Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/6289.73-en-19791009/view/
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 21:25:03
Document Index: 338336839

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 31', 'art. 32', 'art. 47', 'art. 44', 'art. 48', 'art. 46', 'art. 6', 'art. 8', 'art. 13', 'art. 14', 'art. 43', 'in fine', 'art. 43', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'in fine', 'in fine', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 6', 'art. 8', 'art. 50', 'art. 6', 'art. 13', 'art. 6', 'art. 8', 'art. 14', 'art. 13', 'art. 6', 'art. 8', 'art. 14', 'art. 13']

AIREY v. IRELAND About Project
2. The Commission’s request, to which was attached the report provided for under Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, was filed with the registry of the Court on 16 May 1978, within the period of three months laid down by Articles 32 para. 1 and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47). The request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration made by Ireland recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the Commission’s request is to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether or not the facts of the case disclose a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 6 para. 1, 8, 13 and 14 (art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14).
3. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex officio members, Mr. P. O’Donoghue, the elected judge of Irish nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr. G. Balladore Pallieri, the President of the Court (Rule 21 para. 3 (b) of the Rules of Court). On 31 May 1978, the President of the Court drew by lot, in the presence of the Deputy Registrar, the names of the five other members, namely Mr. J. Cremona, Mr. Thór Vilhjálmsson, Mr. W. Ganshof van der Meersch, Mr. L. Liesch and Mr. F. Gölcüklü (Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
4. The President of the Chamber ascertained, through the Deputy Registrar, the views of the Agent of the Government of Ireland ("the Government") and the Delegates of the Commission regarding the procedure to be followed. On 15 July 1978, he decided that the Agent should have until 17 October 1978 to file a memorial and that the Delegates should be entitled to file a memorial in reply within two months from the date of the transmission of the Government’s memorial to them by the Registrar.
7. On the Court’s instructions, the Registrar transmitted to the Agent of the Government on 26 February 1979 certain questions on a particular aspect of the case. Replies thereto were received at the registry on 26 March 1979 and were communicated on the same day to the Delegates of the Commission. On 6 April 1979, the Deputy Secretary to the Commission advised the Registrar that the Delegates had no observations to make on those replies.
8. Mrs. Johanna Airey, an Irish national born in 1932, lives in Cork. She comes from a humble family background and went to work at a young age as a shop assistant. She married in 1953 and has four children, the youngest of whom is still dependent on her. At the time of the adoption of the Commission’s report, Mrs. Airey was in receipt of unemployment benefit from the State but, since July 1978, she has been employed. Her net weekly wage in December 1978 was £39.99. In 1974, she obtained a court order against her husband for payment of maintenance of £20 per week, which was increased in 1977 to £27 and in 1978 to £32. However, Mr. Airey, who had previously been working as a lorry driver but was subsequently unemployed, ceased paying such maintenance in May 1978.
Since June 1972, she has been endeavouring to obtain a decree of judicial separation on the grounds of Mr. Airey’s alleged physical and mental cruelty to her and their children, and has consulted several solicitors in this connection. However, she has been unable, in the absence of legal aid and not being in a financial position to meet herself the costs involved, to find a solicitor willing to act for her.
11. Decrees of judicial separation are obtainable only in the High Court. The parties may conduct their case in person. However, the Government’s replies to questions put by the Court (see paragraph 7 above) reveal that in each of the 255 separation proceedings initiated in Ireland in the period from January 1972 to December 1978, without exception, the petitioner was represented by a lawyer.
12. Since Mrs. Airey’s application to the Commission, the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976 has come into force. Section 22 (1) of the Act provides:
16. The Government plead that Mrs. Airey’s application was inadmissible on the ground, firstly, that it was manifestly ill-founded and, secondly, that she had not exhausted domestic remedies.
17. The Court has established two principles in this area. One is that the Commission’s decisions by which applications are accepted are without appeal; the other is that, once a case is referred to it, the Court is endowed with full jurisdiction and may determine questions as to admissibility previously raised before the Commission (see, inter alia, the Klass and others judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, p. 17, para. 32). A combination of these principles shows that, when considering such questions, the Court is not acting as a court of appeal but is simply ascertaining whether the conditions allowing it to deal with the merits of the case are satisfied.
21. The applicant wishes to obtain a decree of judicial separation. There can be no doubt that the outcome of separation proceedings is "decisive for private rights and obligations" and hence, a fortiori, for "civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1); this being so, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is applicable in the present case (see the König judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A no. 27, pp. 30 and 32, paras. 90 and 95). Besides, the point was not contested before the Court.
23. It is convenient at this juncture to consider the Government’s claim that the applicant has nothing to gain from a judicial separation (see paragraph 19 (b) above).
The Court rejects this line of reasoning. Judicial separation is a remedy provided for by Irish law and, as such, it should be available to anyone who satisfies the conditions prescribed thereby. It is for the individual to select which legal remedy to pursue; consequently, even if it were correct that Mrs. Airey’s choice has fallen on a remedy less suited than others to her particular circumstances, this would be of no moment.
The Court does not regard this possibility, of itself, as conclusive of the matter. The Convention is intended to guarantee not rights that are theoretical or illusory but rights that are practical and effective (see, mutatis mutandis, the judgment of 23 July 1968 in the "Belgian Linguistic" case, Series A no. 6, p. 31, paras. 3 in fine and 4; the above-mentioned Golder judgment, p. 18, para. 35 in fine; the Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç judgment of 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, pp. 17-18; para. 42; and the Marckx judgment of 13 June 1979, Series A no. 31, p. 15, para. 31). This is particularly so of the right of access to the courts in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial (see, mutatis mutandis, the Delcourt judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 15, para. 25). It must therefore be ascertained whether Mrs. Airey’s appearance before the High Court without the assistance of a lawyer would be effective, in the sense of whether she would be able to present her case properly and satisfactorily.
For these reasons, the Court considers it most improbable that a person in Mrs. Airey’s position (see paragraph 8 above) can effectively present his or her own case. This view is corroborated by the Government’s replies to the questions put by the Court, replies which reveal that in each of the 255 judicial separation proceedings initiated in Ireland in the period from January 1972 to December 1978, without exception, the petitioner was represented by a lawyer (see paragraph 11 above).
25. The Government seek to distinguish the Golder case on the ground that, there, the applicant had been prevented from having access to court by reason of the positive obstacle placed in his way by the State in the shape of the Home Secretary’s prohibition on his consulting a solicitor. The Government maintain that, in contrast, in the present case there is no positive obstacle emanating from the State and no deliberate attempt by the State to impede access; the alleged lack of access to court stems not from any act on the part of the authorities but solely from Mrs. Airey’s personal circumstances, a matter for which Ireland cannot be held responsible under the Convention.
26. The Government’s principal argument rests on what they see as the consequence of the Commission’s opinion, namely that, in all cases concerning the determination of a "civil right", the State would have to provide free legal aid. In fact, the Convention’s only express provision on free legal aid is Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c) which relates to criminal proceedings and is itself subject to limitations; what is more, according to the Commission’s established case law, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) does not guarantee any right to free legal aid as such. The Government add that since Ireland, when ratifying the Convention, made a reservation to Article 6 para. 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c) with the intention of limiting its obligations in the realm of criminal legal aid, a fortiori it cannot be said to have implicitly agreed to provide unlimited civil legal aid. Finally, in their submission, the Convention should not be interpreted so as to achieve social and economic developments in a Contracting State; such developments can only be progressive.
32. The Court does not consider that Ireland can be said to have "interfered" with Mrs. Airey’s private or family life: the substance of her complaint is not that the State has acted but that it has failed to act. However, although the object of Article 8 (art. 8) is essentially that of protecting the individual against arbitrary interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this primarily negative undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in an effective respect for private or family life (see the above-mentioned Marckx judgment, p. 15, para. 31).
36. At the hearings, the applicant’s counsel informed the Court that, should it find a breach of the Convention, her client would seek just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50) under three headings: effective access to a remedy for breakdown of marriage; monetary compensation for her pain, suffering and mental anguish; and monetary compensation for costs incurred, mainly ancillary expenses, fees for lawyers and other special fees. The last two items were not quantified.
The applicant, being aware that no right to legal aid is to be found in the Convention, makes the claim that her right of access to the High Court has been impeded by the absence of such legal aid. The judgment of this Court in the Golder case is cited in support of this contention. One must point out, however, that there was a positive prohibition to prevent Golder obtaining access to a court. Here, however, there is no bar or impediment on Mrs. Airey’s seeking access to the High Court. Quite apart from the right and the freedom of any lay person to take and pursue civil proceedings in any Irish court without the aid or intervention of any member of the legal profession to assist him or her, there is no evidence whatever that Mrs. Airey made any effort or attempt formally or informally to approach or communicate with the High Court. At the same time, the papers lodged by Mrs. Airey show that she freely communicated with the Human Rights Commission and carried on a protracted correspondence with the Ecclesiastical Authorities on the nullity issue.
It may be appropriate to refer to the facts and to the cautionary observation at paragraph 14 of the report that the Commission did not make any finding concerning the facts of Timothy Airey’s behaviour and the allegations made by the applicant against him. There is enough material to show that a breakdown has occurred in the Airey marriage. It is understandable that Timothy Airey should be described by his wife’s counsel as a violent and drunken husband from whom his wife shrinks in constant terror. What are the facts? On one occasion only did Mrs. Airey proceed in court against her husband for assault and in January 1972 the Justice fined the defendant 25 pence and declined to order him to enter into a bond as to his future behaviour. The vindication of the Justice’s action has been seen in the fact that no complaint has been made by his wife against Timothy Airey as to any approach, threat or attempted entry to the matrimonial home by him since 1972. Moreover, until he became unemployed in December 1978, the husband paid the maintenance ordered by the court. There has been in fact a complete separation effected between husband and wife by the events. It strikes me as peculiar that no attempt has been made to obtain any statement from Timothy Airey beyond the assertion that he declined to attend his wife’s solicitor’s office to sign a deed of separation. It is regretted that the Court did not see fit to repeat the restraint shown by the Commission in their absence of comment on Mr. Airey’s behaviour.
The distinction between this case and the Golder judgment is plain to me. No prohibition or barrier has been imposed on Mrs. Airey. The absence of legal aid, the right to which in civil cases is not guaranteed by the Convention, cannot and should not, in my view, be so manipulated as to constitute an infringement without evidence that the High Court would not have entertained Mrs. Airey’s complaint.
The Court has had to recognize that access to the High Court under Article 6 (art. 6) does not in every case require to be satisfied by the assistance or intervention of a lawyer. Applications for Habeas Corpus are made frequently to any Judge of the High Court in the most informal manner and without legal aid, and extend to any form of custody which may be complained of, even if it arose out of civil litigation. Notwithstanding this recognition, however, the Court does not seem to see Mrs. Airey’s position as similar to that where she was complaining that she or one of her infant children were being detained unlawfully in custody.
The applicant has invoked Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, alleging that she did not have "an effective remedy before a national authority" when seeking the protection granted under Articles 6 para. 1, 8 and 14 (art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 14). Neither the Government nor the Commission expanded in their memorials or at the oral hearings on the arguments concerning Article 13 (art. 13). It seems from the Commission’s report that the applicant alleges that a violation was constituted by the lack of an alternative remedy to compensate for the absence of a system of legal aid. This argument presupposes a violation of Articles 6 para. 1, 8 and/or 14 (art. 6-1, art. 8, art. 14) and is therefore not valid when seen from my point of view. Another and probably more substantial argument would have been that because the applicant alleged a violation of her rights under the Convention she was entitled to an effective remedy in order to test the point whether or not she had the right to legal aid. Such an argument would have been in line with the Court’s judgment in the case of Klass and others1. However, this argument has not been pursued before the Court and there is no evidence that the applicant could not have used the ordinary means available to all citizens to approach her Government or courts on this matter without prohibitive costs. For these reasons, I find no violation of Article 13 (art. 13) in this case.