In the case of O'Reilly v. Ireland (1),
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,
constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 58/1995/564/650. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply
to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).
_______________
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 27 September 1995, and
composed of the following judges:
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,
Mr F. Gölcüklü,
Mr B. Walsh,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against Ireland lodged with the
Court on 28 June 1995 by Mr Patrick O'Reilly, an Irish national, within
the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;
Whereas Ireland has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified
Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a
complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the
Commission") to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court
by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission
under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the
Convention;
Having regard to the Commission's report of 22 February 1995 on
the application (no. 21624/93) lodged with the Commission by
Mr O'Reilly on 24 September 1992;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of criminal
proceedings which had been brought against him before the Irish courts,
and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention,
under which "In the determination ... of any criminal charge against
him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by
[a] ... tribunal ...";
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that there had
been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention on the
grounds of an alleged gross and unconscionable delay on the part of the
authorities, and that he was entitled to compensation;
Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. Finds that
(a) the case raises no serious question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention, as the
Court has already established case-law on the "reasonable
time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention; and
(b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant
consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding
that there has been a breach of the Convention, the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award
the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any
proposals made by the Commission;
2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be
considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on
4 October 1995 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy