Lexploria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 13 March 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

J. A. FROWEIN

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 20 July 1984 by J. R.

C. against Ireland and registered on 16 November 1984 under file

N° 11305/84;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr. J.R. C., states that he is a citizen

of the United Kingdom, born in 1934 in Kiltyclougher, Co. Leitrim,

Ireland. He is a farmer and at present resides in Co. Fermanagh,

Northern Ireland. He is represented, in proceedings before the

Commission, by Mr. N. C. Faris of Cleaver, Fulton and Rankin,

Solicitors, Belfast.

The applicant's complaint arises from the compulsory acquisition of

his farm by the Irish Land Commission and the payment of compensation

in Irish Land Bonds.

He states that he had agreed to sell his farm, situated in Co.

Leitrim, Ireland, privately in October 1977 for the price of £10,500.

However, the Land Commission prevented the sale from proceeding and

commenced compulsory acquisition proceedings in accordance with

provisions of the Land Act 1950 which provides for the acquisition of

untenanted land for purposes of resale. Under the legislation

compensation is payable in land bonds which must be equal to the

market value of the land.

A purchase price of £10,500 payable in 13 3/4% Land Bonds was

negotiated by the applicant through his auctioneer and fixed by

agreement.

The property vested in the Land Commission on 25 April 1979 but

neither the purchase money nor the interest accrued could be paid to

the applicant until his solicitor had proved title to the property.

Title to the property was not proved by the applicant's solicitors

until September 1983. The Land Bonds were then immediately

transferred by the Irish Land Commission to the applicant's bank

account.

He immediately instructed that the Bonds be valued and was advised in

November 1983 that they were worth approximately IR£8,390 which was

then the equivalent of £6,700. He requested that the Bonds be sold by

stockbrokers in Belfast and received £6,441.31.

The farmhouse on the lands did not form part of the property acquired

by the Irish Land Commission and the applicant has agreed a private

sale of the house. However, he states that the sale has been

considerably delayed because the Land Commission has not yet released

the Land Certificate to allow registration of the sale of the

farmhouse in the Land Registry.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the payment of compensation to him in

Land Bonds does not constitute prompt, adequate and effective

compensation for the acquisition of his property and is thus in breach

of Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

Referring to the Commission's opinion in the case of James v. the

United Kingdom (Application No. 8793/79) he submits that the

Convention imposes stricter rules concerning compensation in respect

of the acquisition of the property of foreigners. He complains that

the payment of compensation in Irish Land Bonds to a United Kingdom

citizen resident outside Irish jurisdiction resulted in great loss to

him when he sold the Bonds. He also invokes Arts. 1, 8, 13 and 14 of

the Convention (Art. 1, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14).

Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

The applicant did not contest the vesting by the Land Commission since

he had no objection to disposing of the lands. He had negotiated to

sell them to a resident of Dublin and considered that he had no option

but to acquiesce in the vesting of the lands by the Land Commission.

He did not contest the amount of compensation awarded since the amount

which he had negotiated with the Land Commissioner's valuer

corresponded with the amount negotiated on the proposed private sale.

At that time he did not appreciate that he would not receive the

purchase money in cash but in Land Bonds.

He states that at the time he did not receive any reasons for the

vesting from the Land Commission in any official communication. Nor

was he informed of his rights of appeal under the various Statutory

Bodies set up under the Lands Acts (Lay Commissioners, Lands Appeal

Tribunal).

He submits that in any event an exercise of his rights of appeal would

have been futile since his complaint concerned compensation in Land

Bonds rather than cash and not the acquisition of the property. He

refers to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dreher v. the

Irish Land Commission and the Attorney General (Judgment

of 1 July 1983) where the constitutionality of payment in Irish

Land Bonds under the Land Bond Act 1934 was upheld.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains, first of all, of the inadequacy of

the compensation payable to him in respect of his lands which were

acquired by the Irish Land Commission in 1979. He points out that he

was paid in Land Bonds which had substantially depreciated in value

when he sold them in 1983. He submits that his rights under

Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), as a foreigner, to prompt, adequate and

effective compensation have been breached. He also invokes Arts. 1,

8, 13 and 14 of the Convention (Art. 1, art. 8, art. 13, art. 14).

2. Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides as follows:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of

his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except

in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by

law and by the general principles of international law.

3. The Commission recalls that in accordance with Art. 25, para. 1

of the Convention (Art. 25-1) it can only examine applications from

individuals "claiming to be victims of a violation by one of the High

Contracting Parties of the rights set forth ...".

4. In the present case, the applicant negotiated, through his

auctioneer, an agreed price in land bonds equal to the market value of

his property. Although compensation was only payable in land bonds,

their value at the time of the negotiation of the price was equivalent

in market value to that which he had agreed in respect of the private

sale in October 1977. In such circumstances, and in the absence of

evidence attributing delay in establishing title to the Land

Commission, the applicant cannot subsequently claim to be a victim of

a breach of this provision within the meaning of Art. 25, para. 1 of

the Convention (Art. 25-1). Moreover, the Commission notes that had

the applicant disagreed, at that time, with either the acquisition of

his property or compensation in land bonds, he could have raised

objections on these issues before the lay commissioners established

under the Land Acts with the possibility of appealing on points of law

to an Appeal Tribunal. In this respect the applicant's submission

that he had no option but to agree a price has no foundation. The

Commission concludes, therefore, that this complaint must be rejected

as incompatible ratione personae within the meaning of Art. 27,

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

5. The applicant further complains that the private sale of his

house has been considerably delayed because the Land Commission have

not released the Land Certificate to enable the sale of the property

to be registered.

6. The Commission recalls that it is not required to decide

whether or not the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any

appearance of a violation of the Convention as, under Art. 26

(Art. 26), it may only deal with a matter after all domestic remedies

have been exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of

international law.

7. In the present case, the applicant has failed to seek the

recovery of the Land Certificate by initiating proceedings before the

Irish courts and thus cannot be considered to have exhausted his

domestsic remedies as regards this complaint. Moreover, an

examination of the case as it has been submitted does not disclose the

existence of any special circumstances which might have absolved him,

according to the generally recognised rules of international law, from

exhausting the domestic remedies at his disposal.

8. This complaint must therefore be rejected under Art. 27,

para. 3 of the Convention (Art. 27-3).

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H. C. KRÜGER) (C. A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

C. v. IRELAND

C. v. IRELAND

LEXI