The Gazette 1981

GAZETTE

"1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law. This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social functions". 3.1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. 2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of an injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name and property rights of every citizen". And they relied on the entire of Article 43 which is in the following terms:— "1.1° The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods. 2° The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right to private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property. 2.1° The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regulated by the principles of social justice. 2° The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconcfling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good". The Plaintiffs' arguments were summarised as follows:— For the Plaintiffs, it has been submitted that they have been denied the requirements of justice and have been treated unequally vis-a-vis other citizens who have let uncontrolled property; that the arbitrary and unfair restriction of their letting rights constitute an unjust attack on their property rights; that the State has failed to vindicate those rights; that the restrictions imposed on their property rights are not regulated by any principle of social justice;

that the ddimination of those rights is unrelated to the exigencies of the common good; that if an emergency or other temporary basis for the impugned restrictions existed at any stage, it has long since passed; that the imposition of those restrictions on houses and flats merely because they happened to be built before 1941 and to have rateable valuations below specified amounts, is arbitrary, unjustifiably discrim- inatory and not required by the common good, that such control, regardless as it is of the means of the tenant or the hardship it may cause to the landlord, is unjust and unfair, particularly because, since December 1972, the impugned legislation has left no means of reviewing basic rents once they have been determined by the courts; and that the State's failure since 1971 to amend this legislation and to redress the Plaintiffs' grievances amounts to a dereliction by the State of its duty under Article 40, Section 3 to protect them from unjust attack and to vindicate their property rights having regard to the injustice that has been done to them. On behalf of the Attorney General the case was made:— That this legislation falls to be examined for invalidity under Article 43 of the Constitution; that Section 2 of that Article provides for the regulation and delimitation of property rights according to the principles of social justice and the exigencies of the common good; that what this impugned legislation has done is justified by Section 2 of that Article and that, accordingly, no question of non- compliance with Article 40, Section 3 arises; that the power of regulating or delimiting the rights of private property is vested in the Oireachtas by Article 6 and that it is to be presumed that in exercising that power in relation to Article 43, it acted inter vires and with due regard to the directive principles of social justice set out in Article 45 which are not cognisable in any court; that the Court's power to condemn this legislation under either Article 40 Section 3, or under Article 43, cannot arise unless it is shown that

Recent Irish Cases

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Constitution of Ireland — Constitu- tionality of Part II and Park IV of the Rent Restrictions Acts 1960-1967 questioned. The Plaintiffs sought and obtained Declarations in the High Court that Parts II and IV of the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, were invalid having regard to the provisions of the Constitution. Appeals were brought by the Attorney General to the Supreme Court. In relation to Part II, the basic rent of the majority of controlled premises was the net rent at which the premises were let on the 8 June 1966, which necessarily had as its base the rent paid in 1914, or the rent paid in 1941 depending on the date of erection of the premises. There was evidence in relation to the Plaintiff's premises that the market rent would be between 9 and 19 times the controlled rent. There were now no provisions to enable the basic rent to be reviewed. The imposition of full responsibility for all repairs (save those which are the tenant's obligations under his agreement or Deasy's Act) further accentuated the hardship caused to landlords of controlled dwellings. The Plaintiffs contended that Articles 40 and 43 of the Constitution read in the light of its Preamble had been contravened. As to the Preamble the Plaintiffs relied on the following paragraph:— "And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored and concord established with other nations". As to Article 40 they relied on the following:—

xxix