THE FACTS

The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised

as follows:

The applicant is a United States citizen, born in 1931 and resident in

F..

From the applicant's detailed statements and a large number of

documents which he has submitted, it appears that he was given

employment as an electrician with the ... Board in August 1962. While

he was working at a generating station at B., he was elected

shop-steward for the ... Trade Union. During this period he organised

an unofficial strike at the site in order to protest against the

failure of the Union to look after the interest of the workers.

In July 1963 the applicant was transferred to F. Power Station where

he was also elected shop-steward. According to the applicant, relations

between the workers and the management were poor and the applicant had

frequent disputes with the assistant electrical engineer and the

chargehand. The latter allegedly asked the applicant on several

occasions to resign as shop-steward and promised him promotion if he

did this . After a dispute over working conditions, the applicant was

informed that he was redundant and on .. January 1964 he was dismissed.

He complained to the union and three weeks later he was reinstated.

However, shortly afterwards, he fell ill and stayed at home for a few

months.

When he returned to F., the rest of the workers were transferred from

the site and the applicant was left alone on the site for the winter

of 1964-65. The Board removed the canteen and toilets to another site

and the applicant had to stay in a large wooden box which did not even

keep the rain out.

After the applicant had left F. an order for a quantity of copper wire

was placed in his name. This gave rise to an inquiry at which the

applicant was charged with having used the Board's transport for his

private business.

In March 1965 the applicant was transferred to A. where his work mainly

consisted of washing the grease off old cookers and washers and

installing these second-hand parts into new ones. A few days later the

applicant resigned as he feared that he would only be given unpleasant

jobs.

In April 1965 the applicant found new employment in B., which he

describes as a State firm. After a number of disputes the applicant

resigned in January 1967 as he felt that he could no longer continue

his work under these conditions. He submits that he had been unable to

find work since.

The applicant has complained to the Prime Minister, the Minister for

Transport and Power, the Commission on Industrial Relations in the ...

Board, the Union and other authorities or bodies in order to get

redress. All these attempts have, however, been of no avail. He also

consulted solicitors and counsel who refused to bring any action on his

behalf.

In January 1968 the applicant decided not to pay his car tax until the

authorities would attend to his case. On .. April 1968, he was fined

on this account. On .. October 1968, the applicant was arrested for

failure of paying the fine. The next morning, however, he decided to

pay the fine and the tax arrears and was released.

The applicant's nine "charges" against the respondent Government may

be summarised as follows:

1. He was improperly restricted from carrying out his duties as

shop-steward at F. by the management and pressure was brought on him

to permit a serious breach of Trade Union Principle (Article 11 (2) of

the Convention);

2. He was subjected to a form of punishment by being left alone in an

old wet hovel at F.. with the toilets and wash-house removed and the

installations in the main station closed to him (Article 3 of the

Convention);

3. The work given to him at A. amounted to unlawful practice in which

he was obliged to take part or leave the job (Article 9 of the

Convention);

4. When the enquiry was held concerning the purchase of copper wire at

F., the applicant was not there to defend himself against the

accusations that he had used the Board's transport for private business

and his subsequent request to let him prove that the was innocent of

these charges had been turned down (Article 5, paragraph (3) of the

Convention);

5. While working for B. he was subjected to the same "victimisation

campaign" as had been carried out at the ... Board and there were

repeated breaches of his employment contract (Articles 3 and 5 of the

Convention);

6. He was imprisoned on .. October 1968, in M. Prison although the

judge had never imposed any previous sentence to be served if he had

failed to pay the fine concerned (Article 5, paragraph (3) of the

Convention);

7. On .. October 1968 the Government had an article on his imprisonment

printed in its paper the "..." in a manner which would lead the public

to believe that he was a potential law-breaker (Article 5, paragraph

(3) of the Convention);

8. The solicitors consulted by the applicant, who were also State

solicitors for County L.. as well as counsel, refused to act on his

behalf (Article 13 of the Convention);

9. The applicant, his wife and two children are forced to live with his

parents and his wife suffers from depression because of his lack of

permanent employment. He alleges that this amounts to interference with

his home and family life (Article 8 of the Convention).

The applicant requests clearance of his record with the State firms and

compensation for all wages and service lost. He also wants an apology

from the newspaper and compensation.

THE LAW

Whereas the applicant complains of interference with the exercise of

his duties as a shop-steward during his employment at the ... Board;

Whereas this complaint raises a question under Article 11 (Art. 11) of

the Convention according to which everyone has the right "to freedom

of association with others, including the right to form and join trade

unions for the protection of his interests";

Whereas, however, it results from Article 19 (Art. 19) of the

Convention that the sole task of the Commission is to ensure the

observance of the engagements undertaken in the Convention by the High

Contracting Parties, being those members of the Council of Europe which

have signed the Convention and deposited their instruments of

ratification; whereas, moreover, it appears from Article 25 (1)

(Art. 25-1) of the Convention that the Commission can properly admit

an application from an individual only if that individual claims to be

the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the

rights set forth in the Convention provided that the Party in question

has accepted this competence of the Commission;

Whereas the Commission finds that an examination of the file at the

present stage does not give the information required for determining

the question of admissibility of this part of the application

particularly as regards the responsibility of the Iris Government under

the Convention;

Whereas, therefore, the Commission decides, in accordance with Rule 45,

3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure to give notice thereof to the

respondent Government and to invite it to submit its written

observations on the question of admissibility; whereas, in the

meanwhile, the Commission decides to adjourn its examination of this

part of the application;

Whereas, however, the Commission is able to deal at once with the other

aspects of the applicant's complaints;

Whereas, insofar as his complaints can be said to be directed against

the ... Union and its officials, it results clearly from the Articles

mentioned above that the Commission has no competence ratione personae

to admit applications directed against private individuals;

Whereas, in this respect, the Commission refers to its previous

decisions Nos. 172/56 (S. v. Sweden - Yearbook, Vol. I, p. 211) and

752/60 (S. v. Federal Republic of Germany - ibid VI, p. 346);

Whereas it follows that this part of the application is incompatible

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

Convention;

Whereas, the applicant has also made complaints in connection with his

employment at B.. and in particular has generally alleged that he was

subjected to the same victimisation campaign as had been carried out

at the ... Board; whereas the same question arises as to whether the

alleged conduct of B. or its officials could entail the responsibility

of the respondent Government under the Convention; whereas the

Commission does not find it necessary to determine this question since,

even assuming that the Government was responsible, an examination of

these complaints, insofar as they are made under Articles 3 and 4

(Art. 3, 4) of the Convention do not disclose any appearance of a

violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention;

whereas the applicant has made no complaint under Article 11 (Art. 11)

in this connection and indeed it appears that, during the period

concerned, he was not a shop-steward nor does he himself contend that

there was any dispute between him and his employer arising out of his

membership of the trade union;

Whereas, therefore, this part of the application does not call for an

examination under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention;

Whereas it follows that these particular complaints are manifestly

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

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

Whereas, the applicant also complains of the manner in which the ...

Board carried out the inquiry concerning the purchase of copper wire,

in particular, that he was refused permission to prove that he was

innocent of the charges made against him in this connection and whereas

he alleges thereby a violation of Article 5, paragraph (3) (Art. 5-3)

of the Convention; whereas the question again arises whether the

respondent Government could be made responsible under the Convention

for any acts of the ... Board; whereas the Commission will at a later

stage consider this question in connection with the above-mentioned

part of the application on which the respondent Government is being

invited to submit its observations; whereas, however, even assuming

that allegations made by the applicant in this respect could entail the

responsibility of the Government, the Commission finds again that an

examination of this further complaint also does not disclose any

appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the

Convention; whereas in particular, the Commission observes that the

inquiry did not affect the applicant's "liberty and security of person"

within the meaning of Article 5 (Art. 5) and that, accordingly, the

said Article which is the only one invoked by the applicant in this

connection does not apply here; 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 complains of having been unlawfully

imprisoned for failure of paying a fine, the Commission may, under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, only deal with a matter after

all domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally

recognised rules of international law; and whereas the applicant failed

to institute any proceedings before the competent courts on this

account; whereas, therefore, he has not exhausted the remedies

available to him under Irish law; whereas, moreover, an examination of

the case as it has been submitted, does not disclose the existence of

any special circumstances which might have absolved the applicant,

according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from

exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal; whereas, therefore,

the condition as to the  exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in

Articles 26 and 27 (3) (Art. 26, 27-3) of the Convention has not been

complied with by the applicant.

Whereas, to the extent that the applicant's complaints are directed

against the newspaper, it is recalled that the Commission has no

competence ratione materiae to admit applications directed against

private individuals or private enterprises;

Whereas the same ground of inadmissibility applied to the applicant's

complaints directed against the solicitors consulted by him;

Whereas, finally, the applicant complains that he and his family are

forced to live with his parents and that his wife suffers from

depression resulting from his lack of permanent employment and he

alleges that this amounts to an interference with his home and family

life contrary to Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention; whereas the

Commission does not find that this complaint discloses any appearance

of a violation of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention

and in particular in the Article invoked by the applicant; whereas it

follows that this part of the application is also manifestly

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

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

Now therefore the Commission

1. Invites the Government of Ireland to submit its observations on the

question of admissibility of the complaint concerning interference with

the applicant's duties as a shop-steward while he was employed at the

... Board;

Decides to adjourn its examination of the admissibility of the

applicant's said complaint;

2. Declares inadmissible, for the reasons stated above, the remainder

of the applicant's complaints.