J. J. v. Denmark, Comm. 60/1979, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1, at 26 (HRC 1980)

			International Case Law Database 50,000+ decisions · 50+ institutions

	Follow @worldcourts

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.

denmark

DECISION

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 | About