THE FACTS

I. Whereas the facts of the remaining part of the application as they
have been submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:

The applicant is a citizen of the United States, born in 1931 and
resident in F. in Ireland.

In August 1962 the applicant was given employment as an electrician
with the  ... Board. 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 interests
of the workers. In this connection, the applicant makes no complaints
concerning the relations between him and the management.

In July 1963 the applicant was transferred to F. Power Station, where
after a short time, he was also elected shop steward. According to him,
relations between the management and the workers were poor and some of
the workers were political trouble-makers. There was frequent talk of
an unofficial strike among some of the men. At a meeting called by the
applicant, it became apparent, however, that the majority of the men
were opposed to a strike as the applicant had hoped.

At a later date the chargehand, Mr. G., approached the applicant to
find out whether the latter would permit the use of helpers on work
which would normally be done by skilled workers. The applicant
considered that as a shop steward he had no power to allow these men
to do skilled work and therefore refused the request. Mr. G. allegedly
made repeated attempts to let him use non-union members on skilled
work, and also informed the applicant that the assistant electrical
engineer, Mr. P., was in favour of this as work was falling behind.
When the applicant persisted in his refusal, Mr. G. showed that he was
displeased. On several occasions Mr. G. asked the applicant to resign
his office as shop steward and let another man take over. He also
indicated that the applicant would be certain of permanent employment
with the Board for the rest of his life if he resigned. On other
occasions Mr. G. threatened the applicant that his job was in danger
if he did not consent. During the winter of 1963, a dispute arose
between the applicant and Mr. P. concerning the condition of the
toilets at the station. The workers agreed on a ban of overtime, but
the ban was lifted already on the following day. The toilet question,
however, remained unsolved.

About Christmas 1963 the applicant noticed that Mr. P. and Mr. G. made
frequent use of unskilled labour on certain skilled work.
On .. January 1964, the applicant was informed that he was redundant
and would be dismissed on .. January. Before leaving the power station
he resigned as shop steward. The workers then elected as his successor
the man supported by Mr. G. He considered, however, that the reason for
his dismissal was a pretext to get rid of him and therefore complained
to the union. Three weeks later he was reinstated at his job at F. He
was told that extra work had been found but, according to the
applicant, this was not the case since this work was provided for in
the original plans of the power station.
Shortly afterwards, the applicant 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 (1).
-------------------------------
(1)  Insofar as the applicant complained that the manner in which the
Board carried out an inquiry concerning this purchase violated Article
5 of the Convention, this complaint was rejected in the partial
decision of 24 July 1970, as being manifestly ill-founded. The question
whether the Government was responsible under the Convention for any
acts of the Board was expressly left open.
--------------------------------
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 he would only be given unpleasant jobs.

The applicant originally indicated that he had complained to the
Taoiseach (Prime Minister), the Minister of 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 were,
however, to no avail. He also consulted two firms of solicitors and
counsel who refused to bring any action on his behalf. Moreover, he
informed the police that he would not pay his car tax until his case
was attended to.

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 11 of the Convention in
that 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 principles".

II. HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

The applicant originally made nine "charges" against the respondent
Government alleging violations of Articles 3, 5, 8, 9, 11 and 13 of the
Convention.

While declaring the remainder of the application inadmissible for
various reasons, the Commission decided on 24 July 1970 to communicate
to the respondent Government the part of the application in which the
applicant had complained of interference with the exercise of his
duties as a shop steward for the Union during his employment at the
Board. Considering that this complaint raised a question under Article
11 of the Convention, according to which everyone has the right "to
freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to
join trade unions for the protection of his interests", the Commission
invited the Government to submit its observations on the admissibility
of this part of the application, and in particular, on the following
questions:

-  the responsibility of the Government under the Convention for acts
   of the Board;
-  the existence of any domestic remedies with regard to the
   applicant's complaints;
-  the facts alleged by the applicant in this connection.

The Government submitted its observations on .. September 1970 and the
applicant submitted his observations in reply on .. October 1970.

III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

1. As to the facts

In its observations the respondent Government has not discussed in
detail the facts alleged by the applicant. The Government has
submitted, however, that the Board had been consulted in this matter
and had stated that it was fully satisfied that there was no
interference with the exercise of the applicant's duties as a shop
steward. In his reply, the applicant has pointed out that the
Government has not given any information as to how the Board had come
to this conclusion, in particular whether it was the result of an
impartial inquiry.

2. As to the Commission's competence ratione personae

The respondent Government has submitted that the Board is a Body
established by a statute which sets out its essential features and
functions, and financed, at least in the first instance by public
funds. Referring to the relevant sections of the Electricity (Supply)
Act 1927, the Government has stated that it is clear from these
provisions that the Board is solely responsible for matters relating
to exercise of its functions, including the relationship between the
Board and its employees. Accordingly, the applicant's complaint is in
respect of alleged actions by or on behalf of a body independent of the
Government and the application does not therefore reveal any grounds
on which it might be held that the direct responsibility of the
Government for these alleged actions is involved. It is submitted,
therefore, that insofar as the petition relies on direct interference
by the Government with the applicant's rights under the Convention
ratione personae and is, therefore, inadmissible under Article 27,
paragraph (2), of the Convention as being incompatible with the
provisions of that Convention.

In his observations in reply, the applicant maintains that the
Government must be considered to be responsible under the Convention
for the acts of the Board. In this connection, he refers to a letter
from the Minister of Transport and Power of 8 November 1967 in which
it was said, inter alia, that the Minister exercises general
supervision over the policy of the Board. The applicant has also
pointed out that the Board, including its Chairman, is appointed by the
Government.

3. As to the Commission's competence ratione materiae

The Federal Government has submitted that the facts such as have been
alleged by the applicant would not constitute a deprivation of any
right protected by Article 11 of the Convention. Referring to the terms
of paragraph (1) of this Article, the Government emphasises that the
applicant does not allege that he was discouraged from forming or
joining a trade union or from exercising the other rights specifically
set out in the paragraph, or that the pressure he claims was brought
to bear on him, the offers of promotion, the treats of dismissal,
subjection to unpleasant working for the purpose of persuading him to
terminate his membership of his union, or because he refused to do so.
On the contrary, he specifically claims that the alleged actions were
directed towards persuading him to permit breaches of trade union
principles or to relinquish the office of shop steward. It is submitted
that (on interpretation of Article 11) it must be held that the
applicant's allegations are based on a claim to a right which is not
protected or guaranteed by Article 11 (or any other provision) of the
Convention.
The application must accordingly be held inadmissible under Article 27,
paragraph (2) as being incompatible with the provisions of the
Convention. Conversely, the petition discloses no appearance of a
violation of one of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the
Convention and is therefore inadmissible under Article 27, paragraph
(2) as being manifestly ill-founded.

The applicant has replied that the Government's argument would mean
that there is a right to join a trade union but no right to have an
administration (of which a shop steward forms part) to protect the
interests of the union. Written right without proper administration
would be of little use and any denial of the right of a fair
administration would constitute a denial of the right to protect one's
interests and therefore a violation of Article 11.

4. As to the existence of adequate protection under domestic law

In addition to and independent of the above submissions, the respondent
Government contends that there are further grounds on which the
application should be declared inadmissible. As the alleged acts of
which the applicant complains are not claimed to have been committed
in circumstances involving the direct responsibility of the Government,
a breach of the Convention by the Government in connection with thee
acts may not be established otherwise than by showing either (a) that
the law does not protect a right or freedom guaranteed by the
Convention which has been infringed by the alleged acts, or (b) that
there is not adequate remedy for enforcing the law's protection in this
respect.

As regards (a) the Government submits that the rights of Article 11 of
the Convention are protected in Irish law primarily by the Constitution
or Ireland which provides as follows at Article 406:

"1.  The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following
rights, subject to public order and morality:

i. The rights of the citizens to express freely their convictions and
opinions...

ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.

iii. The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.

Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the
public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.

2. Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming
associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised
shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination."

These regulations are also provided for in the Trade Unions Acts and
by other statutory and common law rules, which incidentally may not
conflict with the Constitution on pain of invalidity of the conflicting
non-Constitutional provision. The restrictions placed by law on the
exercise of these rights must therefore come within the proviso at
paragraph iii. above and in fact also come within the restrictions
permitted by paragraph 2 of Article 11 of the Convention. Restrictions
of or interference with a person's right to form and to join trade
unions for the protection of his interests in any other way is
therefore unlawful under Irish law. It is accordingly submitted that
Irish law adequately protects the rights to form and join trade unions
as guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention.

On the question of (b), an adequate remedy, the Government points out
that the relevant claims of the applicant appear to be that he sought
assistance from his trade union, that he complained to the Committee
of Industrial Relations in the Board, that he wrote to the Taoiseach
(Prime Minister), the Minister for Transport and Power and Mr. C. a
Member of the Dail (T.D.), and that he was anxious to bring his case
to court and consulted two solicitors and counsel who refused to act
for him. It is submitted that even if these claims are substantiated
the applicant has not discharged the burden of proof lying on him to
establish that there is no adequate remedy for protection of the right
he claims has been infringed.

The Government states that it is open to any person whose rights are
being unlawfully interfered with to seek an injunction from the courts,
i.e. an order addressed to an offending party directing him to refrain
from specified unlawful acts. The order is enforceable under penalty
of imprisonment. In the circumstances of this case as alleged by the
applicant, several other remedies both of a judicial and non-judicial
nature would be open to him. In the first place he could lodge a
complaint with the superior officers of persons who are parties to
persuasion by intimidation or bribery or who are responsible for
unsuitable working conditions. He could also seek the intervention of
his trade union to protect his interests in his relationship with his
employers, including his relationship with his employer's servants or
agents. Apart from such non-judicial remedies the courts have, of
course, jurisdiction, not only to grant injunctions as already referred
to in respect of unlawful acts, but also to entertain actions for such
matters as loss of wages, wrongful dismissal, breach of contract, etc.,
any or all of which might be established by the facts alleged in the
petition. Moreover, his allegations of intimidation and bribery would
form the basis of criminal proceedings against the persons concerned
if adequate proof were forthcoming, and the applicant could make a
complaint to the police authorities with a view to having an end put
to these activities in this way.

The applicant does not say in his application that he made any
complaint to the police authorities or to the superior officers of the
offending parties. Apparently he wrote to the Minister for Transport
and Power some years after the acts of which he complains and was
informed that the Minister could do nothing about his complaint and
would pass the letter to the Board. The petition does not give any
clear indication of the contents of the letter to the Minister or say
what was the reaction of the Board other than that he was not employed
by the Board subsequently. He also says he wrote to the Taoiseach
(Prime Minister) and Mr. C. without indicating the contents of his
letters or when he wrote them. However, these persons would not have
any function to intervene personally in his relations with the Board
either. He also says he had resort to the Committee of Industrial
Relations in the Board without success, but does not indicate the
nature of his complaint to the Commission, how it progressed, or
details of the eventual outcome.

The applicant claims that he sought the assistance of his trade union,
but it is not at all clear from his statement when or how often he did
so or in respect of which of his complaints. He is apparently satisfied
that the trade union was responsible for his re-employment by the Board
in 1964 some weeks after his employment had been terminated on grounds
of redundancy. Apparently at some later stage he became dissatisfied
with the trade union's efforts, and ultimately he says it refused to
take any other measures on his behalf. So far as the Government are
aware he has not indicated the reasons given by the trade union for
this decision, what measures had been taken by it on his behalf prior
to this decision, or the results of such measures.

The applicant claims that he was anxious to bring his case to the
courts but that he failed to do so. In this connection, he says he
consulted two firms of solicitors and counsel and that they refused to
act for him. So far as the Government are aware, he has not explained
in respect of which complaints he consulted these solicitors and
counsel, or on what grounds they refused to act for him or whether he
consulted other solicitors after such refusals. There is no provision
for legal assistance in civil proceedings in Ireland, and in this
respect attention is drawn to the declaration made by the Government
of Ireland, on ratification of the Convention, to the effect that they
did not interpret Article 6 (3) (c) of the Convention as requiring the
provision of free legal assistance, to any wider extent than was then
provided in Ireland. However, although a solicitor or counsel may
refuse to act for a person who is either unable or unwilling to pay for
his services, it is a well established practice amongst solicitors and
counsel to act for a client who is unable to pay, and in particular to
undertake proceedings on behalf of a penurious client where it appears
that the client has a good cause of action. In this connection it
should be understood that under the rules governing the legal
professions in Ireland counsel may not accept instructions from a
client except through a solicitor. Accordingly, if counsel refused to
act for the applicant it may have been because he was approached
directly. More likely a refusal would follow consideration by counsel
of the applicant's claims as submitted by one of the solicitors
consulted (who presumably would have undertaken the task gratuitously)
and arrival at the conclusion that the applicant did not have a good
cause of action. It cannot, therefore, be assumed that the solicitors
mentioned by the applicant or counsel refused to act for him merely
because he was not in a position to finance the proceedings. Moreover,
it should be noted that a litigant had a right of audience before the
courts in his own case, and that therefore a person is not prevented
from taking an action merely by failure to secure professional
representation.

The Government therefore submits that it is clearly established not
only that Irish law protests everyone's right to freedom of association
with others, including the right to form and join trade unions for the
protection of his interests (whether or not the right includes the
right to exercise the functions of a shop steward) as guaranteed by
Article 11 of the Convention, but also that there are adequate remedies
for enforcement of this protection. Accordingly, the Government
contends that, as its obligation under the Convention in respect of
actions not involving its direct responsibility do not extend beyond
ensuring that this is the state of the law and of availability of
remedy, the petition against it should also be held inadmissible under
Article 27, paragraph (2), of the Convention as being manifestly
ill-founded.

The Government further submits that the above demonstrates that all the
domestic remedies have not been exhausted by the applicant as required
under Article 26 of the Convention and that the application is also to
be rejected under Article 27 (3).

In his observations in reply the applicant refers to the evidence he
has submitted in support of his claim. He states that the gravity of
the case did not become apparent until after his dismissal in January
.. when he complained to the officer in charge without result. The
applicant emphasises that, in order to apply for a court injunction,
he would have to produce evidence and this was not possible as all
witnesses were removed before any improper suggestions were made.
Moreover, it would have been disastrous for him to start proceedings
for an injunction against his superiors in the Board.

In support of his contention that he did complain to the police, the
applicant refers to a letter of 3 December 1967, written by him to the
Police Superintendent at L. complaining of his dismissal and stating
that he would not pay the duties for his car and driving licence until
his complaints had been investigated. In his reply, the Superintendent
regretted that he could not assist the applicant in this matter.

The applicant also refers to a letter written by him to the Minister
of Transport and Power on 28 August 1967 which, according to him, gave
a detailed account of what had happened. This letter was passed on to
the Board which merely replied on 18 October 1967, that there were no
vacancies although the Board had shortly before advertised for
electricians. As regards his complaint to the Committee on Industrial
Relations in the Board, the applicant refers to a letter informing him
that this Committee had not competence to deal with individual cases.

The applicant has, however, submitted the final report of this
Committee which was published in 1969. In this connection, he points
out that the Committee had found "dangerous complacency" on the side
of the Board and the unions.

The applicant states that he has also recently written to the Trades
Union in order to obtain copies of letters from the Board in their
possession which would show that there was no redundancy at the time
of his dismissal. His request has, however, remained without reply. In
addition, he has asked the Board itself to inform him of the number of
other electricians dismissed in his region on 3 January 1964 for
supposed redundancy.

As regards his attempts to take legal action, the applicant gives
further details in his observations. According to him, he first
approached one firm of solicitors in November 1966, but was then
advised not to pursue his case. In November 1968, the applicant was
introduced to a T.D. (Member of the Dail) who was a senior counsel by
profession and who referred him to another firm of solicitors. Although
the applicant accordingly put the whole case before these solicitors
and informed them that he would himself raise the money for their
services, he was again told that he had no case against anyone and
advised to drop the matter. The applicant submits that he does not
himself possess the legal skill required for bringing a court action
against a State firm and would be at a disadvantage against the best
lawyers his opponent could provide.

In the applicant's opinion, his two experiences of the legal profession
show that the administration of law in Ireland does not protect the
rights under the Convention. He considers that consequently he has
exhausted all remedies available to him.

THE LAW

Whereas, by its partial decision on the admissibility of the
application of 24 July 1970 the Commission, while declaring the
remainder of the application inadmissible, decided to invite the
respondent Government to submit its observations on the question of
admissibility of the applicant's complaint concerning interference with
his duties as a shop steward during his employment at the Board;

Whereas, in this connection, the Commission stated that this complaint
raised 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 to join trade
unions for the protection of his interests"; whereas, the Commission
also recalled that 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 where 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 where the Party in question has
accepted this competence of the Commission;

Whereas the Commission considered that an examination of the file at
that stage did not give the information required for determining the
question of the admissibility of this part of the application,
particularly as regards the responsibility in this case of the
respondent Government under the Convention;

Whereas the respondent Government has submitted, in its observations
on admissibility, that "the Board is a State-sponsored body; that is
a body established by a Statute which sets out its essential features
and functions and financed, at least in the first instance by public
funds, but granted by the statute independence in its operations";

Whereas, in the Government's submission, it is clear that the Board is
solely responsible for matters relating to exercise of its functions,
including the relationship between the Board and its employees;

Whereas, accordingly, the applicant's complaint is in respect of
alleged actions by or on behalf of a body independent of the Government
and such actions cannot involve the direct responsibility of the
Government under the Convention;

Whereas the applicant has submitted in his observations in reply that
the respondent Government should be considered to be responsible under
the Convention for the acts of the Board; whereas in this connection
he refers inter alia, to a statement by the Minister of Transport and
Power according to which the Minister exercises general supervision
over the policy of the Board;

Whereas the Commission does not find it necessary in the present case
to determine generally the question as to what extent acts of the Board
or its officers could entail the responsibility of the respondent
Government under the Convention; whereas for the present purposes it
is sufficient to note that, while the Government exercises, at least,
general supervision over the policy of the Board, the day to day
administration is solely in the hands of the Board;

Whereas the Commission considers that the acts alleged by the applicant
clearly fall within the domain of such day to day admissibility for
which the Government is not directly responsible;

Whereas the Commission has next considered the respondent Government's
submission that, insofar as the acts alleged have not been committed
in circumstances involving the direct responsibility of the Government,
a breach by the Government in connection with these acts may not be
established otherwise than by showing either that the domestic law does
not protect a right or freedom guaranteed by the Convention which has
been infringed or that there is no adequate remedy for enforcing the
law's protection in this respect;

Whereas, in considering this argument the Commission finds it necessary
first to examine the respondent Government's further submission that
the facts, such as they have been alleged by the applicant, would not
constitute a deprivation of any right protected by Article 11 (Art. 11)
of the Convention; whereas the Government emphasises that the applicant
does not allege that he was discouraged from "forming" or "joining" a
trade union or from exercising the other rights specifically set out
in paragraph (1) of that Article (Art. 11-1); that, in particular, he
does not suggest that the pressure allegedly brought to bear on him by
means of offers of promotion, threats of dismissal, subjection to
unpleasant working conditions, and his dismissal and forced resignation
were inflicted on him for the purpose of persuading him to terminate
his membership of his union, or because he refused to do so;

Whereas the Government points out that the alleged actions were, on the
contrary, directed towards persuading him to permit breaches of trade
union principles or to relinquish the office of shop steward;

Whereas, in the submission of the Government, the applicant's
allegations are thus based on a claim to a right which is not protected
or guaranteed by Article 11 (Art. 11) of the Convention;

Whereas the applicant has submitted in reply that the recognition of
the right to join a trade union would be of little use unless the trade
union was also entitled to a proper administration;

Whereas the Commission, without entering into the general problems of
an interpretation of the concept of "freedom of association" in
relation to trade unions, finds that the provisions of Article 11
(Art. 11) of the Convention in this respect must be given a wider
interpretation than the one that has been suggested by the respondent
Government;

Whereas in this connection it is clear both from the text of Article
11 (1) (Art. 11-1) and from the preparatory work on the Convention that
"freedom of association" within the meaning of this Article included
the right to form and to join a trade union; whereas, however, the text
of Article 11 (Art. 11) indicates that freedom of association includes,
in relation to trade unions, other elements that the right to "form"
and to "join" a trade union; whereas the Commission considers that,
when interpreting the meaning and scope of the notion of freedom of
association in Article 11 (Art. 11) in relation to trade unions, regard
should be had to the meaning given to this term in the International
Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 (No. 87) concerning Freedom of
Association and Protection of the Right to Organise; whereas, among the
elements of the freedom of association, as enunciated in Part I of the
1948 Convention, Article 3 (Art. 3) of that Convention includes the
right of workers' and employers' organisations "to elect their
representatives in full freedom" and "to organise their
administration"; whereas it may also be noted that, with the exception
of Turkey, all the High Contracting Parties to the European Convention
on Human Rights have also ratified the 1948 Convention; whereas,
furthermore,  the preparatory work on the European Convention on Human
Rights shows the affinities between Article 11 (Art. 11) of the
Convention and Article 22 of the United Nations Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights;

Whereas paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Covenant expressly refers to
the 1948 Covenant;

Whereas, therefore, the Commission cannot share the opinion of the
respondent Government that threats of dismissal or other actions
intended to bring about the relinquishment by an employee of the office
of shop steward held by him, as alleged in the present case, could not
in principle raise an issue under Article 11 (Art. 11) of the
Convention;

Whereas the Commission considers that, on the contrary, such
interference could, in certain circumstances, seriously restrict or
impede the lawful exercise of the freedom of association in relation
to trade unions which that Article aims at securing;

Whereas, having reached this conclusion, it then remains to be
considered whether the respondent Government has discharged its
obligation under the Convention to ensure  that the domestic law offers
a remedy for the alleged violation of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the
Convention;

Whereas, in this connection, the respondent Government has contended
"that Irish law protects everyone's right to freedom of association
with others, including to form and to join trade unions for the
protection of his interest (whether or not the right includes the right
to exercise the office of a shop steward)"; whereas the Government has
further submitted that the applicant could have availed himself of a
number of remedies in respect of the matters of which he complains;
whereas, in particular, the Government has pointed out that the acts
alleged would involve unlawful acts, in respect of which the applicant
could seek an injunction from the courts, and that the courts would
also have jurisdiction to entertain actions for such matters as loss
of wages, wrongful dismissal, breach of contracts, etc.;

Whereas the applicant has not contested the Government's submissions
as regards the state of domestic law and the availability of such
remedies on any other ground than that he consulted two firms of
solicitors who advised him that he had no cause of action and that he
did not himself possess the legal skill required for bringing a court
action against the Board;

Whereas the Commission is satisfied that, under Irish law, the
applicant could, in any event, have brought an action against the Board
before the competent courts on one or more of the grounds mentioned
above, as submitted by the respondent Government, and thereby obtained
an effective remedy in respect of the matters of which he now
complains;

Whereas, accordingly, the Commission finds that an examination of the
present case cannot lead to the conclusion that there was any failure
on the part of the respondent Government to ensure  that there was an
effective remedy for the violation of Article 11 (Art. 11) of the
Convention alleged by the applicant; whereas it follows that the
remainder of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THIS APPLICATION
INADMISSIBLE