December 1986 'rhe Human Rights Cunwlttee, establish"-" IJnder article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Righte, Meeting on 8 April 198." adopts tho following: Decision on uomissibility
The author of the communication dated 9 June 1986 ia H.v.d.P., a nationul of the Nettutrlands born in 1945, ~t present residing in the Federal RepUblic of Germany. He claims to be a victim of violations by the NetherlandE of articles 2, 14, 25 (c) and 26 of the In~ernational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
'..he author, who was an industrial ~,n9ineer in the Netherlands, is now employed as a substantive patent examiner at the ~uropean Patent Office (EPa) in Munich, Germany. He states that in January 1980 he applied for a poot aa examiner in EPO. He was offered the post at the Al, step 2 level and he accepted it. Only 8ft~r he had been several months with the organizat1()n, and had had the opportunity to compare his credentials and experience with that of his peers, did he realize t~at he had apparently beon appointed at a diocrimlnatorily low level and he felt that the preponderance of citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany in the higher grades was the result of the discriminatory practices of the organization. He thus lodged an appeal on the basis of denial of equal treatment, both within tho Co-ordinated Organizations (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Council of ~u{ope, European Space Agency etc.) and within EPO itself, claiming that he should have been appointed at the A2 level in 1980. His appeal W89 rejected on 19 January 1982 by the President of EPO as Ul-founded. He then appealed to the Internal Appealo Conunlttee, '''hich on 6 December 1982 sulntlitted its report rejecting the authoJ:' s appeal and concludinq thut "no breach of the Service Regulations or of any rule of general law affecting international civil servants haD been established-. In reaching its decision, the Internal Appeals Committee relied heaVily on the jUdicial precedents of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation. On 16 l"ebruary 1983, the author proceeded to appeal to the Administrative Tribunal of ILO, which dismissed his complaint (Judgement No. 568 ot: 20 December 1983), concluding that "The circumst"nces in which the organization was created ••• show that it was necessary for '_he organization to recruh: a large staff to f 111 all grades from the highest to the lowest and so, when fixing the initial grade, to take into account experience gained, Urst, in patent offices and, second, in
The author applied to the l!:u((>poan C<',)llun!ssion ::>f lIulllan Right.to· on 13 June 19u.. , which on 15 May 1986 declared hiu d,t-;:,lication inadmis61ble ratione mate... iae 011 the grounds that litig..ltion concerning the mOOaUt lea of employment ao a civtl servant, on either the national or international level, fell outside the scope Ol. the European Convontion on lIuman niqhtA.
The author then turned to tho Human RightD COllUTlittoe, which ~\e considers competent to conDider the case, since CLlfe StateD parties (li'rance, Italy, Luxembourg, t.he Nether lands and Swedon) to the )i;uropoan Patent COllvc·uation are also partiea to the Optional Protocol to the Internat ional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 110 argues that llpucsuant to arti~le 25 ('J) every citizen shall have access, on general terms of equality, to public servit;C! in his country. l!:PO, though Cl public body common tu the Contracting States, conaUtutes a body exerctsing nutch public authority". The appeal to the President of ~PO and the opinion given by the Intf,nul:a. Appeals COllullitteo, the author argues, do not constitute an efiectivo remedy within the meaning of article 2 of the Covenant against violations of article 25 (c) of the Covonant. ~oreover, "the Internal Appeals Conunittee is a travesty of COII,potellce, independence ana impartiality us l'oquirod by article 14 of the Covonant. lAC declines to adjudicate on the 04sis of public international law invoked by tho appl~cBnt, i.e. law which the Con~tacting SeateD undertook solemnly to obsot'vo".
Defore consider iug au~ cluillllJ contained in a communication, the Jluman IHghtlJ Committee shall, in accol'dance with L'ulo tJ7 of its I,Jroviuional rulos of procedur: " decido whetdor or not it ia lldmil3uiblo undor tho Optional l'rotocol to tho CoverulI ':.
'1'he HUllllln nights Conunittoe ObBOl'VOU in this cOllne(,~tion that it can only receive and conuidor cOflulIuuicationu ill l'OUpoct of clailll!;l that comc undor: tho jurisdiction of o'l Btat.e Vlll'ty to tt.o CoveMnt. 'l'he author.-' El gr ievancos, howevtu,·, concsrn the recruitment VOHcieB of an int.ernational ol.'ganhation, which cannot, ill £lny way, be construed au cOllling within the jurisdiction of the Notherlands or of any other State party to th~ Int~rnutlonal Covenant on Civil and Political Riqhtu and the Optional Pl'otocul thereto. Accur.dingly, the £lulhOl: naB no -:::loim unuol' tho Opt:ional Protocol.
'J.'h~ Human Hightu COllunitteo thlJ1:ofol.'o dee iutw: '1'ho conullunic£ltiulI i13 inadmiuuible. * When rati ':ying the Optional Protocol tho Nothor landu did not mako a roservati.on aimed at precluding examinatiun by the IIUIIIUIL Hightl. Committel:) ot' 8 ClHJO lJroviouslV conoiderod undor anothor pl'ocedul'o of internatic.ual investigation or settloment.