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)