The author of the communication dated 19 December 1989 is ~E.M.E.H., a French citizen of Moroccan origin, aged 72. He claims to be the victim of a violation by France of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Optional Protocol entered into force for France on 17 May 1904 and for Algeria on 12 December 1989. 2.X From 1941 to 1963, the author was a full-time employee with the Chemins cle Fer MerocainR (C.M.F.). In 1963 he was transferred to the So&&e Nationale 80s Chemin6 de Fer Alqkiens (SNCFA). He served as station manager (“Chef de gare l&x-e clnsse au 96me Echelon”) until 1972. In 1973, he rstired and recaived from the Algerian SNCFA the pension he was entitled to, until 1963, when he znoved to France. By letter of 4 February 1984 from the SNCFA Pension fund in Algiers, he was informed that, pursuant to Article V of Law No. 93-12 of 2 July 1983, t a payment was suspended on the ground that psn,Gons axe not paid outside the national territory of Algeria.
The author contends chat his situation is similar to that in Communication No. 19611985 (I, Eueye and 742 retired Senegalese Soldiers of the Frennb Army v. France), in which the Human Rights Committee had found, in its views adopted on 3 April 1989, a violation of article 26, because retired Senegalese soldiers who bed served in the French army prior to Senegal’s indapsndence rscoived lower pensions than other retired soldiers of French nationality.
The author point8 out that he ;ti-ved for thirtyeetwo years in t.wo countries, one which had been part of France until 1962 (Algeria; and the other which had been a protectorate until 1956.
With respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that he wrote inter &, to ‘ihe Board of the French National Railways, the French Minister of Transports, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Prim0 Minister and the President of the Republic of France. It appears from the context of his submission that he did not submit his case to any French -3f8-
With respect to article 1 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee reaffirms that it may only receive and consider communications from individuals subject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Covenant and Optional Protocol “who claim to be victims of a violation B of any of their rights set forth in the Covenant.” (emphasis added) In this connection the Committee notes that although the author has addressed his complaint against France, his grievances actually relate to the laws and regulations in so far as they govern the retirement practices of the Algerian SNCFA . Although the author has, since his retirement, set up residence in France and is generally subject to French jurisdiction, he does not come within French jurisdiction in respect of his claims to retirement benefits from the Algerian SNCFA. Moreover, the Committee finds that the facts of this communication are materially difforent from those of communication No. 196/3.905, in which the retired Senegalese Soldiers received payments from -the French State pursuant to the French Code of Military Pensions, whereas in the instant case E.M.E.H. never received payments from France but rather from the Algerian SNCFA, which also discontinued them. Accordingly, the Committee cannot entertain E.M.E.H. ‘-6~ communication against France under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.
The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible2 (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for information, to the State party. [Bone in English, French, Russian and Spanish, English being the original version. 1 -319-