THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23662/06
by Margaret DELANEY
against Ireland
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrB.M. Zupančič, President,
MrC. Bîrsan,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
MrN. Kearns, ad hoc judge,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 May 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the correspondence to this Court accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms M. Delaney, is an Irish national and a member of the traveller community. She was born in 1955 and lives in Galway. She was represented before the Court by Mr J. Sadleir, a lawyer practising in Gort. The Irish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Mr P. White.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 January 2002 the applicant and her sister entered a public house in Cork. They were refused service in a discriminatory manner.
On 11 February 2002 the applicant notified her complaint to the Publican. There was no response.
On 9 May 2002 she made a complaint to the Director of Equality Investigations pursuant to the Equal Status Act 2000.
On 16 May 2002 the Director responded, canvassing inter alia the possibility of mediation.
On 29 May 2002 the applicant agreed to mediation on the basis that any hearing would take place in Galway City, Loughrea, Gort or Ennis and that the Publican would agree.
On 12 August 2002 the Director indicated that the matter would proceed by investigation and decision, referred to the high volume of complaints, lack of resources, inability due to this to assign an Equality Officer for investigation at that time, assured the applicant that every effort was being made to minimise the delay in the assignment and that the situation was being kept under constant review. He also gave an assurance of further contact as soon as it would be possible. While not expressly stated, it appeared that the investigation option was chosen either because the Publican did not respond to the Director or refused to agree to mediation.
On 12 March 2004 the applicant enquired as to the prospects of an early hearing.
On 30 April 2004 the Director referred to the large volume of claims and hoped that the case would be assigned for hearing in the near future.
On 13 September 2005, following several more enquiries about a hearing, the applicant complained about delay.
On 20 September 2005 the Director referred to a current backlog of approximately four years.
On 16 November 2005 the applicant complained to the Ombudsman.
On 17 November 2005 the Ombudsman indicated that the Equality Tribunal was not a body in relation to which complaints could be investigated by an Ombudsman.
On 23 November 2005 the applicant complained to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the delay in listing her case for a hearing. She further complained under Article 13 that she had not been provided with an adequate remedy for the relevant delay. Lastly, she complained without invoking any provision of the Convention about the initial discrimination against her and her sister.
THE LAW
By a letter dated 10 April 2007 the Government offered to pay EUR 2,500 to the applicant (inclusive of her costs and expenses) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the application.
By a letter dated 31 May 2007 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had accepted the Government’s friendly settlement proposal.
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaBoštjan M. Zupančič
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy