THE FACTS

Whereas the facts presented by the applicant may be summarised as

follows:

The applicant is an Irish citizen, born in 1921 and resident in Dublin.

His complaint is directed against the Irish Government's policy on the

Irish language.

The applicant is a clerical officer in the civil service and as such

was entitled to a children's allowance of £35 a year in respect of each

of his four children. He received each year a form which he was

required to complete for this purpose. In June 1968 he received a form

set out entirely in Irish. The applicant maintains that his language

is and always has been English; he regards the Irish language as an

"imposition"; and he therefore asked for a form in English. This was

refused and he was told that the allowance would be stopped if he did

not complete the Irish form. The allowance was stopped on 2 August

1968.The applicant submits a copy of a White Paper published in 1965,

setting out the Government's general policy on the Irish language and

its views on the recommendations made by a Commission on the

Restoration of the Irish language. Recommendation 12 of the Commission,

dealing with the civil service, was that the use of Irish in the

internal affairs of departments and offices and in inter-departmental

work should be promoted and progressively increased from year to year.

Paragraph 42 of the White Paper states the Government's views on this

recommendation as follows:

"The use of Irish in the internal affairs of Departments and Offices

and in inter-departmental work will be gradually extended as staff

competent to work in Irish are available. As, however, considerable

difficulty has been experienced in the recruitment of professional and

technical staff, it may be some time before a standard of Irish at

entry could be required which would ensure that persons appointed to

these posts would be competent to do all their work through Irish."

When the applicant complained of the stopping of his children's

allowance he was told that the form in question was printed in Irish

only, in accordance with Government policy that as much as possible of

the internal work of Government departments should be carried out in

Irish. The reply also stated that since he had previously completed the

form it was obvious that the use of the Irish version imposed no

inconvenience or hardship on him. The applicant denies, however, that

he has ever completed the form in question. He contends that he had

received only one such form in 1966; he asked what it was and what he

was to put on it; he was told to answer "yes" to two questions and

added his signature and the date. He says that one of these two

questions is completely unintelligible to him.

The applicant contends that the Irish are an English-speaking nation,

that only about 2% of the population is genuinely Irish-speaking, and

about 3% want an change of language. He complains of a "language

dictatorship". He claims that he has an inalienable right to his

natural language and that the Government has nor right to prescribe a

language for what the applicant calls purely ideological reasons. He

alleges that he has been denied freedom of expression, contrary to

Article 10 of the Convention, and also invokes several other Articles.

THE LAW

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains generally of the linguistic

policy of the respondent Government, the Commission has frequently

stated that, in a case submitted by an individual under Article 25

(Art. 25) of the Convention, it is not the task of the Commission to

examine in abstracto the conformity of domestic legislation with the

provisions of the Convention (see. e.g. Applications Nos. 290/57,

Yearbook, Vol. III, p. 214; 867/60, Yearbook, Vol. IV, p. 270);

Whereas therefore the Commission cannot examine in general the Irish

legislation and the practice of the Irish authorities in linguistic

matters, unless the applicant alleges that he is or appears to be a

victim in this respect of a violation of the rights and freedoms

guaranteed in the Convention; whereas, in any event, it is clear that

no right to a particular language is as such guaranteed by the

Convention;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is incompatible

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,

paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant complains that he has been denied

freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 (Art. 10) of the

Convention, the Commission observes that the only allegation made by

the applicant in support of this complaint is that he was required to

complete in the Irish language the form for claiming child allowances;

whereas the Commission finds that such a requirement could not in any

way be considered as an interference with the applicant's freedom of

expression;

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas, insofar as the applicant can be said to complain that he was

deprived of his child allowances, it is to be observed that the

Convention, under the terms of Article 1 (Art. 1), guarantees only the

rights and freedoms set forth in Section I of the Convention; and

whereas, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) only the alleged violation

of one of those rights and freedoms by a Contracting Party can be the

subject of an application presented by a person, non-governmental

organisation or group of individuals;

Whereas otherwise its examination is outside the competence of the

Commission ratione materiae; whereas no right to be granted family

allowances is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed

by the Convention; whereas in this respect, the Commission refers to

its previous decision No. 2350/64 (X. v. Belgium and the Netherlands);

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is incompatible

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,

paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission has examined the remainder of the applicant's

separate complaints; whereas it finds that an examination of the case

as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio,

does not generally disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights

and freedoms set forth in the Convention; whereas it follows that the

remainder of the application is again manifestly ill-founded within the

meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention;

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE