . The Commission here refers to its decision on the admissibility of Application No . 2578/66 (Collection of the Decisions, 30, 11/ Yearbook on the European Convention on Human Rights 12, 175) as confirmed in Application No . 8416/79 (Decisions and Reports 19, 244, 248) . 4 . The Commission also finds that the applicant's complaint, concerning the killing of her husband by terrorists in the Republic of Ireland, raises the question of the responsibility of the respondent State for the protection of the right to lite within its jurisdiction, in accordance with Articles I and 2 of the Convention . It follows that this complaint cannot be declared inadmissible, under Article 27, paragraph 2, as being incompatible with the Convention rariare personae, on the ground that it is directed against acts of private persons . 5 . The Commission further considers that, in determining its competence ratione loci in relation to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, regard must be had to the possition, at the relevant time, of the direct victim (i .e . the applicant's husband) and not of the indirect victim (the applicant herself) of the alleged violation of the Convention . The Commission holds that, at the time ot' his death at G . Sales Yard . the applicant's husband was "within the jurisdiction" of the Republic of Ireland, in the sense of Article I of the Convention . It follows that the applicant's complaint concerning the death of her husbaud is compatible ratione loci with the provisions of the Convention although she herself was not in the Republic of Ireland at the material time . 6 . The Commission finally observes that, under Article 26 of the Convention, it may only deal with a matter "after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken" . The Contmission notes the applicant's submission that the murder of her husband in the Republic of Ireland was made possible by Ireland's failure to prevent terrorisnt and that, in respect of this failure, the exhaustion rule did not apply and that, moreover, there was no domestic remedy available to her in the courts of the Republic of Ireland . 7 . The Commission does not find, on the basis of this submission, that there was a domestic remedy which the applicant was required to exhaust, but it considers that the application has been lodged out of time . 8. The Commission notes the applicant's submission that the six months' rule is inapplicable because her case is based upon continuing violations b y
the Republic of Ireland . It is true that, according to the Commission's case-law, where there is "a permanent state of affairs which is still contiuuing", the question of the six months' rule "could only arise after lhe state of affairs has ceased to exist" (De Becker case, Yearbook 2, 214, 244 ; First Greek case, second decision on admissibili ty , Collec tion 26, 80, 100/Yearbook 11 . 730, 778) . The Commission does not find, however, that, as regards the death of her husband in the Republic of Ireland, the applicant, residing in No rthern Ireland, can rely on the notion of a continuing situation in respect of her own position . It follows that the six months' rule is fully applicable to this complaint . 9 . The Commission has previously held that, "where no domestic remedy is available, the act or decision complained of must itself normally be taken as the 'fiual decision' for the purposes of Article 26 ( Application NÂ° 7379/76, X Y . the United Kingdont, Decisions and Repo rts 8, 211, 212-213) . It follows in the present case that, as no question of domestic remedies arose, the six months' limitation pe ri od ran from 28 June 1980, the date of the death of the applicant's husband . Th e application was introduced more than six months later, on 24 April 1981 . 10 . The complaint concerning the applicant's husband must therefore be rejected under Articles 26 and 27, paragraph 3, of the Convention for nonobse rvance of the six months' rule . 11 . The Commission has next examined the applicant complaint concerning the murder of her brother, and her own secu ri ty, in Norrhern Ireland . 12 . Noting that her brother was single the Commission finds that the applicant, as next-of-kin affÃ¨cted by his death, may claim to be a "victim", in the sense of A rt icle 25, of her brother's murder . It also considers that she may claim to be a victim of a continuing situation in respect of her own security . 13 . The Commission observes that this-complaint, directed against the Republic of' Ireland, concerns an alleged violation of the Convention in No rt hern Ireland . In its examination of this complaint the Commission has had regard to the applicant's extensive submissions under A rt icle I of the Couvention . 14 . The Commission recalls that, in this provision, the High Contracting Pa rt ies undert ake to secure the rights and freedoms defined in Section 1 t " within their ju ri sdiction" (in the French text : "relevant de leur . oevryu juridictiou") . This term is not equivalent to or limited to the national ter ri tory of the High Contracting Pa rtv concerned . It emerges from the language, in pa rt icular of the French text, and the object of this a rticle, and from the purpose of the Convention as a whole, that the High Contracting Pa rt ies are bouud to secure the said ri ghts and freedoms to all persons under their actual autho rity and responsibility, not only when the autho rity is exe rcised withi n -214-
their own territorv but also when it is exercises abroad . The Commission refers in this respect ot its decision in Application Nos 6780/74 and 6950/75 Cvprus v . Turkey ( Decisions and Repo rt s 2, 125, 136) . 6231/73 - Ilse Hess v . the United Kingdom ( Decisions and Reports 2, 72, 73), and Nos . 7229/75 and 7349/76 - X and Y v . Switzerland ( Decisions and Repo rt s 9, 57-76) . As stated bv the Commission in Applications Nos . 6780/74 and 6950/75, the autho ri sed ageuts ot the State, including diplomatic or consular agents and armed forces, uot only remain under its jurisdiction when abroad but b ri ng any other persous or property "within the jurisdiction" of that State, to the extent that thev exercise authority over such persons or property . Insofar as, by their acts or omissions, thev atfect such persons or property, the responsibility of the State is engaged (loc . cit . p . 136) . 15 . In the light ot its above case-law, and of its findings concerning its competence ratione loci in regard to the applicant's fi rs t complaint, the Commission has examined whether it is competent rarione loci, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland, to deal with the applicant's second contplaiut concerning the murder ot' her brother, and her own securi ty , in No rt hern Ireland . This condition would be fulfilled if, at the time of his death at M ., the applicant's brother, being the direct victim of the alleged violation ot A rt icle 2 of the Convention, had been "within (the) jurisdiction" of the Republic of Ireland, in the sense of Article 1, and if the applicant, resident in Nort hern Ireland, could also be said to be within that jurisdiction . The Commissiou cannot find that this was, or is, the case . 16 . As regards, tirstlv . the question whether Nort hern Ireland, or part s thereof, can be considered as national territo ry of the Republic of Ireland, for the purposes ot' A rt icle 1, the applicant herself states that the constitutional claim to the territory of Nort hern Ireland, contained in A rt icles 2 and 3 of the Coustitution of Ireland, is not accepted by the international community as coustituting a basis for jurisdiction over No rt hern Ireland . 17 . Secondlv, in the Commission's view it cannot be sait that, at the time of his death in No rt hern Ireland on 16 April 1981, "authorises agents" of the Republic of Ireland "exercises authority" over her brother, in the sense of the Commission's decision in Applications Nos . 6780/74 and 6950/75 . The applicant has failed to show that any specific acts or omissions, by Irish autho ri ties at that time, have contributed to the murder of her brother . In this respect the Commissiou has taken into account the applicant's statement that the person charged with this murder was resident in B ., No rt hern Ireland . 18 . Having regard to the applicant's general submissions concerning Irelaud's alleged failure to contribute to the prevention of terrorism in No rt hern Ireland the Commission also does not find that, as regards her own security in No rt hern Ireland, the applicant has shown that, in the concrete
circumstances of her case, her right to life is affected by any specific act or omission ot' the respondent State . 19 . It follows that the applicant's complaint, against the Republic of Ireland, concerning the murder of her brother by terrorists, and her own situation, in No rt hern I reland is ratione loci incompatible with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 . _ For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
EN FAI T Voir la dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte nÂ° 9348/81, page 20 1 ci-avant.
EN DROIT 1 . La requÃ©rante se plaint de l'assassinat de son mari, perpÃ©trÃ© le 28 juin 1980 en RÃ©publique d'Irlande et de celui de son frÃ¨re, perpÃ©trÃ© en Irlande du Nord le 16 avril 1981 . 2 . Dans son examen des griefs relatifs au meurtre du mari de la requÃ©rante en RÃ©publique d'Ir[ande, la Commission a examinÃ© : - si la requÃ©rante peut se prÃ©tendre - victime â¢ au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention ; - si le grief est irrecevable ratione personae parce que concernant de s
actes commis par des particuliers ; - si la Commission est compÃ©tente ratione loci en ce qui concerne la juridiction de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande ; e t - si le grief est irrecevable au regard de l'article 26 de la Conventio n pour dÃ©faut d'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes ou non respect du dÃ©lai de six mois . 3 . La Commission estime que la requÃ©rante peut, en tant qu'Ã©pouse affectÃ©e par le dÃ©cÃ¨s de son mari, se prÃ©tendre . victime â¢ au sens de l'article 25 . Elle renvoie ici Ã sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte nÂ° 2758/66 (Recueil 30, p . Il et Annuaire 12, p . 175), confirmÃ©e dans la dÃ©cision nÂ° 8416/79 (D .R . 19, pp . 244, 248) .
4 . La Commission estime Ã©galement que le grief de la requÃ©rante, qui concerne l'assassinat de son mari par des terroristes en RÃ©publique d'Irlande, pose la question de la responsabilitÃ© de l'Etat dans la protection du droit Ã la vie dans sa juridiction, aux termes des articles 1 et 2 de la Convention . i ls'enuitqcgrfaÃªtedÃ©clirvabusendl'tic27, paragraphe 2 pour incompatibilitÃ© ratione personae avec la Convention, au motif qu'il concerne des actes commis par des particuliers . 5 . La Commission estime en outre qu'en dÃ©terminant sa compÃ©tence rarione loci par rapport Ã la juridiction de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande, elle doit tenir compte de la situation dans laquelle, Ã l'Ã©poque des faits, se trouvait la victime directe (c'est-Ã -dire le mari de la requÃ©rante) et non pas la victime indirecte (la requÃ©rante elle-mÃªme) de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention . Elle estime qu'au moment de son dÃ©cÃ¨s sur le foirail de G ., le mari de la requÃ©rante â¢ relevait de la juridiction â¢ de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande, au sens de l'article 1- de la Convention . II s'ensuit que le grief de la requÃ©rante concernant le meurtre de son mari est compatible ratione loci avec les dispositions de la Convention, bien que l'intÃ©ressÃ© ne se trouvÃ¢t point elle-mÃªme sur le territoire de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande Ã l'Ã©poque des faits . 6 . La Commission rappelle enfin qu'aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention, elle ne peut Ãªtre saisie .qu'aprÃ©s Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©rament reconnus et dans le dÃ©lai de six mois, Ã partir de la date de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive . â¢ Elle a pris note de l'argument de la requÃ©rante selon lequel l'assassinat de son mari en RÃ©publique d'Irlande a Ã©tÃ© rendu possible par l'incapacitÃ© de l'Irlande Ã prÃ©venir le terrorisme et qu'au regard de cette incapacitÃ©, la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement n'est pas applicable ; qu'en outre, aucune voie de recours interne n'Ã©tait ouverte Ã la requÃ©rante devant les tribunaux de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande . 7 . Tenant compte de cette argumentation, la Commission n'estime pas qu'il existait une voie de recours inteme que la requÃ©rante Ã©tait tenue d'Ã©puiser, mais elle estime que la requÃªte est tardive . 8 . La Commission a notÃ© l'argument de la requÃ©rante selon laquelle la rÃ¨gle des six mois lui serait inapplicable parce que sa requÃªte se fonde sur des violations continues de la Convention par la RÃ©publique d'Irlande . Il est exact que, selon la jurisprudence de la Commission, lorsqu'il existe .une situation continue qui se prolonge ., le problÃ¨me du dÃ©lai de six mois Â«ne peut surgir qu'aprÃ¨s disparition de cette situationâ¢ (affaire De Becker . Annuaire 2, pp . 214, 244 ; premiÃ¨re Affaire grecque, deuxiÃ¨me dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ©, Rec . 26, pp . 80, 110 ; Annuaire 11, pp . 730, 778) . La Commission n'estime pas cependant qu'en ce qui concerne le dÃ©cÃ¨s de son mari en RÃ©publique d'Irlande, la requÃ©rante, qui habite en Irlande du Nord, puisse invoquer la notion de situation continue Ã propos de son cas . 11 s'ensuit que la rÃ¨gle des six mois est pleinement applicable Ã ce grief. ' - 217 -
9. La Commission a prÃ©cÃ©deinment dÃ©clarÃ© que â¢ lorsqu'il n'existe pas de voie de re cours interne, l'acte ou la dÃ©cision inc ri minÃ©s doivent eux-mÃªmes Ãª tre considÃ©rÃ©s comme la dÃ©cision inteme dÃ©fini ti ve visÃ©e Ã l'a rticle 26 . (RequÃªte nÂ° 7378/76, X c/Royaume-Uni, D .R . 8, pp . 211 . 212-213) . II s'ensuit qu'en l'espÃ¨ce, faute de recours interne, le dÃ©lai de six mots a commencÃ© Ã cou ri r le 28 juin 1980, date du dÃ©cÃ¨s du .mari de la requÃ©rante .
Or la requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© in troduite plus de six mois plus tard, soit le 24 avril 1981 . 10 . Le grief relati f au ma ri de la requÃ©rante doit donc Ãªtre rejetÃ© conformÃ©ment aux articles 26 et 27, paragraphe 3 . de la Convention pour inobse rvation du dÃ©lai de six mois . 11 . La Commission a examinÃ© ensuite le grief formulÃ© par la requÃ©rante Ã propos de l'assassinat de son frÃ¨re, et de sa propre sÃ©cu ri tÃ©, en Ir(ande du Nord. 12 . Le frÃ¨ re de la re quÃ©rante Ã© tant cÃ©libataire, la Commission estime .que la requÃ©rante, en tant que plus proche parente affectÃ©e par sa mo rt , peut se prÃ©tendre â¢victimeâ¢, au sens de l'art icle 25,de l'assassinat .de son frÃ¨re . Elle es ti me aussi que l'intÃ©ressÃ©e peut se plÃ©tendre victime d'une situa tion continue en ce qui concernesa prop re sÃ©cu ri tÃ© . 13 . La Commission fait obse rver que ce grief, di rigÃ© contre la RÃ©publique d'Irlande, concerne une violation allÃ©guÃ©e de la Convention en Irlande du Nord . Dans l'examen de ce grief, la Commission a p rii en considÃ©ration l'argumentation trÃ¨s dÃ©taillÃ©e fournie par la requÃ©rante sur l'a rt icle 1â¢ 1 de la Convention . 14 . La Commission rappelle que, dans ce tte dispositi on les Hautes Pa rties Contractantes s'engagent Ã reconnaitre Ã toute personne â¢ relevant de leur ju ridiction . ( dans le texte anglais :â¢within their jurisdiction .) les droits et libe rtÃ©s dÃ©finis au titre 1 de la Conven ti on . Ce terme n'est pas Ã©quivalent ou limitÃ© au seul ter ri toire national de la Haute Partie Contractante en cause . Il resso rt du libellÃ©, notamment de la version fran Ã§aise, et de l'objet dudit article, ainsi que du but de la Convention toute entiÃ¨re, que les Pa rties Contractantes sont tenues d'assurer ces droits et libe rtÃ©s Ã toute personne re levant effectivement de leur auto ritÃ© et de leur responsabilitÃ©, que ce tt e autori tÃ© s'exetce sur leur territoire ou Ã l'Ã©tranger . La Commission rappelle Ã ce sujet ses dÃ©cisions sur les requÃ©tes n` 6780/74 et 6950/75 (Chypre c/ Turquie, D .R . 2, pp . 125, 136), nÂ° 6231/73 ( Ilse Hess c/Royaume-Uni, D .R . 2, pp . 72, 73) et nÂ° 7229/75 et 7349/76 ( X . et Y . c/Suisse, D .R . 9, pp . 57-76) . Comme l'a prÃ©cisÃ© la Commission dans ses dÃ©cisions sur les requÃ©tes nÂ° 6780/74 et 6950/75, les reprÃ©sentants d'un Etat, y compris les agents diploma ti ques ou consulaires et les forces armÃ©es, non seulement demeu re nt sous sa ju ri diction quand ils sont Ã l'Ã©tranger, mais font que â¢relÃ¨vent de la juridic ti on . de cet Etat toute pe rsonne et tout bien dans la mesure oÃ¹ ses reprÃ©sentants exercent lÃ¨ur auto ritÃ© sur ces pe rsonnes ou ces biens . La responsabilitÃ© de l'Etat es t
engagÃ©e dans la mesu re od, par leurs actes ou omissions, ils po rt ent atteinte Ã ces biens ou Ã ces personnes ( loc . cit . p . 136) . 15 . A la lumiÃ¨re de sa ju ri sprudence prÃ©citÃ©e et de ses conclusions sur sa compÃ©tence ratione loci en ce qui concerne le premier gri ef de la requÃ©rante, la Commission a examinÃ© ensuite si elle est compÃ©tente ratione loci en ce qui concerne la ju ri diction de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande pour examiner le second g rief de la requÃ©rante concernant l'assassinat de son frÃ¨re, et sa sÃ©cu ri tÃ© personnelle, en Irlande du Nord . Cette condition serait remplie si, Ã l'Ã©poque de son dÃ©cÃ¨s Ã M ., le frÃ¨ re de la requÃ©rante, victime directe de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'a rticle 2 de la Convention, Â«relevait de la juridiction . de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande au sens de l'art icle 1, et si la re quÃ©rante, rÃ©sidant en Irlande du Nord, pouvait Ã©galement Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme relevant de cette ju ridiction . La Commission ne saurait estimer que tel Ã© tait ou que tel est le cas . 16 . En ce qui concerne, p re miÃ¨rement, la question de savoir si l'Irlande du Nord ou partie de ce ter ri toire peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme territoire national de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande au sens de l'article 1 - , la requÃ©rante elle-mÃ©me dÃ©clare que la prÃ©tention constitutionnelle au territoire d'Irlande du Nord, qui figure dans les a rt icles 2 et 3 de la Constitution d'Irlande, n'est pas reconnue par la communautÃ© des na ti ons comme constituant le fondement d'une ju ri diction sur l'Irlande du Nord . 17 . DeuxiÃ¨mement, selon la Commission, on ne saurait dire qu'Ã l'Ã©poque du dÃ©cÃ¨s de son frÃ¨'e en Irlande du Nord le 16 avril 1981, . des reprÃ©sentants de l'Etat . de la RÃ©publique d'Irlande aient .exercÃ© leur autoritÃ© Â» sur cette personne, au sens oÃ¹ la Commission l'entendait dans ses dÃ©cisions sur les requÃªtes nÂ° 6780/74 et 6950/75 . La requÃ©rante n'a pas montrÃ© que, par des actes ou omissions concrÃ¨tes, les auto ri tÃ©s irlandaises de l'Ã©poque aient cont ri buÃ© Ã l'assassinat de son frÃ¨re . A cet Ã© gard, la Commission a p ri s en considÃ©ration la dÃ©claration de la re quÃ©rante selon laquelle le tueur chargÃ© de cet assassinat habitait B ., en Irlande du Nord . 18 . Vu l'argumentation d'ordre gÃ©nÃ©ral dÃ©veloppÃ©e par la requÃ©rante sur l'incapacitÃ© allÃ©guÃ©e de l'Irlande Ã contribuer Ã la lutte contre le terrorisme en Irlande du Nord, la Commission n'estime pas qu'en ce qui concerne la sÃ©curitÃ© personnelle de la requÃ©rante en Irlande du Nord, l'intÃ©ressÃ©e ait montrÃ© que, dans les circonstances de l'espÃ¨ce, son droit Ã la vie ait Ã©tÃ© affectÃ© par quelqu'acte ou omission concret que ce soit de l'Etat dÃ©fendeur . 19 . 11 s'ensuit que le grief de la requÃ©rante dirigÃ© contre la RÃ©publique d'Irlande et concemant l'assassinat de son frÃ¨re par des terroristei; ainsi que sa propre situation en Irlande du Nord est ratione loci incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . Par ces motifs, la Commission DECLARE LA REQUETEIRRECEVABLE .
- 219 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 28/02/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page