In his comm,nte. dated 7 September 1987. the aut:,or contends that his allegations with reapect to a violation of article 1•• paragraph 7. are well founded and argue. that article 14. paragraph 7. of the Covenant should be interpreted broadly. so as to apply to judicial decisions of diftereut States.
Before considering any claimB c,~ntalned in a communication. the Human Rights Committee shall. In accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure. decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
Th. Committee notes that t~e State party does not claim t~~t the communication is inadmissible under article 5. paragraph 2. of the Optional Protocol. With regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a). the Committee observes that the matter complained of by A. P. ha~ not been submitted to another procedure of iLcernational investigation or settlemepl. With regard to article 5. ~araqraph 2 (b). the State party has not claimed that there are domestic r~mftdies which the author could still pursue in his case.
With regard to the admissibility of the communication under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. the Committee has examined the State party's objection that the communication is incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. since article 14, paragraph 7. or the Covenant, which the author invokes. does not guarantee non biB in idem ~ith regard to the national jurisdictions of two or more State.. The Committee observes th~t this provision prohibits double jeopardy only with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State.
In the light of the above. the Human R:\.,ght:s Committee concludes that thtt communication is incompatlbld with the provi&ions of the Covenant and thus inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
The Human Rights Con~\ttee therefore decidess (a) That the communication is inadmissible' (b) That this decision shall be communicat.ed to the State party and the author of the communicat~on.
COUIDuni(;atlou No. Z}..Ul.9-~~..f-,-C-L-_v-----thJLlle.t.htulADds (Dlci.ioD-A~.d OD 24 Mo~ 1988 at the tbirtY-I~ond .e8Iion) Submitted bys
The Author of the co~unication, dated 21 October 1986, is P. P. C., a clti.en of the Netherl&nds, re.iding in that country. He allege. that he i' the victim of a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by the Government of the Netherlands. He is repre.ented by counsel.
The author state. that he has been unemployed sine. November 19d2 and that he received unemployment benefits unti~ July 1984 and since then benefits equal to the amount of the legal minimum wage. From 14 August to 14 October he was briefly employed, his income for that period being 200 guilder. a month higher than the minimum WAge. From 14 October onwards he again drew unemployment benefits. Beyond that, he requested the local authorities of Maastricht to grant him benefits under a law providing additional as.istanct to pereons with a minimum income for los. of purchasing power over a cer~ain year. Assessment of entitlement to benefits under that law is basea on a person's income during the month of September mUltiplied by 12. But because P. P. C. had worted during the month of September, the annual calculation showed a figure much higher than his real income in 1984 and, consequently, he did not qualify for benefits under the "compensatious law" of 1984. The author took his case to the highest administrative organ in the Netherlands, Administratieve Rechtspraak Overheidsbeschikkingen (AROB), which maintained that the calculation was ba.ed on norms applied equally to all and that therefore there had been no discrimination in his case. The author claims to have 'Khaustea domestic remedies.
The author maintains that a broad interpretation of article 26 of the Covenant would be in line with that prevailing in the parliamen'cary debates in the Netherlands at the time when the Covenant waB ratifIed.
By its decision of 9 April 1981, the Human Rights Committee transmitted the communication under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure to the 'ate party concerned, requesting information and observation. relevant to the '~ tstion of admissibility of the communication.
In its submission dated 25 June 1987. the State party reserved the right to lubmit observations on the merit. of the communication which might turn out to have an effeet on the question of admissJbility. F01' that reason the State party luggeste~ that the Committee might decide to join the question of the admissibility to the examination of the merits of the communication.
The author's deadline for comments on the State party'. submis8ion expired on 26 September 1987. No comments have been received from the author.
Before considering any claims contained in a communication. the Human Rights Committee must. in accordance with rule 87 of its provisional rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
The Human Rights Committee ther.efore decides: ' (a) That the communication is inadmis~ible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author.
March 1987 (date Qf initial letter) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 Qf the International Covenant Qn Civil and POlitical Rightb, Meeting Qn 11 July 1988, AdQpts the following: Decision on admissibilitz
The authors Qf the communication (initial letter Qf 9 March 1987 and further letters Qf 10 SeptembAr 1987 and ~ April 1988) are A. and S. N., Porwegian citizens residing in Alesund, writing on their own behalf and on behalf of their daughter S. born in 1981. They claim to be victims of a viQlbtiQn by Norway of article 18, paragraphs 1, ~ and 4, and article 26 of the International CQvenant Qn Civil and PQlitical Rights. They are represented by cQunsel.
The authQrs state that t e ,'l'Qrwegian Day Nurseries Act Qf 1975 as amended in 1983 cQntains a clause prQvi~ n~ that '·the day nur;:.', ry shall help tQ give the children an upbringing in harmo:':i' with basic Christian values'·. The authQrs are -246-