CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 20 janvier 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   049 20.10.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   DECISION   X. v. Ireland (application no. 14079/04)   COMPLAINT ABOUT DISCLOSURE OF IDENTITY BY MINOR CONVICTED OF MANSLAUGHTER AND RECKLESS DRIVING DECLARED INADMISSIBLE       Principal facts   The applicant, X., is an Irish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Dublin.   On 11 January 2003 the applicant stole a car and, driving at considerable speed, rammed three police cars, who were trying to stop him, went through a red traffic light and collided with another vehicle in Dublin. The driver of the other vehicle, a taxi, was killed instantly and one of the passengers in the stolen car driven by the applicant died some hours later. Considerable publicity was generated by the incident.   The applicant, arrested and charged under Section 112 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, first appeared before the Dublin District Court, sitting as the Children Court, and then, in view of the nature of his offences, before the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.   On 22 October 2003, having pleaded guilty to two counts of manslaughter and one count of unlawful use of a mechanically propelled vehicle, the Criminal Court sentenced the applicant, 17 years and 5 months old at the time, to seven years’ detention.   Later that day legal representatives from a number of media organisations requested that an order prohibiting publication of the applicant’s name be lifted. They argued that that restriction, imposed in the Children Court proceedings under the Children Act 2001, no longer applied as the applicant had been tried and convicted before the adult Criminal Court which did not have jurisdiction to make such an order. The judge heard both parties and decided to vacate the order.   That evening the television broadcast the applicant’s name and picture, which were also subsequently published by the newspapers.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant complained about the failure to protect him (by means of legislation or otherwise) from having his name and photograph published when he was a minor convicted of a serious criminal offence. He relied in particular on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The application was lodged on 22 April 2004. The decision was given by a Chamber composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), judges ,   And Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the applicant could have sought an order from the trial judge pursuant to section 45(1)(a) and (c) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 to prevent the publication of his identity since his case was of an “urgent nature” and a “minor matter”. If that had failed, then even taking into account practical realities – his identity was to be aired on the evening news just hours after his trial ended – he could have applied to the High Court for an interim injunction prohibiting publication pending review of the Circuit Court’s decision. Indeed, High Court judges had been available on the day in question (and had even been sitting in the same court building) and could have taken an urgent application for an interim injunction had it been brought. The Court did not regard the absence of legal aid as a sufficient reason for failing to do so.   Furthermore, the applicant had also failed subsequently to bring an action for damages for any breach that the publication could have caused to his constitutional right to privacy.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that the application should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 (admissibility criteria).   ***   The decision, available only in English, is accessible on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ). This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court.   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.