Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Min for Communication and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie |
| Judgment Date | 05 May 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] IEHC 221 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2006 No. 3785 P] |
| Date | 05 May 2010 |
[2010] IEHC 221
THE HIGH COURT
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Personal rights
Privacy - Company - Business transactions - Right to marry - Right to communicate - Right to travel - Whether corporate body having personal rights - Whether narrower than rights of natural persons - Caldwell v Mahon [2006] IEHC 86, [2007] 3 IR 542 and Copland v UK (App. 62617/00) (Unrep, ECHR, 3/4/2007) followed - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 40 - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1951, articles 8 and 12 - Plaintiff granted locus standi -(2006/3785P - McKechnie J - 5/5/2010) [2010] IEHC 221
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications
EUROPEAN UNION
Reference to European Court of Justice
Questions to be referred - Validity of Council Directive 2006/24/EC - Whether legal and factual context of case properly defined - Whether reference premature - Whether exceptions to requirement to make reference - Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association v Ireland (Cases C-36 and C-71/80) [1981] ECR 735 applied - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 267 - Question referred (2006/3785P - McKechnie J - 5/5/2010) [2010] IEHC 221
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Locus standi
Sufficient interest - Actio popularis - Personal rights - Privacy - Business dealings - Whether bona fide interest - Whether "common" interest in subject matter - Whether standing for non-natural entity to assert personal rights - Whether company can assert right to privacy, family life, travel and communication - Whether standing issue determined as preliminary issue - Cahill v Sutton [1980] IR 269, SPUC v Coogan [1989] IR 735, Irish Penal Reform Trust Ltd v Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2005] IEHC 305, (Unrep, Gilligan J, 2/9/2005), Crotty v An Taoiseach [1987] IR 713, Lancefort Ltd v An Bord Pleanála (No 2) [1999] 2 IR 270 and R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (Case C-213/89) [1990] ECR I-2433 followed; Construction Industry Federation v Dublin City Council [2004] IEHC 37, [2005] IESC 16, [2005] 2 IR 496 distinguished - Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 (No 2), s 63(1) - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Articles 40.3.1 , 40.3.2 and 40.6.1 - Council Directive 2006/24/EC - European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1951, articles 8 and 12 - Plaintiff granted locus standi (2006/3785P - McKechnie J - 5/5/2010) [2010] IEHC 221
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Security for costs
Criteria in determining application - Delay - Whether "special circumstances" exist - Whether European element special circumstance - Lancefort Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [1998] 2 IR 511, Village Residents Association Ltd v An Bord Pleanála (No 2) [2000] 4 IR 321, Peppard and Co Ltd v Bogoff [1962] IR 180 and Dublin Int Arena v Waterworld Ltd [2007] IESC 48, [2008] 1 ILRM 496 applied - Companies Act 1963 (No 33), s 390 - Security for costs refused (2006/3785P - McKechnie J - 5/5/2010) [2010] IEHC 221
Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications
Facts: The plaintiff was a limited liability company that sought to promote and protect civil and human rights in the context of modern communication technologies. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had wrongfully exercised control over data and that Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 was invalid on the grounds of EU and ECHR law and that Directive 2006/24/EC, on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or public communications networks, ("Data Retention Directive") was also invalid as a matter of EU law. The proceedings related to the locus standi of the corporate plaintiff alleging rights to privacy, family and marital privacy and travel rights, security for costs and whether a preliminary reference was appropriate to resolve the questions raised in the proceedings by referring questions to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 267 TFEU.
Held by McKechnie J. that the Court would grant the plaintiff locus standi to bring an actio popularis as to whether the impugned provisions had violated the company's right to privacy and communications but not as to family and marital privacy or travel. The defendants' motion for security for costs would be refused and the Court would grant the motion of the plaintiff for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 267 TFEU. The challenged was to specific legislation and the Court could not rule on the validity of Community law.
Reporter: E.F.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES) ACT 2005 S63(1)
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 2000 S4
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT 2000 8(H)
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 267
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 234
POSTAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES ACT 1983 S110(1)
INTERCEPTION OF POSTAL PACKETS & TELECOMMUNICATION MESSAGES (REGS) ACT 1993
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DATA PROTECTION & PRIVACY IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS) REGS 2002 SI 192/2002
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (TERRORIST OFFENCES ) ACT 2005 PART 7
EEC DIR 2006/24 ART 1
CONSTITUTUIN ART 40.3.1
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3.2
CONSTITUTION ART 40.6.1
CONSTITUTION ART 6(1)
CONSTITUTION ART 6(8)
CONSTITUTION ART 6(10)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TERRORIST OFFENCES ACT 2005 S63(1)
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION 6(1)
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION 6(2)
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION 3 A
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 21
TREATY OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ART 10
TREATY OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ART 18
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 7
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 8
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 11
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 41
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 5
IRELAND v EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT & COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN UNION C-301/06 UNREP ECJ 06.07.2006
CAHILL v SUTTON 1980 IR 269
NORRIS v AG 1984 IR 36
A G v PAPERLINK LTD 1984 ILRM 373
CALDWELL v MAHON 2007 3 IR 542
SPUC v COOGAN 1989 IR 743
L'HENRYENAT v IRL 1983 IR 193
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION v DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2005 2 IR 496
SPUC v COOGAN 1989 IR 734
CROTTY v AN TAOISEACH 1987 1 IR 713
COPLAND v UK ECHR 3.04.2007 APP NO 62617/00 2007 ECHR 253
BLESSINGTON HERITAGE TRUST LTD v WICKLOW CO COUNCIL 1999 4 IR 571
LANCEFORT LTD v BORD PLEANALA & ORS NO.2 1999 2 IR 270
CONSTRUCTION CITY FEDERATION v DUBLIN CITY CO COUNCIL 2005 2 IR 496
R v INLAND REVENUE CMRS 1981 2 AER 93
CIF v DUBLIN CO COUNCIL
MARGUERITE JOHNSTON v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE ROYAL ULSTER CONSTABULARY C-222/84 1986 ECR 1651
VERHOLEN & ORS v SOCIALE VERZEKERINGSBANK AMSTERDAM C-87-89/90 1991 ECR I-3757
UINIBET LONDON LTD & UNIBET INT'L LTD v JUSTITIEKANSLERN C-432/05 2007 ECR I -2271
VAN SCHIJNEL v SPF C-430-1/93 1995 ECR I-4705
ADMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE v SAN GIOGIO C-107/82 1983 ECR 3595
QUEEN v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT EXPARTE FACTORTAME LTD & ORS C-221/89 1990 ECR I-2433
IRISH PENAL REFORM TRUST LTD & ORS v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON & ORS UNREP GILLIGAN 2.09.2005 2005/31/6440 2005 IEHC 305
IARNROD EIREANN v IRELAND 1996 3 IR 321
CONSTITUTION ART 40.3
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 10
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 7
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 8
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 11
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ART 41
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 3A
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 21
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ART 10
TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY ART 18
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 6(1)
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 6(2)
KENNEDY v IRELAND 1987 IR 587
CALDWELL v MAHON 2007 3 IR 542
HAUGHEY v MORIARTY 1999 3 IR 1
BERNSTEIN v BESTER 1996 4 B.C.L.R (SA) 449
O'NEILL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF COMPANIES 2007 CH 15
HOECHST AG v COMMISSION 46/87 & 227/88 1989 ECR 2859
DOW BENELUX NV v COMMISSION C - 85/87 1989 ECR 3137
DOW CHEMICAL IBERICA SA v COMMISSION 97/87, 98/87 99/87 1989 ECR 3165
NIEMIETZ v GERMANY 1992 16 EHRR 97
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8(2)
SOCIETE COLAS EST ORS v FRANCE 2002 ECHR 421
INTER ALIA CROQUETTE FRERES SA COMMISSION C-94/99 2002 ECR I-9011
MALAHIDE COMMUNITY COUNCIL LTD v FINGAL CO COUNCIL 1997 3 IR 383
IRISH TIMES v IRELAND 1998 1 IR 359
AG v PAPERLINK LTD 1984 ILRM 373
KENNEDY v IRELAND 1987 IR 587
DPP, PEOPLE v KENNY 1990 2 IR 110
DPP, PEOPLE v BYRNE 2003 4 IR 423
KANE v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON 1988 IR 757
MALONE v UK 1984 7 EHRR 14
KLASS v GERMANY 1979-80 2 EHRR 214
M, STATE v AG 1979 IR 73
RYAN v AG 1965 IR 294
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 20
TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 21
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 17
TREATY ON THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 18
BAUMBAST & R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT C-413/99 2002 ECR I - 7091
ZHU & CHEN v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPT C-200/02 2004 ECR I-9925
TROJANI v CPAS C-456/02 2004 ECR I-07573
IRISH PENAL REFORM TRUST LTD v GOVERNOR OF MOUNTJOY PRISON & ORS UNREP GILLIGAN 2.9.2005 2005/31/6440 2005 IEHC 305
COMPANIES ACT 1963 S390
COMPANIES ACT 1908 S278
PEPPARD & CO LTD v BOGOFF 1962 IR 180
SEE CO LTD v PUBIC LIGHTING SERVICES 1987 ILRM 255
BEAUROSS LTD v KENNEDY UNREP...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Friends of the Irish Enviroment CLG -v -The Government of Ireland
...in this case perhaps with the exception of the question of costs. 131 In Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v. Minister for Communications [2010] 3 I.R. 251, McKechnie J. held that in principle, a plaintiff should not be prevented from bringing proceedings to protect the rights of others, where wi......
-
CRH Plc, Irish Cement Ltd v Competition and Consumer Protection Commission
...identified in Kennedy. (c.f. pp.223 – 227 of the Report). 63 In Digital Rights Ireland Limited v. Minister for Communications & Others [2010] 3 I.R. 251, again McKechnie J. drew on E.U. case law, and held that the right to privacy must extend to a company, as a legal entity, separate and d......
-
Used Cars Importers Ireland Ltd v Minister for Finance
...a bona fide concern or interest in the provisions sought to be impugned ( Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Communications [2010] IEHC 221, [2010] 3 IR 251 at para. 48). It has most recently been expressed simply in terms of whether the impugned measure affects the plaintiff as a ......
-
O'Brien v Radió Telefis Éireann
...Telefís Éireann [2005] IEHC 180, [2005] 4 I.R. 79; [2005] 2 I.L.R.M. 529. Digital Rights Ireland Ltd. v. Minister for Communications [2010] IEHC 221, [2010] 3 I.R. 251; [2011] I.L.R.M. 258. Foley v. Sunday Newspapers Ltd. [2005] IEHC 14, [2005] 1 I.R. 88. Fressozand Roire v. France (App. No......
-
If 'Mum' is the Word, is it the Law? Irish Privacy Law: A Comparative Perspective
...the citizen, 16 and some cases have utilised 10 Kennedy v Ireland [1987] IR 587, 592. 11 Norris v Attorney General [1984] IR 36, 71. 12 [2010] IEHC 221; See also the South African position in Bernstein v Bester [1996] ZACC 2. 13 Kennedy (n 10) 593. 14 JC v DPP [2015] IESC 31 . 15 Kennedy (n......
-
The 2006 EC Data Retention Directive: A systematic failure
...front”, 4 March 2010, The Irish Times 217 Digital Rights Ireland v Minister for Communications, Marine, and Natural Resources & Ors [2010] I.E.H.C. 221 available at http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565 ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/2182ac025ad64e1c8025777e0035e6e8?OpenDocument 218 per McK......