THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

UPDATE (16/7/2008)

1. Judge McKechnie has reserved judgment on the remaining issues before the Court.

2.The Plaintiff has asked the Court to refer the issue of the validity of Directive 2006/24/EC to the ECJ. The State had brought this question to the ECJ. (The hearing began in the ECJ the very morning the Motions opened before Judge McKechnie). The Plaintiff endorses the State case but goes further; it says the Directive is not valid, not simply on procedural grounds, but on substantive grounds of breach of human rights and the fundamental law of the EU. This is a very important difference between the State and the Plaintiff on the Directive point.

3. The State had asked the Court to deny locus standi to the Plaintiff and, in default of success on that request, asked that the Court order the Plaintiff to furnish security for costs to the State. Judgement on these points has also been reserved.

4. At time of writing, no reply has been received from Hans-Gert Pottering, the President of the EU Parliament to the letter McGarr Solicitors sent to him.

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

UPDATE (7/7/2008)

1. Three Motions are (or were) before the High Court. One, that of the Irish Human Rights Commission, was promptly decided by the judge in favour of the IHRC. The IHRC is now a “party” to the proceedings as “amicus curiae”.

2. The State challenged the locus standi of the Plaintiff to brings its proceedings. The IHRC has supported the right of the Plaintiff to bring its proceedings. The Defendants are denying that right but have made concessions in the hearings.

3. The State claims that the Plaintiff should furnish security for costs.

4. The Plaintiff’s current application is for a reference by the High Court to the European Court of Justice for a ruling from the ECJ on the validity of Directive 2006/24/EC.

5. The hearing of the Motions has continued before Judge McKechnie in the High Court and is now adjourned to 11th July 2008 at 10.30 am.

THE HIGH COURT
2006 No. 3785P

Between

DIGITAL RIGHTS IRELAND LIMITED

Plaintiff

And

THE MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS, MARINE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, EQUALITY AND LAW REFORM, THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE GARDA SIOCHANA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendants

20th December 2007

1. The High Court (Clarke J.) has adjourned the application of the Irish Human Rights Commission (seeking leave to be heard in the proceedings as amicus curiae) to 28th January 2008.

2. The Defendants have indicated they intend to challenge the locus standi of the Plaintiff to bring the proceedings. (Locus standi is a concept referring to the interest of the party or the right of the party to litigate the proceedings).