26 March 1980

 

Communication No. 60/1979; U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/9/D/60/1979

 
     

human rights committee

  Ninth Session  
  17 March - 3 April 1980  
     
     

j. j.

 

v.

denmark

     
     
 

DECISION

 
     
  Return Home
 
 
     
     
 
BEFORE: MEMBERS: Mr. Nejib Bouziri (Tunisia), Mr. Abdoulaye Dieye (Senegal), Sir Vincent Evans (United Kingdom), Mr. Manouchehr Ganji (Iran), Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic), Mr. Vladimir Hanga (Romania), Mr. Dejan Janca (Yugoslavia), Mr. Haissam Kelani (Syrian Arab Republic), Mr. Luben G. Koulishev (Bulgaria), Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius), Mr. Andreas v. Mavrommatis (Cyprus), Mr. Anatoly Petrovich Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norway), Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador), Mr. Waleed Sadi (Jordan), Mr. Walter Surma Tarnopolsky (Canada), Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany), Mr. Diego Uribe Vargas (Colombia).


All the members except Mr. Ganji and Mr. Uribe Vargas, attended the ninth session of the Committee.

   
PermaLink: http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1980.03.26_JJ_v_Denmark.htm
   
Citation: J. J. v. Denmark, Comm. 60/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 26 (HRC 1980)
Publications: Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Human Rights Committee: Selected Decisions under the Optional Protocol, Vol. I, at 26, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, U.N. Sales No. E.84.XIV.2 (1985)
 
     
 
 
     
 

[1]       The author of the communication (dated 14 July 1979) is a Danish citizen residing in Denmark. He states that on 1 November 1970 he contracted to buy an eleven-year-old car for DKr 500. He subsequently sought to invalidate the purchase and applied for leave to file a civil suit flee of costs.

 

[2]       His application was refused by the district authority and the Ministry of Justice also rejected an application to reverse the decision of the district authority. He then submitted the matter to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The latter found no circumstances meriting censure of the decisions of the Danish authorities concerned in the case. The author's complaint is directed against the refusal of the Ombudsman to censure the decision of the Ministry of Justice.

 

[3]       The Human Rights Committee, after careful examination of the communication, is of the opinion that the communication does not reveal any evidence of violation of the Covenant by the Danish authorities.

 

[4]       The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible.
 
     

 

 

home | terms & conditions | copyright | about

 

Copyright 1999-2011 WorldCourts. All rights reserved.