The European Court of Human Rights has held that a challenge to the religious wording of the Irish presidential oath is inadmissible.
The court said the plaintiffs, a group of five Irish politicians, could not show they were victims of a rights violation.
The Constitution of Ireland requires the president to enter into office by making a declaration including the words: “In the presence of Almighty God… May God direct and sustain me.”
The challenge over the constitutional requirement was taken by TDs Roisin Shortall and John Brady, Senator David Norris, former CEO of Barnardos Fergus Finlay and Trinity College Dublin Chancellor David McConnell.
They argued that the requirements of the Irish Constitution breached their Article 9 rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
However, the court held they could not show they were victims of a rights violation.
It said that, under Article 34 of the Convention, for an applicant to claim to be a victim of a violation, he or she must be directly affected by the impugned measure.
Aspire to the presidency
The applicants had claimed that they could aspire to election to the presidency or serve on the Council of State, but that the religious elements of the declarations under Article 12.8 and 3.14 of the Constitution are contrary to their beliefs.
They argued they would be prevented from taking up office, or make a religious oath against their conscience.
The court held on Thursday that the Convention does not permit applicants to complain about a provision of national law “simply because they considered, without being directly affected by it, that it may contravene the Convention”.
It had previously accepted that applicants might be potential victims in certain circumstances.
In its ruling, the court said: “In order to claim to be a potential victim, an applicant had to produce reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting them personally would occur; mere suspicion or conjecture was insufficient.
Decision Shortall and Others v. Ireland - Religious wording of oath of office of the President of Irelandhttps://t.co/S5AE6RFJgN#ECHR #CEDH #ECHRpress
— ECHR CEDH (@ECHR_CEDH) November 18, 2021
Advertisement
“As to the declaration required for members of the Council of State, in order for any of the applicants to show they were directly affected, it would be necessary for him or her to show that appointment to the Council was a realistic possibility.
“None of the applicants had been invited to serve or had claimed that such an appointment was under consideration.”
The court said that Mr Finlay and Mr Norris had made no submissions on this question and that the remaining applicants had suggested that their current or future experience qualified them for service.
“However, given the entirely discretionary nature of such appointments, the Court considered their claims speculative,” it added.
“It followed that none of the applicants had produced reasonable and convincing evidence of the likelihood that a violation affecting any of them personally would occur as a result of this requirement.
None of the applicants had sought to establish that they had any realistic prospect of successfully seeking that office
“As to the Presidency, the Court considered that the class of persons who could claim to be victims of a requirement applicable only upon election to the highest office in the State had necessarily to be much narrower than other cases where the Court had accepted a broad class of potential victims.
“Mr McConnell and Mr Norris had expressed no interest in seeking the Presidency in the future.
“The remaining applicants had expressed their interest in very general terms, but suggested that it would be pointless for them to seek election as they could not take up the office if elected.
“None of the applicants had sought to establish that they had any realistic prospect of successfully seeking that office with reference to their own particular political circumstances and the requirements of the Constitution.
“The Court thus considered that none of the applicants had provided reasonable and convincing evidence that they were at real risk of being directly affected by the requirements of the Constitution in relation to the taking of the oath, and rejected the complaints of all five applicants as inadmissible.”
