The author of the oommu~ioatlon (initial letter of 15 April 1986 and aubsequent letter of 28 Oot.<:'ber 1986) is 1." .. G. G., a Spanish seamrm who, in 19t13, was dhmhuilod together with :.!22 other foreign sailor" by a Nethcrlanda private shipping oompany. The reaSOhv, fot the dismissals put forward by the company were that t.he foreign seamen's knowledq8 of Dutoh was not suffioient and that the oompany was foroed to reduoe ita work foroe beoause of eoonum~o diffioultieo. Tho author points out in this oonnoQtio~ that n~st of the foreign SQamen haa been empioyed for over 15 years and t~at r~ NQtherland~ national was dismissed.
The author .tatea that under Netherlands labour law the Arbeid/;luuc2 (an agenoy of the Ministry of Labour) MUot state whether a dismissal may O~ may not take plaoo and, in that oonneotion, must heat both portieo before takinq a deoision. Ho allegos that et the time the oompany requested ~lQrmieHion for his dismissal he wae not proP41rly informud of hiIJ d.9ht.. , but only told that he would huv*' to make hi~ 8ubmlsoion to the Arbeidsbur:~ within 14 days. Heing at soa at t.he time and not having an oplXJrtunity to seek UOUi'lsol, thia requirement, he states, waa very diffioult for him to comply w~lh.
The author olaims that in tho oirounlatanoes whioh hQ dOBuriooa he was donied the right to equal treatment before the law and the right co equal proteotion ot: the law. In support o~ his claim he onoloo08 copieD of various duoumonta, inoluding a report from the Natl..,nal Ombudoman, a Qubmisb10n by the d1am1oood seamen to the Cantonal Court <~~U!t of fif9t inatance) 1n rUdponso to a Qubmiauion made to the Court by the shipplnq oompany~ a lettur addreosod t,., the Oueen of tho Kinqdom of the Netherlands ooncarr.in(j th'! dismissal of I;ho .coreign SOWiten, oertificates oonoerning the aut~or's prior satisfaotory employment with other Netherlands 8hip~ing companies, correspondenoe betwoen the author and the Ministry of Justioe oonoerning the author.'· B 6ppUcation for a residenco perlllit in tho Netherlanda and a decloion o~ the Ministry of Juotioe d9cli~inq to grant a residenoe permit to the author.
By ito decision of! July 1986, the "lm'king Group of the Human lUghtu Conunittee transmitted the conullunicatiull to tho State party concQl'lIed under rulo 91 inadmiaulb.lo oocauBo of nonnexhauution of tlotlloBtic l'olllodioa und l:lluo on the 9L'ound of incOml)atihiUty with the CUVOlli1nt'. J.:.! With &:ogtud to the author's clahl about his dhmisual, the State pcuty etateu that lit. G. G. "was omployod as a soaman by Nodl.loyd ",odel'ijdionuten UV, nottel'dtul\". ~l'ho continuing receuuion and the conlJidel'aulo ovol.'capacity of t.he WOI.' ld f loot, together wi th 8 heablo 01)e a: atiruJ losuee by the cOllll)any, nccoau i latod I.l l'udieal l'oo&:ganization within Wocr..loyd, entailing a reduction in the numbeL' of omployoos. It was decided by Nedl.l()yd that :.109 uhoL'e-buu(Hl utaff and 222 Cl'I!W momoorl::l would havo to bo diull\issed. III 199J NodLloy(J appJ.ied t.o the dia:ectOl {jl thu Local ~lill)loymont ott ice in l~ottor:dall\ (tho COllll)otunt qovoL'lUllont body) fOL diam1auul pOl'mito au it was obliged to do undUl' t.ll'ticlo " of the Labour nelal i' 'IIU (S1)oeiul 1'0WU1'S) Uucree promulgated by the NethuL'landa lOoveL'1\1ll0nt 111 1945. 111 t.he absonco of a mutual agroemont ootween the employol' and tho olllployo(), employmont may not 00 terminatod, undor the said article, without a pOl'mit from tho dh'ectuL' ot the l.ocul ~mploYlI\ont 01:t:1ce. With a few exeept.1ollu, tho l>ot:mitu applieu foL' wtue granted by the tJhoCtOL' 011 :ltJ SeptomuoL' 191:13. NedLloyd then pl.'ocoeuod to dhmlifls thouo concol.'lIod, including 1". G. lo. Ono hundl.'t'd alld twonty of tho dialllit:lued ueamoll, ineluuiny 1". lo. G., auIJuequol\tly issued a writ ot UUIlUUOlH:i, datod 13 l"obruary 19U4, uukiny tho Notterdam ~antonul COUi't to doellll:e their dhmlissal flull Qlld void ulld to OL'dol' that thoy bo reinoJtatod in their joba bocauao their dil-Jmhwul had l>oon manifestly unreotionuble. Nether: lalldu COUl.'tB uro cotllpetont to muko ouuh an ot'dot' untJol' ul'ticluu 16J9u and 1(d9l: ot tho Civil CotJo. 'J'ho tliullIiullOd fJoamen cluimetJ in thiu action that the er !tel'ia usod ill uolecti ng those who WelQ to tJo cl iemiuootJ weL'O (J iucl'iminutm:y. 'l'lll} Cantollal COU1't HHWhod U prov i sionu 1 dociuion in roapoct ot thlu CUllO on lJ June l.9t44, ayainlolt which tho dillJmiuuod uoumon, including 1". G. G., and NodLloyd 10dycd all appoal. 'l'lIe judicial pnx:oodingu aro utill in 1>n.>yl'(lOu. In rolation to the pl'ocooo1ngfJ cOllclHniny hill diumiulJul by NlH1Lloyd, I". lo. lo. invokou "tho riqht to be l:llhly tind equally tl'eated IJofoL'O the hw", whilo ill L'olution to tho pl'<x.:""dillyu conceL'nillq th·. gi'antintj ot tho oiullliloluul pormit hy tho diroctol of tho Local ~lllploYlUont OHicQ, ho invokoB "tllo r itJht to 1Iuvo tull in1:'ol'lUuti<m und tllo O1'P01, tunity to dofolld hillluul1'H. J.J With l'OYUl'tJ to tho atJllIiuuibility of J.••• (;. (.;. 'll (:OIlUllullicut1on, tho ~jtato P~l'tV uddroutJou tw .. 4uoutionu: .. (u) uoou tho uVl~Ucution L'o1ato to viulation by Lho Kinqdolll of tho Nuth\u Imldu of L" ightu und [r:otlOomu omlxx!iod in Lho InLOl'nutional Covenant un Civil und lloliticul nightH ulld it:l L1Io appliclltion COlllpUt Hll.n with tho pl'oviuiollU oil thl! Covununt:',' .. (b) IWv(! all domolJtic i'OIl1udinu bl10ll Oxhulluled'/" L4 'l'ho titutu pUl'ty lIUblllitu thaL it ill Hot C10Ul' which 01' tho riqhtlol and froodofllu Olllbod iud ill tho COVOIliJlI t 1". li. (j. dO<!lllu to huvo heml v J.01u tud. If 1". lo. li.' B invocution of "lhu l' i(~ht to huvu full in[onuul iOIl und the Ul'IX>i tUllity to dot'ond himuuH" iu int:ondo(J to l'l'1:Ul to article 14, pUl'uqluph 1, (t Uw Covonant, the Stute ~UH'ty Ill'queu that it iu not wull'-founoud, "uince ht! invokes thiu riqhL in l'oHpuct of lho procedul(! Whel"uby the diul1Iiuuu 1 Jl(!lIuil WilH qlillltl'd by the director: 3.ti In rColloct ot: ll'. G. u.'e invocation of "tho right t\, be fairly and oquully tl'oated before the law", tht} Htate party observos that "U thie is intended ao an invocation ot: article 26 of the Covonant, then in 60 far litl this aa:'Ucle is invoked ill L'oolloct of [".G.G. 's dismissal by NedLloyd the NetheL"lando GOVOl'lUlIont ••• taket.l the view that article 26 of the Covenant doeo entail an obligation to avoid ()iecl'imination, but that thio article can only be invokod undoJ: the 0l)tional l'rotoco1 to the Covenant in the ophoro of' civil and political rights. 1'ho scope of articlo 26 of tho Covonal't iu not necesf.ltully limited to thoDo civil and political L'ights that ,H'e embodiod in the Covenant. ('.1'he Notherlalldu Governmont could, tor instanco, onvisage tho admllJoibility undeL' tho optional l'l'otocol of a complaint concerning disCL" i.,ination in the fiold of taxation.) Hut tho GovOL'l\mont cannot accept the a...ldusibi11ty of a COml)la1nt concern1ny t: ightu which are not in thomoolvUfJ civil and political L'iyhts, such as oconomic, social and cultuuil rights. '1'ho latteL catogory of L'ighl:s iu governed by a sepa1'ate intol.'natiollal covenant. It'.G.G. '0 complaint relateo to rights in the economic and sociul ophern, which fall undol' tho IntOL'llatiollal Covenant on ~COllOlllic, Sociul and Cul.tuL'al ltiyhtu. Articles 2, 6 ulld 7 of that: Co"omult are of ptu:ticulut' relevance hero. '.l'hat Covenunt haD its OWIl specific uyutom unu itu own opacHic organ for internatiollul monitoring of how Stateu purtioo 1Il00t theiL' obligationo. It delibol'ately doeu not provide fOl' cm individual complaints pa:ocedure. 'Ilho UOVOL'llli\ent considoL'o it incompatible with tho aiml:l OL both the Covonanto and tho Optional l'l'Otueol tlll\t an individual complaint with roupoct to the l'ight to u,&ual troatmont UD refoHed to in aL't:.icle 2 of tho Illtornation" Covenunt 011 ~conomic, Social and Cultural lHghts uhould be dealt with by tho lIuII\l.)n lHghttJ COllull1ttoe by way of UIl indiviuuul compluint undeL' the Optiorll11 l'L'otocol bUl;lou 011 urticle 26 of tho InteL'nutiolla1 Covollant on Civil anu Politicul lHghtr..;. '1lho UoVOl'luuont thllrofol'(~ takeD tho v iow that the application uubmitted by l·'.G.U. doou not L'elate to any violution by the K111gdolll of the Notherlandu 01' L'iqhtlJ and 1'L'oedolllu olObodioo ill thut Covenallt Qnd that it iu not compat iule wi th the 1>L'OVisiollo ther:oot." J.b With requl:d to the quo~tion whethol: dOllll~Bth: "ell\l~dit.m have been oxhuuBted, the State pUlty obuul:vou: "'!'he civil l'L'tlCeouingu bn)uyht by the lloalllon ill cOllnection with the dismiuuul by NouLloyd of 1".<.1 .G. and hi~ 1'cllow olllployoou ••• al'O utilI sub iudico. 'l'he [Hotton]alll) Cantonal Court two not yet made a doUnitive decil:lioil with l'oYlud to tho uoamen'o claim. Amonq the iBuuos raised in theBe pl.'oc(;!odingu is the luwfulllosu of the gL'anting of tho diulIlil:luul pei'luit. AL'ticlc 2£l of the Covellant iu ono of the pl'ovit:dollG invokou by the U(~alllell. '1'he detinit ive deciuioll oL the Cantonal COUL't will be open to uppeal beforo tho lJistr ict Court whoue decision is 0POII to appeal in cill:luation before the Supremo COUl'to 'l'he Uovernlllont thOl'eloro taken the view tllI.it with l'eyard to 1".G.G. 'I:> applicutioll dOllleutic ....omediou hi.lv(J not ynt boen exhuuut.ed." F'rom 9 Uoptember 1971 to 7 AugUI~t. ! I worked on N~thol'l4illdu llaued ohip6 for: transport on inland watex' (Rhine). [i'rom 7 August 19'/6 to 22 soptol.~bel' 1983 I wOl'ked Oil Nother 1UIlda lJuuod ohips (NedLloyd Compuny). I wau rO(jiotered at the Rotterdam Municipality hom 24 Apt: 11 19'/2 until 4 August 1978 when, without my knOWledge, I was ol:uuod from the L'09iot01: of municipal inhabitanto. On thl'eo ditfol'ont "ccu010no ulltil 1983, 1 requested ott icial pol'miulJioll to ostablioh mysolf in tho Netherlands, which was not granted, ulthough 1 fulfillod all the roquiremonts imposed under tho Nethcl'1undu luw 1:oa: foroign oeumen (no cl'illlinul/political l'oculd either in Bpain or in tho r.~etherlands, more than seven yeaHI of employmont on NethoL'lundu buuod f:lhipa ••• , olllployed and rogiatol'tld in a givon Nethorlunou lIIunicipuHt.y)." 4.:l Wit.h regard t.o hiD claim to bo a vict.im ot dil:lca:lminutiol\, ho oll:OUllO~ t.hut. "'l'hc peoplo til'(;!d wero all f01'(:19n workoL'o ••• Al:cunHn(j to tho Nethol'l£Uldu Labour Helationu Act., whtHl OiOlllil::1ua16 may tukl' placo, the I.aboul.' 1'.:mpll)yment Office mUHt take into account the following olOlilonta: lI(a) Geniol.'ity (firut in, lunt out)i 11 (b) HopreDonlation «(mrsonu to lJo ('1r'l'd muot lxl proportionally rO[>l'counted among dHi.:orant. 'workeL'l) otratao ut tho cOlI\puny blunch'). 'l'hut meulls candidateu to bo diOlniullod muat be selected among pOl'aollu ut diHol'ont ago, muuterahip, oxpor.ienco, education, etc; 11 (c) Wotkel'u to bo tiled huve tho l:iqht to auk [Ol' all ultoL'nulivo job ut the 81.l1110 compuny/uubuidial'ieo, H thore a1'O vacancieu. NAIl of thNle 0101ll0lltO are utut<.'(j at the Collective LaUoUL' I\~Jl'oemollt (CAU) signod by tho Nother: landu l~UOoUl: Uniollu Imd the COlllpullieu. 'l'ho CAU WUU LU;Jl eod five yearn betol'a we wero fired and any 1'ol'oigll 60allWII with UlOI:4;t than thl.'oO yaal'u of servico wuo automatically included in it, indopondolllly of whot.hoa: tho OUlluwn was a 1lI00nber: ol a (jivon union or nolo"
'rho author ar:guou th"at nOllc of the UllOVll-~\CntiOlllHi cr i toa; 11.1 woro tuken illto account by the Luboul' Employmont Office ut Hotterdalll. lie fur:thot: utatou: "'1'ho Minit:ltor of LabouL' produced a letter (datod ;l3 Hopl:umoor 19U.i) to the Oi rector 01' tho Lalx>ul' l!:lIIp!oylllcnt Oft ice, ul:at ing that in tho t»pm: if le situation ot ttw 1'oreiqn ueallllln (IN(~dl,10yd Casu') thu incip10u ol oOllioroity, und t'(~prcsl.:!ntation lount not be applied. A new <':L'itoria, cOlIIl'.lutoly unknowlI to UB and which WUB not ploucnl 111 the CAU WUG llllplomonted: tlw clitol:iu 01. tho plilc~ of roHidenct! for foreign llPilmell. 'l'hal mounD, BOUillon ('ould be fia:od if
With regard to article S, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Prolocol, the State party has argued that the civil proceedings concerning the author and the other seamen are still sub jUdi~ before the Rotterdam Cantonal Court. An adverse decision by that court would be appealable to the District Cou~t, who~e decision in turn could be tested in cassation before the Supreme Court. Ac~ordingly, tho Committee finds that domestic remedies have not been exhausted.
The Human Rights Co~nittee therefore d~cide6: .. The cONuunication is inadmissible, This decision shall be communicated to the author and to the State party.