First judgment of the ECHR: Lawless v. Ireland

60 years ago, on 14 November 1960, the Court delivered its first judgment, Lawless v. Ireland, with René Cassin as its President.

The judgment concerned preliminary objections and procedural questions regarding the application, on which a judgment on the merits was delivered the following year.

Since its inauguration the Court has delivered 23,291 judgments on just over 51,650 applications.

The case was filed by Gerard Richard Lawless, who had been an IRA member, although he claimed to have left the IRA. He was arrested on 11 July 1957, as he was about to travel to Great Britain from Ireland, and subsequently detained under the special powers of indefinite detention without trial under the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1940. The case was filed by Lawless for violation, by the Irish Government, of Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, providing rights to liberty and security, fair trial and the principle of 'no punishment without law'.

The Irish government's case was presented by the then Attorney General of Ireland, Aindrias Ó Caoimh, while Lawless was represented by Seán MacBride. (source: ECHR / wikipedia)

The judgment is available here

Video is available here

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Excessive formalism as a restriction on the right of access to justice

Image
By George Kazoleas, Lawyer Formalism may be inherent in laws, jurisprudence and in procedural law in particular, since the rules of law are specific forms that must be applied in real situations. Excessive formalism, however, which characterizes many judicial systems, can sometimes deprive citizens of their right to access the justice in order to assert their rights. Strict procedural rules that most commonly concern deadlines, the limitation period of claims, the method of filing and deficiencies or errors of Court documents deny in essence the right to go to Court. The European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) has issued a number of judgments condemning the law of several countries for excessive formalism in certain cases. Despite being a lawyer, he was not allowed to appeal for himself A typical example is the case of  Maširević v. Serbia (No 30671/08, February 11th, 2014,  in which the applicant, a practicing lawyer, had brought an action before a local Court seeking payme
Read more

The EU’s Data Act: Data protection must prevail to empower data subjects

Image
The European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) published their  Joint Opinion  on the proposed Data Act. The EDPS and EDPB welcome the efforts made to ensure that the Data Act does not affect the current data protection framework. At the same time, since the Data Act would also apply to highly sensitive personal data, the EDPS and EDPB urge the co-legislators to ensure that data subjects’ rights are duly protected. The access, use and sharing of personal data by entities other than data subjects should occur in full compliance with all data protection principles and rules. Moreover, products should be designed in such a way that data subjects are offered the possibility to use devices anonymously or in the least privacy intrusive way possible.
Read more

Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs): What and Why?

Image
By Christina Poursanidou, Lawyer Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs) are considered as high-risk individuals for financial institutions and obliged entities, which justifies the application of additional Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Counter-Terrorist Financing (CFT) preventive measures with respect to business relationships with them. But who is considered as a PEP and why being a PEP poses a risk? The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has defined a PEP as an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent public function, while the Article 3 par. 9 of the 4th EU AML Directive (AMLD) repeats the definition of the FATF and provides a list of particular political positions, which make somebody a PEP. It is crucial to note that both FATF and EU have included in the scope of PEPs, the family members and close associates of PEPs, which means that not only the persons with have been entrusted with prominent public function are considered as high-risk, but also their family member
Read more