| Applicant name | Airey |
| Applicant type | Natural person |
| Country | Ireland |
| Decision no. | 6289/73 |
| Date | 09/03/1978 |
| Judges | .E .S . Fawcett G . Sperduti C .A . Nbrgaard E . Busuttil L . Kellberg B . Daver T . Opsahl J . Custers C .H .F . Polak J .A . Frowein C . JBrundsson S . Trechsel B . Kiernan N . Klecker |
| Institution | Commission |
| Type | Decision |
| Outcome Art. 8 | No violation |
| Reason | Covered by Article 8 ECHR |
| Type of privacy | Family privacy |
| Keywords | Dissolution marriage |
| Facts of the case | See Decision |
| Analysis | The Commission has found a violation of Article 6 ECHR and then stresses: ‘The Commission is of the opinion that the alleged violation of Art . 14 in conjunction with Art . 6 (1) is essentially based on the complaint concerning the applicant’s effective access to the High Court . Since the Commission has unanimously found that the failure of the State to ensure access to the courts in this case amounts to a breach of Art . 6 (1) of the Convention it considers it unnecessary, as in the case of Luedicke, Belkacem, Koc against the Federal Republic of Germany (Report of the Commission, adopted on 18 May 1977, at p . 16) to pursue its examination of the case under this provision . The Commission reached this conclusion by a unanimous vote . 83 . The Commission further considers that, for the same reasons, it is not required to pursue its examination of the case in relation to the applicant’s allegations under Arts . 13 and 8 of the Convention .’ |
| Documents | Report |