McELHINNEY v. IRELAND - 31253/96 [2001] ECHR 763 (21 November 2001)

McELHINNEY v. IRELAND - 31253/96 [2001] ECHR 763 (21 November 2001)

The Court held that the grant of sovereign immunity to a State in civil proceedings pursues the legitimate aim of complying with international law and promoting good relations between States. Given that the restriction reflected generally recognised rules of public international law and that the applicant could have brought proceedings in Northern Ireland, the limitation was proportionate and did not violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Citation
[2001] ECHR 763
Parties
Applicant: John McElhinney; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
21 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Grand Chamber Judgment
Outcome
No violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
Legal Topics
State Immunity, Right of Access to Court, Article 6 ECHR, Personal Injury, Jurisdictional Immunities
International Law Human Rights Law Civil Procedure State Immunity Right of Access to Court Article 6 ECHR Personal Injury Jurisdictional Immunities

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John McElhinney

Applicant

Ireland

Respondent

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Grand Chamber Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application of state immunity by Irish courts violated the applicant's right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the grant of sovereign immunity to a State in civil proceedings pursues the legitimate aim of complying with international law and promoting good relations between States. Given that the restriction reflected generally recognised rules of public international law and that the applicant could have brought proceedings in Northern Ireland, the limitation was proportionate and did not violate Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Court Disposition

No violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.