Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
WORKPLACE RELATIONS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 2021
Comments
-
Those effective remedies are already in Irish law and the ECtHR does not grant you the rights you seek.
You are going around and around in circles, you really need to re-read the Directive, it does not require there to be any form of social dialogue on the change of law, nor does it require there to be an Oath.
So let me get this straight, you want to go to the ECtHR to enforce something you think you are entitled to under an EU Directive? That is impossible to do.
0 -
No.
The ECtHR is there to protect my right to an effective remedy. I am living proof that the remedies that were awarded to me years ago under EU directives, could not be realised during these years of endeavour to get enforcement of the remedies awarded under the same directives.
I am not going ask the ECtHR to enforce anything. i will ask them to protect my right to an effective remedy and my right to have freedom from discrimination by public authorities based on my sex.
Yes you are right that I am going around and around in circles with Ireland and the Directive. The refusal on social dialogue to make oaths mandatory in my particular case triggered me to realise that I needed to apply to the ECtHR rather than continue in circles.
0 -
ARTICLE 13
Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
0 -
Well, first off before you could even take a case to the ECtHR you must first exhaust the High Court/Supreme Court here, so it's a very long road to the ECtHR.
Secondly with regards to Article 13, you can not take an Article 13 case alone to the ECtHR, it must be in conjunction with what is known as another arguable claim brought before the ECtHR., it is even more important to note that Article 13 affords no particular form of remedy.
Thirdly, as I have already stated, the ECtHR will not entertain a case based on proofs of evidence, they have specifically held that the ECHR requires no adoption of any particular rules of evidence and that is a matter purely for national states, not them.
Finally, all that asides, the ECtHR would not make a determination on the rights or wrongs of the states laws (unless they didn't implement adequate protections against discrimination based on sex - which they have) because of their margin of appreciation (or margin of state discretion) doctrine.
All of the above is the well settled jurisprudence of the ECtHR.
1 -
The proof of evidence issues that started me on this thread would not necessarily feature in my application to ECtHR - this will be about lack of remedy.
But for, I cannot get enforcement of the Equality Tribunal orders in which I met the burden of proof, my employers would not be continuing in their gender discrimination and victimisation and there would be no need for me to have to climb the burden of proof barrier again, in the WRC.
I do not need to go to the High Court or Supreme Court - the exhaustion occurs in the inability to enforce the Equality Tribunal - I have being round in circles for years. I cannot get the remedy that the Tribunal ordered.
Ireland not have several cases taken successfully against it to the ECtHR about cases taking too long, and the lack of a remedy?
I am going to read up on what you say about " (unless they didn't implement adequate protections against discrimination based on sex - which they have) because of their margin of appreciation (or margin of state discretion) doctrine." I will let you know if I can find out what this means. Thank you GM - you like the cookie monster in your photo! I am a bit fan of cookie monsters 😎
0 -
Advertisement
-
That the WRC, for the past 2 years are withholding the files of the Equality Tribunal which the Circuit Court require to enforce the remedy ordered by Tribunal, is conduct that cannot be excused-away by Ireland arguing margin of appreciation/ state discretion doctrine.
Because ( A) the orders made by the Equality Tribunal were designed to cease explicit victimisation - ie; my employers were punishing me directly or explicitly for taking a gender discrimination complaint to the Tribunal, and
(B) this enforcement cannot take place until the WRC gives me the files, and
(C) that my employers are repeating the victimising conduct and failing to comply with the orders.
I consider that my complaint to ECtHR is also in conjunction with Article 10 - Freedom of Expression. By being victimised explicitly for taking a gender complaint to Tribunal this is an unreasonable interference with my right and Freedom to write a complaint of gender discrimination go gender discrimination to the body appointed to look into gender complaints. 🤐
0 -
You absolutely do have to go through the High Court and Supreme Court first before you can take a case to the ECtHR, you can't go from a Quasi Judicial body or lower court straight to them, you have to go to the highest level in the state first.
Also the fact of you having to "find out what this means" in relation to certain things and other queries you have made just goes to show you really don't understand what you are suggesting/trying to do/understand at national level, EU level or under the CoE mechanisms.
If you really insist on eventually attempting going the route you seem to want to you need to find yourself a very good solicitor/legal advisor, there are those of us here who actually know/specialise in the law and know what we are talking about, but it is likely you would rather be told by a real person rather than an anonymous internet user, and rightly so of course.
Best of luck.
1 -
Airey V Ireland in the European Court of Human Rights in 1979 settled it in International Human law that you do not absolutely have to go to the High Court and Supreme Court.
Your middle paragraph is completely lost on me, I can't read it properly, can you state it again?
Even the President can be anonymous on boards and yet be a real person. Unlike the internet platforms that the bodies and named in the Act of 1998 uses, I have actually never encountered a Phish or Phishing on Boards.ie. The Salmon of Knowledge must be Fish not a Phish. I can apply to the Court without a solicitor -as IHREC informed me - if I represented myself in the Equality Tribunal I can represent myself to the European Court of Human Rights, and they must have more knowledge on Human Rights than me who as you opine " really don't understand what you are suggesting/trying to do/understand at national level, EU level or under the CoE mechanisms.
Good luck to you too. It is a sad fact that Ireland has forgotten Airey V Ireland 😪
0 -
I have not forgotten Airey, it is not even the seminal case on the issue.
You should familiarise yourself with the facts of Airey vs Ireland before stating that you can jump the line straight to the ECtHR, the applicant in that case Mrs. Johanna Airey was refused access to the High Court to address her issues around judicial separation, in others words she was refused leave of court to take a judicial review, in that case she had exhausted all avenues available at domestic level because of the lack of effective access to the High Court, and so the ECtHR was the next step. All that aside the case concerned a breach of 4 Articles of the ECHR (including Article 13 - effective remedy), as I have already stated you can't take a case to the ECtHR solely on the basis of an Article 13 claim.
It is enshrined in the ECHR that you must exhaust all domestic options in accordance with international law (there are very few exemptions).
Perhaps it was wrong of me to state you must go through the HC or SC simpliciter, it is more correct that you have to attempt to take a case via the HC/SC, in other words you must seek a JR first.
Post edited by GM228 on1 -
No.
The circuit court is the court that enforces the Equality Tribunal- not High Court.
The judgment of Airey v Ireland creates no stipulation about having to apply for a Judicial Review when someone has spent years going around in ever decreasing circles.
Judicial Review has a 3 month time limit - not 6 year time limit, so I am years out of time on Irelands failure to provide the opportunity for an effective remedy on the orders of the Tribunal.
The remedies in Judicial Review are limited. Mandamus does not lie against the crown/Ministerial employers. certiorari against cuts to the acts of government under the gender directive are not permitted.😪
If you have any genuine ideas on how I could get remedy granted by The Tribunal by Judicial review within the rules of the court i would love to find out☘️
0 -
Advertisement
-
No.
The circuit court is the court that enforces the Equality Tribunal- not High Court.
I never stated or suggested the HC enforces an ET decision, in fact I already stated it is the CC despite you being told by a solicitor and the IHREC that it was the DC.
The judgment of Airey v Ireland creates no stipulation about having to apply for a Judicial Review when someone has spent years going around in ever decreasing circles.
Indeed the judgement speaks of no stipulation, that stipulation is specifically written into Article 35 of the ECHR and there is plenty of other case law on the issue from the ECtHR, the question will always be have you exhausted all national measures before attempting to take a case to the ECtHR, have you? I fear not, my guess is that you seek a certified copy of the original decision of the EA from the WRC and they either can't or won't provide one (am I correct?), in which case that is a decision made by a quasi judicial office which can then be JR'd.
The question of complying with the requirements of Article 35 was put before the ECtHR in the Airey case and because she could not get access to the HC for JR she had met the requirements of Article 35, the case did not say (as you claim) that she did not have to exhaust all national remedies before taking a case, quite the opposite, rather it held she had exhausted all national remedies given the facts of the case, in fact now that I think of it from my legal studies the issue around not being able to access the HC for a JR was to do with financial inability and the lack of free legal aid, as a direct result of the Airey case the first Scheme of Civil Legal Aid and Advice was introduced and the first Legal Aid Board appointed, it was later given statutory footing when the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 was enacted.
Judicial Review has a 3 month time limit - not 6 year time limit, so I am years out of time on Irelands failure to provide the opportunity for an effective remedy on the orders of the Tribunal.
That would be in relation to your original decision I'm sure, but that would not be the subject of your JR.
The remedies in Judicial Review are limited. Mandamus does not lie against the crown/Ministerial employers. certiorari against cuts to the acts of government under the gender directive are not permitted.😪
If you have any genuine ideas on how I could get remedy granted by The Tribunal by Judicial review within the rules of the court i would love to find out☘️
Well it depends on if my guess above regarding receiving certified copies is correct, a potential JR could be centred around the procedure of the WRC (and any related or non existing statutory law surrounding your issue) and any decision (if one so exists) to not release the certified copy, an argument can be made about the vindication of ones rights, I'm most likely bordering on the legal advice rule of Boards here, but, needless to say there are avenues open for exploration before anyone heads to the ECtHR, but I'll reiterate what I said earlier, get a lawyer, a good one, a very good one, a brilliant one in fact who specialises in these matters, you will need one.
Post edited by GM228 on1 -
It is not that the WRC are withholding the certified copy of the decision ( and yes they have withheld this too) but they are withholding the pleadings also. They are withholding the written reply from the respondent with the specific date-mark received by by the Equality Tribunal on which the Equality Officer made a crucial finding. This date marked document is needed in particular. WRC are also withholding all submissions made by the respondent, the letters from the Tribunal's registrar to the Respondent about a video/DVD. I need all of those. And also all the boxes of documents that were brought into the 2nd day of the hearing by the Respondent, and the submissions that were sent in afterwards. I would also need them stamped too because, my employers dispute every thing.
My employers , as persons affected by the orders of the Tribunal have failed over the years to comply with any iota of the orders made.
They produced documents that are contrary to the orders, and are distributing these documents to others in order to cause others to victimise me and gender discriminate against me ( and against the girl that is in the video/dvd too). So now they are distributing these documents to the High Court and trying to procure that Court to victimise and gender discriminate too.
If this happens , hopefully if the WRC ever stop withholding the Files of the Tribunal , I will ask the Circuit Court to enforce the Tribunal's orders on any High Court Judgment that is potentially procured against me, using the documents that fail to comply with the orders made by the Equality Officer to the Respondent.
I am not sure that any lawyer can help me with this macro malfunction, or if there was such a lawyer, who could afford a case that has gone around in circles through so many courts . 🙃🌎️
0 -
AN ACT TO MAKE PROVISION IN THE INTERESTS OF THE COMMON GOOD FOR THE EDUCATION OF EVERY PERSON IN THE STATE, INCLUDING ANY PERSON WITH A DISABILITY OR WHO HAS OTHER SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS, AND TO PROVIDE GENERALLY FOR PRIMARY, POST-PRIMARY, ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING; TO ENSURE THAT THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IS ACCOUNTABLE TO STUDENTS, THEIR PARENTS AND THE STATE FOR THE EDUCATION PROVIDED, RESPECTS THE DIVERSITY OF VALUES, BELIEFS, LANGUAGES AND TRADITIONS IN IRISH SOCIETY AND IS CONDUCTED IN A SPIRIT OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOLS, PATRONS, STUDENTS, PARENTS, TEACHERS AND OTHER SCHOOL STAFF, THE COMMUNITY SERVED BY THE SCHOOL AND THE STATE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECOGNITION AND FUNDING OF SCHOOLS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT THROUGH BOARDS OF MANAGEMENT; TO PROVIDE FOR AN INSPECTORATE OF SCHOOLS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF PRINCIPALS AND TEACHERS; TO ESTABLISH THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT AND TO MAKE PROVISION FOR IT, AND TO PROVIDE FOR RELATED MATTERS. [23rd December, 1998]
0 -
The reproduction and distribution of documents that fail to comply with the simple orders of the Equality Officer is traumatic. I get acute stress reactions from these documents.
Consequently, I am unable to deal with lawyers. Even if the best lawyers in the world gave me their services for free, I would be frequently unable to deal with them due to stress, and that is a large factor as to why I have to do this on my own -rather than the cost of a lawyer.
The best way to prevent drowning is to stick out an oar, or throw a floating device. The stray Walrus " Wally' that is on the news all this week, reminds me of myself. The Employment Equality Act melted, and I'm exhausted from swimming. 🏝️
Thank you GM228 for your discussion, argument and ideas. It is good food for thought. Xx yours truly Wally!
0 -
I have re- read the Airey V Ireland case, again.
I can find no mention in the case report of a Judicial review having been sought, or any consideration by the judges in the ECtHR that a Judicial Review needed to be sought in order for Airey's case to be deemed admissible.
So therefore my own case is similar to Airey. I was victimised for making a gender equality complaint to the Equality tribunal. In 2012 the Equality Officer made orders to my employer ( public body ) to take a specific course of action as the mains remedy and an award for compensation. The orders were never complied with, the award never paid. I cannot get enforcement because the WRC are withholding the files that the Circuit Court require for enforcement. 9 years after the remedy was made by the Tribunal, my employers are continuing to victimise /discriminate or to comply with the orders made.
Violation of Right to Freedom of Expression ( to make a gender complaint) and Right to an effective Remedy ( 9 years later - no opportunity to get the remedy granted for this violation) in conjunction with Right to Freedom from Gender Discrimination.
(Sorry about the Kermitt video -. I have tried to delete it ,but I just can't seem to , in this new Boards.ie format. )
So there is no need to seek a judicial review after 9 years without a remedy - anyway Judicial Review remedies are limited and not a surrogate for the remedy that was awarded.
0 -
@Red Hare wrote:-
I have re- read the Airey V Ireland case, again.
I can find no mention in the case report of a Judicial review having been sought, or any consideration by the judges in the ECtHR that a Judicial Review needed to be sought in order for Airey's case to be deemed admissible.
Re-read what I stated previously:-
in fact now that I think of it from my legal studies the issue around not being able to access the HC for a JR was to do with financial inability and the lack of free legal aid, as a direct result of the Airey case the first Scheme of Civil Legal Aid and Advice was introduced and the first Legal Aid Board appointed, it was later given statutory footing when the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 was enacted.
Perhaps it was not specific to a JR - I have a JR in my head for some reason with this case, I'm trying to remember the specifics now which are not always available to the public, a lot of these cases have a greater background story than does be published in the judgement, but what is true is the case was about access to the courts, she could not access any recourse to the High Court here to take her case further (weather that be for a JR or simply hiring a lawyer it does not matter), the state denied her that ability on the grounds of cost, this case turned then to the idea of accessibility to the courts based on financial abilities, from the ECtHR - "the violation alleged by Mrs. Airey is that in her case the State failed to secure access to court". It was a landmark case concerning Ireland and brought about reform and access to FLA for those who could not afford to take such cases.
@Red Hare wrote:-
So therefore my own case is similar to Airey. I was victimised for making a gender equality complaint to the Equality tribunal. In 2012 the Equality Officer made orders to my employer ( public body ) to take a specific course of action as the mains remedy and an award for compensation. The orders were never complied with, the award never paid. I cannot get enforcement because the WRC are withholding the files that the Circuit Court require for enforcement. 9 years after the remedy was made by the Tribunal, my employers are continuing to victimise /discriminate or to comply with the orders made.
Violation of Right to Freedom of Expression ( to make a gender complaint) and Right to an effective Remedy ( 9 years later - no opportunity to get the remedy granted for this violation) in conjunction with Right to Freedom from Gender Discrimination.
Why is the WRC withholding what you seek, have they told you why? Have you checked they authorised in accordance with law to issue certified copies the likes of the pleadings etc to you? What is their record retention schedule etc. Have you taken a JR against their decision not to release the information to you etc etc.
One thing which I have forgot to mention up to now is the time limit, there is also a 6 month time frame for taking a case to the ECtHR (dropping to 4 next year) which starts when you get any "final decision" from the state, this starts at the time when you exhausted any national remedies, or in the case where there is no effective remedy available (which seems to be the basis of your claim) then the 6 month time limit starts when you had your first issue at heart, meaning you are over 9 years too late to take a case to the ECtHR, just like the exhaustive remedies clause this time frame is enshrined in Article 35 of the ECHR and strictly enforced by the ECtHR due to public policy considerations, something like 90% of all applications to the ECtHR are rejected due to expiration of the 6 month time limit.
It really is a case of being stuck between a rock and a hard place and it may be the case that rather than try to enforce an old decision of the ET that you need to take a new case to the WRC.
Post edited by GM228 on0 -
Thanks GM228 for your discussion. In relation to your idea of me taking a new case against my employers - I have tried this. For example, I made a claim at the Circuit Court. However, this has caused my employers to seek the High Court to strike out my Circuit Court claim and to restrain me from making any further claims. To support their request, they have submitted documents to the High Court that fail to comply with, and that are contrary to the orders made by the Tribunal as remedy. So now I have to defend myself at the High Court even though there has yet to be an enforcement at the circuit court. My employers are attempting to procure the High Court to strike out my gender discrimination and victimisation claim at the Circuit Court. Yet any high court determination would be subject to enforcement of the orders of the Equality Tribunal by the Circuit Court.
I am seriously considering of applying for a JR to quash the WRC's decision to withold the files I sought. The 3 month time-limit coming up soon. The WRC did not give any reason for their refusal. They just won't answer my communications to them.
But even if I get the High to quash the WRC's decision to refuse me the files - the whole process will take years .The remedy was ordered in 2012. 😓
0
