(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The applicant is a French national, born in 1928 . He is a retired merchant navy officer and is resident in Camarsac (Gironde) . He owns a 16-hectare plot of land in Gironde in the municipality of Sallebmuf and is a member of two associations : the "Rassemblement des opposants à la chasse" (an association of people opposed to hunting) and SEPANSO-Gironde, an association registered under the Nature Conservation Act of 10 July 1976 . He is also an obligatory and automatic member of the Sallebueuf registered municipal hunting association (ACCA) . This association was set up under what is known as the Verdeille Act of 10 July 1964 and the implementing decree issued on 6 October 1966 . It was approved by the Prefect of the Gironde on 7 December 1979 . Under its Articles of Association, rural landowners in the municipality are obliged to offer the association the use of their land so that all the hunters in the municipality can hunt on all the land without the owners being able to object . Furthermore, under the Act of 10 July 1964 and the implementing decree ot 6 October 1966, the scheme that applies to rural landowners differs according to the area of their land. Above a certain threshold, to be set in each "département", landowners can refuse to be forced to join the registered municipal hunting association by requesting that their land be declared a reserve . This means that other hunters in the municipality cannot hunt on it . Small landowners do not, however have this option. The threshold above which landowners can refuse tojoin the municipal hunting association was set at 20 hectares, lying together, in the "département" of the Gironde by an order of the Ministry for Cultural Affairs and the Environment dated 3 May 1977. The applicant, who owned an area below the threshold, was therefore obliged to offer the municipal hunting association the use of his land . On 30 January 1980, the applicant applied to the Bordeaux Administrative Court to have the Prefect's order of 7 December 1979 set aside on the grounds of ultra vires . He also claimed that the decree of 6 October 1966 was unlawful . By a judgment dated 12 February 1981, the Administrative Court rejected the applicant's application on the grounds that the 1966 decree was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act : it simply specified how they were to be implemented with regard both to respect for property and to the exercise of the right to hunt ; that the law did not reflect an intention to make ownership a general, absolute right and that there was no statutory provision expressly concerning the position of non-hunters with regard to the right of property . 232 As for the order issued by the Prefect of the Gironde, the Court observed that it was not contested that the Preflrct had approved the Sallebæuf municipal hunting association by means of a lawful procedure and that rhe rules and Articles oï Association of the munieipal hunting ass ociation were in compliance with the Act of 10 July 1964 and with the above-mentioned decree . 'Phe applicant appealed against this judgment . He contended that rhe 1966 decree was unlawful because it did not make provisian for a permanent ban on hunting on the land of non-hunting members who si) recluested . He argued that this omisson was a~~iolation of the right of private property, the irdividual freedom of conscience of ci:izens, and freedom of association . In a judgntent dated 18 Mry 1983, the Conseil dEtat rejected the appeal . Even before he had been notified o1'this decision, the appiicant made arrangetnents to ask the French Ombudsman to submit to the Secretary of State for the Environment amendments to the provisions introduced by the "Verdeille" Act . Ln a letter dated 23 July 1984, the Ombudsman inflormed Ihe applicant that the Secre.-ary of State for the Environment had rejected his suggestions for amendments to the law governing municipal hunting associatiotts . COMPLAINTS 'Phe applicant complains to the Contmission that his freedom of association has been violated because, under the above-inentioned provisions cif French law, he is . agaimat his will, automatically a inember of the Sallebmuf municipal hunting association, which, by law, he cannot leave . He relies on Atticle 11. of the Convention . The applicant also complains of a violation of his fre edom of conscience, on the ground that he is obliged to allow hunting on his land even though he himself is opposed to hunting . He relies Article 9 of the Convention . He also camplains of a violation of the right of property, on the ground that he is obliged to offer the use of nis land to the Sallebmuf municipal hunting association without receiving anything in return, and that the 1966 decree imposes, to this end, a number of obligations or him . He relies on Article 1 of Protocol No . 1 . Lastly, the applicant complains of unfair treatment on the grounds that people owning more than 20 hectares of land are treated differently from small landowners and relies on Article 14 ot the Convention . In case thc. Commission considers that the present application shocdd be rejectecl on the ground that it was submitted too late, the applicant eontends that he is the victim of a continuing situation in respect of the violation of his rights umder Artic7es 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention and Article I of Protocol No. I . 233 According to the applicant, it is the actual text of the Act which violates the Convention, even though its implementation in the present case necessitates an authorisation order from the Prefect . In addition, since the owners concerned are not notified individually, the two months time-limit for appealing against the order to the Administrative Court makes the right of appeal ineffective, since in most cases the owner is not informed that the municipality has appropriated his land and the right to hunt on it. Lastly, the applicant maintains that, although his appeals were based on the right to respect for his individual freedom, the Administrative Court and the . Conseil d'Etat simply ascertained whether the instruments in question were themselves lawful without considering, in any way, whether the 1964 Verdeille Act respected the rights safeguarded by the general principles of law and the French Constitution . THE LAW The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 9, 11 and 14 of the Convention and of Article 1 of the Protocol No . 1 . He states that these violations arise from the fact that he is, against his will, a member of the Sallebæuf municipal hunting association set up under the Act of 10 July 1964 and the decree of 6 October 1966, and approved by the Prefect's order of 7 December 1979 . The Commission does not, however, have to decide whether the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions, since Article 26 in fine of the Convention provides that the Commission may deal with a case only "within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken". The Commission recalls firstly its case-law, according to which the "final decision" within the meaning of Article 26 refers to the final decision given in the normal course of the exhaustion of all the domestic remedies according to the generally recognised rules of international law (cf. No . 8850/80, Dec. 7.10 .80, D .R . 22 p. 232). In particular, Article 26 requires only the use of domestic remedies which are adequate and effective, i .e. those likely to remedy the situation complained of by the applicant (see, for example, Eur . Court H .R ., Airey judgment of 7 October 1979, Series A no . 32, p. 11, para . 19 ; Van Oosterwijck judgment of 6 November 1980, Series A no . 40, pp . 13 and 14, para . 27) . Moreover, when there is no domestic remedy, the act or decision complained of must itself normally be considered the "final decision" within the meaning of Article 26 (cf . No. 7379/76, Dec . 10 .12.76, D .R . 8 p . 211 ; No . 9266/81, Dec . 28 .1 .83, D .R . 30 pp . 155, 222) . The Commission observes, however, that in the present case the applicant argues that the violation of his rights constitutes a continuing situation . It has often stated in this connection that, in the absence of domestic remedies, the six mont h 234 period does not apply when the applicant claims to be the victini of a continuing violation of the rignts set forth in a provision of the Convention (see, for example . No. 214/56, De &rcker v . Belgiunt, Dec. 9.6.58, Yearbook 2 pp . 215, 24'i). In the presem: case, the applicant complains of violations of the provisions of the Conven¢ion resulting frora the îact that he is, agatnst his will, a member of the Sallebceuf municipal hunting, association set up under thie Verclaille Act and the implementing decree approved by ;he Prefect of the Gironde on 7 December 1979- This situation differs from that subniitted to the Commission in the De Becker case, irt which the Commission was dealing with a statutory provision creating a continuing situation against which there were no doniestia remedies . In the case of the prc.sent application, the Corncnission considers th:n the Prefect's order of 7 December 1979 approving the Sallebauf municipal hunting association placed the applicant in a situation of which he could eomplain . Although it produced. lasting effects.. this order constituted an iustantaneous act ag,ainsc which the applicant exercised the remedies availnble to hi :n under French law, with the result that his situation cannot be considered a continuing situation (cf . No . 7742/76, Dec. 4.7 .78, D.R. !A p. 146). It is true that the applicant later applied to the French Ombudsman . The Commission recalls in this comtection, however, that in accordance with its case-law, reeourse to an organ which supetvises the administration, such as the Ombudsman, does not consitute a normal adequate and effective domestic remedy within the rneaning of the generally recognised rules of international law (No . 3893/68, Dec. 16 .3.70, Yearbook 13 pp . 621, 624). 'The tinal decision is therefore the judgment delivered on 18 May 1963 by the Conseil cl'Et .u. As the present application was introduced on RI August 1984 . that is well over six months after tte date of this decision, it must be rejected in accordance with Article 27 para. 3 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Coinniissio n DE.CLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . 235