CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 4 septembre 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 56 September 2003 O’Reilly and Others v. Ireland (dec.) - 54725/00 Decision 4.9.2003 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Proceedings concerning the statutory duty of a public authority: admissible The ten applicants reside on a public road which was in a very bad condition. They attempted on several occasions to persuade the County Council to repair the road. In view of the latter’s refusal, in July 1994 eight applicants started proceedings seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Council to repair the road. They claimed that the bad state of the road was causing them many personal, professional and social inconveniences, and negatively affecting their daily lives. The application was heard in April 1995 by the High Court, which delivered its judgment in December 1996, making an order of mandamus for the Council to repair the road. The Council appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal hearing commenced in February 1998, but was adjourned, and could not be resumed until more than a year later. In June 1999, the Supreme Court delivered a judgment allowing the appeal of the Council and ordering that the High Court’s order of mandamus be set aside. Admissible under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 as regards the eight applicants who were parties to the domestic proceedings. The question of exhaustion of domestic remedies was joined to the merits. The Court rejected the Government’s argument that Article 6 was not applicable since the dispute mainly concerned the existence and scope of a public duty: the applicants had direct personal and professional interests in the manner in which the Council’s statutory duty to repair roads was exercised, and this represented a strong private element in favour of the applicability of Article 6.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes