Traveller women forced from Limerick road site have case dismissed by European Court
European Court of Human Rights said it was satisfied that the aims of the authorities in seeking an improvement in the road network with consequent benefits for the economy and public safety were legitimate.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled a case taken against the State by two Traveller women whose families were removed from living on a roadside site to facilitate construction of a new road in Limerick as inadmissible because it was “manifestly ill-founded”.
Sisters Christina Faulkner and Bridget McDonagh claimed their human rights were breached when legal actions initiated by Limerick City and County Council required their families to move from a roadside location in the Limerick suburb of Coonagh in 2017 where they had lived for four years.
Lawyers for the two women claimed the right to respect for one’s home under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached.
They also claimed their rights were breached by the court proceedings as they were conducted in undue haste and they were not legally represented.
Ms Faulkner claimed she had not been offered adequate housing in the area — an allegation disputed by the State, which said she had rejected accommodation offered by the local council.
Ms McDonagh’s family had been provided with emergency accommodation in a hotel but continued to live at the roadside site during the day and moved back there permanently in 2017.
Limerick City and County Council initiated legal action to have the two families removed from the site in 2017 as their illegal occupation of the site was delaying construction work on a new ring road designed to address traffic problems in the city.
The council pointed out that building contractors were claiming over €531,000 because of delays to the project and €10,000 for every additional day.
The ECHR heard the two families did not have legal representation when the case first came before the circuit court, which issued orders requiring them to leave the site at Coonagh.
Although they subsequently obtained legal representation, they unsuccessfully challenged the ruling requiring them to vacate the roadside site.
Several months after leaving the site, they obtained housing in the Limerick area with the assistance of the council.
In its ruling, the ECHR said it was satisfied the court orders represented an interference with their right to respect for their homes.
However, the Strasbourg-based court said it was also satisfied that the aims of the authorities in seeking an improvement in the road network with consequent benefits for the economy and public safety were legitimate.
The ECHR said the key issue was whether the council’s actions were “necessary in a democratic society” and if they had been proportionate to the relevant aims.
It said a very important consideration was if the local authority’s decision-making process had been fair and had ensured individual interests had been duly safeguarded.
The court ruled it was also relevant whether the claimants’ homes had been legally established and if alternative accommodation had been made available.
It acknowledged some special recognition had to be given to the needs of Travellers and their particular lifestyle.
However, the ECHR said Article 8 of the convention did not include a right to housing, a right to live in a particular location or a right to have one’s housing problems solved by State authorities.
The court said it disagreed with criticism by the women’s lawyers that the Irish legal framework for dealing with such cases involving Travellers was “ill-adapted”.
The ECHR said it was difficult to accept that the two women had been in a position to effectively participate in the initial court proceedings when they had no legal representation and it “doubted that the circuit court had taken account of all of the circumstances relevant to the proportionality of the orders”.
However, the ECHR said it had to assess the court process “as a whole” and it noted the High Court had assessed the actions of the council and the circuit court as proportionate and had also considered the availability of suitable alternative accommodation.
“There was no basis to conclude that the court order to vacate the land had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued of improving infrastructure and public safety,” it ruled.
The court said the Irish authorities had acted within their discretion.
The decision was given by a seven-judge chamber of the ECHR, which included Ireland’s representative in the court, Judge Síofra O’Leary.
The Traveller Equality and Justice Project, the Irish Human Rights Commission and the European Roma Rights Centre also participated in the hearing and claimed local authorities in Ireland were failing to provide an adequate volume of accommodation as required under Irish law.
They also criticised the insanitary conditions of existing Traveller accommodation and the inadequate provision of basic services.
The TEJP claims the shortage of Traveller-specific accommodation meant requiring Travellers to vacate a site could amount to the practical destruction of their home.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
