Eugene Linder v. Finland

October – 3 November 2005

The author of the communication (initial submission of 1 April 2005) is Eugene Linder, a Finish citizen. Although the author does not invoke any specific provision of the Covenant, the communication appears to raise issues under articles 2, paragraph 3 (b); 7; 14; and 26 of the Covenant. He is not represented by counsel. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Finland on 23 March 1976.

Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its Rules of Procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

The Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee notes that the author claims to be a victim of violations by Finland of his right to health, given the State party’s failure to provide him with emergency medical assistance, and to cover his medical expenses in Germany, following his hospitalization there. The Committee observes that the right to health, as such, is not protected by the provisions of the Covenant. Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible ratione materiae, as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

In relation to the author’s claim that since November 2004, the State party’s authorities have failed to provide redress for his situation and that their negligence constituted a violation of his right to access to a fair hearing and appeal, the Committee notes that the author had appealed to different officials and institutions in the State party and that his appeal in relation to his eligibility for Finnish Social Insurance is still pending before the KELA Appeal Tribunal. It has also noted the author’s contention that exhaustion of domestic remedies would be “unreasonably prolonged”, as the procedures before the Appeal Tribunal last approximately 10 months, and that he considers such length to be “unacceptable”, given the urgent nature of his case. The Committee also observes that the author has failed to bring his case before one of the State party’s ordinary tribunals to seek redress of his situation. It recalls that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, which allows the State party to remedy an alleged violation before the same issue may be raised before the Committee, obliges authors to first raise the substance of their claims submitted to the Committee before domestic courts. As the author has failed first to raise the alleged violations of his rights before domestic courts, the Committee considers that his communication is also inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee has noted the author’s claims that the authorities’ disregard for his case amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment, and that he is a victim of discrimination based on his ethnic origin. In support of his latter claim, he explains that he speaks the Finnish language with an accent and that it would be easy for a native Finn to assume that he was a “foreigner with a Finnish passport”. The Committee considers that the author has failed sufficiently to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, these two claims, and that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2, 3, and 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol;