Constitutional Law -ECHR/EU Law

page1

Hi just studying Constitutional at the moment and am a bit confused about one area.
If someone loses an appeal in the Supreme Court and takes the case to ECHR and is successful what is the effect of that decision.
As far as i can see there isnt any here - eg.Norris.

Yet EU law takes precedence over Constitutional law, so if there is a conflict it had supremacy.
Is the Convention not regarded as EU law?

Sorry if this is coming across as very ignorant but i havent studied EU law yet so it doesnt make sense.

hullaballoo

I'm open for correction on this, but I think at the time Norris was decided, the ECHR didn't have full effect here, in which case, the decision of the ECtHR didn't bind the State.

I _think_ that's different now.

NoQuarter

As far as i know, and i also could be corrected is that even thought the ECHR is the higher law, the laws were introduced into ireland by way of legislation which is beneath the constitution in the heirarchy!

So as far as i know, if the ECHR overrule the Supreme court, its simply a victory on principle!

page1

Thanks for your replies. One case i cant remember the name i just read it briefly and the plaintiff was successful in ECHR and the SC said the ruling had no effect as the Convention only dictated how Ireland treated citizens of other signatory states it has no effect on how Ireland treated its own citizens.
I think it was a case regarding the constitutionality of decisions to refer cases to Special Criminal Court.

johnnyskeleton

page1 wrote: »

Hi just studying Constitutional at the moment and am a bit confused about one area.
If someone loses an appeal in the Supreme Court and takes the case to ECHR and is successful what is the effect of that decision.
As far as i can see there isnt any here - eg.Norris.

Yet EU law takes precedence over Constitutional law, so if there is a conflict it had supremacy.
Is the Convention not regarded as EU law?

Sorry if this is coming across as very ignorant but i havent studied EU law yet so it doesnt make sense.

Just to make it clear, the ECHR is not EU law. It is a separate convention. The EU requires that you join and comply with the ECHR for membership, but it is separate. The ECJ on the other hand, decides issues of European Law. If Lisbon was passed, theoretically the ECJ could decide cases of fundamental rights in accordance with the Libson Treaty.

So while European Law takes precedence over domestic Irish Law, ECHR law, and decisions of the ECtHR are not above Irish Law. However, as we have signed up to the ECHR, if we are found to be in violation of it, we can be fined.

king-stew wrote: »

As far as i know, and i also could be corrected is that even thought the ECHR is the higher law, the laws were introduced into ireland by way of legislation which is beneath the constitution in the heirarchy!

ECHR rights in domestic law are not as significant as Constitutional rights. However, the Irish courts are required to interpret rights in line with ECHR decisions. Ultimately, it will only be resolved when the rights under both are identical.

johnnyskeleton

page1 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies. One case i cant remember the name i just read it briefly and the plaintiff was successful in ECHR and the SC said the ruling had no effect as the Convention only dictated how Ireland treated citizens of other signatory states it has no effect on how Ireland treated its own citizens.
I think it was a case regarding the constitutionality of decisions to refer cases to Special Criminal Court.

The Convention is binding on the Irish State as a matter of law, but did not form a part of Irish domestic law so did not bind the Irish Courts. Net effect, if the ECHR overturned a SC decision, the sanction was a fine and political damage to the Irish State, but it gave no substantial rights to the applicant.

Now, after the ECHR Act, the Courts can declare an Act to be inconsistent with the ECHR, and the Att Gen can give damages to the injured party on a discretionary basis.

Tom Young

JS is right. Ss. 2 and 5 of the 2003 ECHR Act.

ex gratia payment based on declarations of incompatibility.

Its certainly not supreme law at all, this method of transposition dilutes rights completely and re-enforces unenumerated rights that are apparent under the 1937 Constitution.

Tom

page1

I understand it now thanks for clearing that up.

Tom Young

Tom Young wrote: »

JS is right. Ss. 2 and 5 of the 2003 ECHR Act.

ex gratia payment based on declarations of incompatibility.

Its certainly not supreme law at all, this method of transposition dilutes rights completely and re-enforces unenumerated rights that are apparent under the 1937 Constitution.

Tom

Of course, this is my own view.