Having regard to the conclusions presented by the Delegates of the European Commission of Human Rights at the hearing on 7th April 1961;
Taking note of the fact that the Agent of the Irish Government does not intend to submit conclusions on the matter in question;
Whereas in its judgment of 14th November 1960 the Court declared that there was no reason at this stage to authorise the Commission to transmit to it the written observations of the Applicant on the Commission’s Report;
Whereas in the said judgment, of which the French text only is authentic, the Court has recognised the Commission’s right to take into account (‘de faire etat’) the Applicant’s views on its own authority, as a proper way of enlightening the Court;
Whereas this latitude enjoyed by the Commission extends to any other views the Commission may have obtained from the Applicant in the course of the proceedings before the Court;
Whereas, on the other hand, the Commission is entirely free to decide by what means it wishes to establish contact with the Applicant and give him an opportunity to make known his views to the Commission; whereas in particular it is free to ask the Applicant to nominate a person to be available to the Commission’s delegates; whereas it does not follow that the person in question has any locus standi in judicio;
For these reasons,
With regard to the conclusions under (a), that at the present stage the written observations of the Applicant, as reproduced in paragraphs 31 to 49 of the Commission’s statement of 16th December 1960, are not to be considered as part of the proceedings in the case;
With regard to (b) that the Commission has all latitude, in the course of debates and in so far as it believes they may be useful to enlighten the Court, to take into account the views of the Applicant concerning either the Report or any other specific point which may have arisen since the lodging of the Report;
With regard to (c), that it was for the Commission, when it considered it desirable to do so, to invite the Applicant to place some person at its disposal, subject to the reservations indicated above.’
 ECHR 2, 332/57
See Also – Lawless v Ireland (No 1) ECHR 14-Nov-1960
ECHR Judgment (Preliminary objections) Preliminary objection rejected (incompatibility); Questions of procedure rejected. . .
See Also – Lawless v Ireland (No 3) ECHR 1-Jul-1961
The Irish Government derogated from article 5 in July 1957 in order to permit detention without charge or trial and the applicant was detained between July and December 1957. He could have obtained his release by undertaking to observe the law and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Litigation Practice
Updated: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.511025