J. D. B. v. Neth., Comm. 178/1984, U.N. Doc. A/40/40, at 226 (HRC 1985)

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

	Follow @worldcourts

26 March 1985

Communication No. 178/1984; U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/24/D/178/1984

human rights committee

Twenty-Fourth Session

25 March – 12 April 1985

J. D. B.

The Netherlands

DECISION

BEFORE:	CHAIRMAN: Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis (Cyprus) VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Birane N’Diaye (Senegal); Mr. Julio Prado Vallejo (Ecuador); Mr. Christian Tomuschat (Federal Republic of Germany) RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Bernhard Graefrath (German Democratic Republic) MEMBERS: Mr. Andres Aguilar (Venezuela), Mr. Nejib Bouziri (Tunisia), Mr. Joseph A. L. Cooray (Sri Lanka), Mr. Vojin Dimitrijevic (Yugoslavia), Mr. Roger Errera (France), Mrs. Rosalin Higgins (United Kingdom), Mr. Rajsoomer Lallah (Mauritius), Mr. Andreas Mavrommatis (Cyprus), Mr. Anatoly P. Movchan (Soviet Union), Mr. Torkel Opsahl (Norway), Mr. Fausto Pocar (Italy), Mr. Alejandro Serrano Caldera (Nicaragua), Mr. Amos Mako (Kenya), Mr. Adam Zielinski (Poland) All the members attended the twenty-fourth session of the Committee.

PermaLink:	http://www.worldcourts.com/hrc/eng/decisions/1985.03.26_JDB_v_Netherlands.htm

Citation:	J. D. B. v. Neth., Comm. 178/1984, U.N. Doc. A/40/40, at 226 (HRC 1985)
Publications:	Report of the Human Rights Committee, U.N. GAOR, 40th Sess., Supp. No. 40, U.N. Doc. A/40/40, Annex XVI, at 226 (Sep. 19,1985); Office of the U.N. High Comm'r for Human Rights, Selected Decisions of the Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol, Vol. II, at 55, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/2, U.N. Sales No. E.89.XIV.1 (1990)

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 26 March 1985,

Adopts the following:

DECISION ON ADMISSIBILITY

1. The author of the communication, dated June 1984, is J. D. B., a Dutch citizen living in the Netherlands. He claims to be the victim of a violation by the Dutch Government of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

2.1. He describes the facts of the case as follows: He has been trained as a radio-and TV-repairman, but does not have a licence from the Chamber of Commerce. As he has been unemployed for a long period of time, he has endeavoured to maintain his working capacity by taking on occasional jobs as a TV-repairman. Because of this activity, however, he has been subjected to criminal prosecution .before the Appellate Court of Arnhem, which rendered a judgement against him on 13 October 1983 and fined him 300 Dutch Guilders. This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands on 8 May 1984.

2.2. The author considers himself to be discriminated against by Dutch legislation which prevents him from gainful employment and which punishes him for seeking an,.alternative to being unemployed. In this connection, he also refers to article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which guarantees the right to work.

2.3. Since final judgement has been rendered by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the author contends that all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted. He also states that the same matter has not been submitted for examination to another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

3. Before considering any claims contained 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 inadmissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

4. The Human Rights Committee, after careful examination of the communication, concludes that no facts have been submitted in substantiation of the author's claim that he is a victim of a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

5. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

The communication is inadmissible.

Home | Terms & Conditions | About