M.D. v. Ireland (dec.) - 50936/12 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 1285 (16 September 2014)

M.D. v. Ireland (dec.) - 50936/12 - Legal Summary [2014] ECHR 1285 (16 September 2014)

The difference in criminal liability between underage boys and girls for engaging in sexual intercourse was objectively and reasonably justified by the need to protect girls from pregnancy and was within the State's margin of appreciation. The exemption for girls was limited and proportionate to its legitimate aim. The exclusion of the defence of consent and the existence of prosecutorial discretion did not render the legislation unfair or discriminatory.

Citation
[2014] ECHR 1285
Parties
Applicant: M. D.; Respondent: Ireland
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
16 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility
Outcome
inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Sexual Offences, Margin of Appreciation, Prosecutorial Discretion
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Discrimination Sexual Offences Margin of Appreciation Prosecutorial Discretion

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. D.

Applicant

Ireland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Decision on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the difference in criminal liability between underage boys and underage girls engaging in sexual intercourse constitutes discrimination under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion of the defence of consent and the prosecutorial discretion under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 violate the applicant's rights under Articles 6 and 14

Ratio Decidendi

The difference in criminal liability between underage boys and girls for engaging in sexual intercourse was objectively and reasonably justified by the need to protect girls from pregnancy and was within the State's margin of appreciation. The exemption for girls was limited and proportionate to its legitimate aim. The exclusion of the defence of consent and the existence of prosecutorial discretion did not render the legislation unfair or discriminatory.

Court Disposition

inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)