ÿWPC} h-³ýö'"¡»RQhñ.Ò¦¬u¬!L(ì 7¥F€Ö‡)Ñ;õçó®­1p8‡©è «D8¾¡|=Ð;fäõ“òîhÈÇ))BáœNÀY[—·.^sþÂÛµ÷ÑÄ‘¢)‡ÊžÑSæv!O!¢løæLïGs…³Ì³Rý%ï|~!”ïèdŽ%Á’”I^æáº0‘œ3FYèã¦öKù‰)'Øæx z®ôĹ ÷ärø´»—|úI$Â#.éçˆåþ@ÞmQE{!¼gžBM%ò2¿÷ÙüËã}¤ì7l>Fe?ÒPÞ¬o@“Ó›%ý%Ä$2;FÒ­ä lh@we7î-Û¦6[ -=&Ž.S©¬ÿÐPãΡ¡Žzq*¦"6£·áÚVP§.¼ñ™E€ÈzAÞ¢ÝJT7·”±¦~5zq#tì†oRôIõýÅpóõÞ”Záh+/ÒEÉîT¯ñäæÿøsÊÏ:7=ês³¢û²JòLãXùà Á{Ÿåñ>ü?(Š žî’¶èW-;âÁC øje6ƒö‰¸ñ™¹¥Î•I³ÃU>–ÌÔ 0µ  0<U 0Y‘ 0_ê 0iIƲ 0Ñx 0(I D+q AMœ œ œ é 0Nù 0¶G #Áý UN¾ % M(N>^ @wL4Pd mfô\  `‹&Times New Roman' H.d.P v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 217/1986 (24 March 1988), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/4 U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©2ÿQ$££Ý ƒ¶¯!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XîçXXXÔÔ€XîçXXXîçÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(޶¯$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xý§XXXÔÔ€Xý§XXXý§Ô˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX#žw) K‹k)ê:i¢Ø+00ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ¶¯!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XîçXXXÔÔ€XîçXXXîçÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔH.d.PÔ_Ô€v.€The€NetherlandsóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€217/1986Ð H˜ ÐÌ8€April€1987Ð  d ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€H.€v.€d.€P.€(name€deleted)€on€16€December€1986Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€authorÐ D”  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€The€NetherlandsÐ ` ÐÌòòDeclared€inadmissibleóó:€8€April€1987€(twenty„ninth€session)óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓDecision€on€Admissibilityó óóóÐ ŽÞ ÐÓßÓÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication€dated€9€June€1986€is€H.€v.€d.€P.,€a€national€of€theÐ @ ÐNetherlands€born€in€1945,€at€present€residing€in€the€Federal€Republic€of€Germany.€He€claimsÐ &v Ðto€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€the€Netherlands€of€articles€2,€14,€25€òò(c)€óóand€26€of€theÐ  \ ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.Ð òB ÐÌ2.1.€The€author,€who€was€an€industrial€engineer€in€the€Netherlands,€is€now€employed€as€aÐ ¾ Ðsubstantive€patent€examiner€at€the€European€Patent€Office€(EPO)€in€Munich,,€Germany.€HeÐ ¤ô Ðstates€that€in€January,€1980€he€applied€for€a€post€as€examiner€in€EPO.€He€was€offered€theÐ Š Ú Ðpost€at€the€Al,€step€2€level€and€he€accepted€it.€Only€after€he€had€been€several€months€withÐ p!À  Ðthe€organization,€and€had€had€the€opportunity€to€compare€his€credentials€and€experience€withÐ V"¦! Ðthat€of€his€peers,€did€he€realize€that€he€had€apparently€been€appointed€at€a€discriminatorilyÐ <#Œ" Ðlow€level€and€he€felt€that€the€preponderance€of€citizens€of€the€Federal€Republic€of€GermanyÐ "$r# Ðin€the€higher€grades€was€the€result€of€the€discriminatory€practices€of€the€organization.€HeÐ %X $ Ðthus€lodged€an€appeal€on€the€basis€of€denial€of€equal€treatment,€both€within€the€Co„ordinatedÐ î%>!% ÐOrganizations€(North€Atlantic€Treaty€Organization,€Council€of€Europe,€European€SpaceÐ Ô&$"& ÐAgency,€etc.)€and€within€EPO€itself,€claiming€that€he€should€have€been€appointed€at€the€A2Ð º' #' Ðlevel€in€1980.€His€appeal€was€rejected€on€19€January€1982€by€the€President€of€EPO€as€ill„Ð  (ð#( Ðfounded.€He€then€appealed€to€the€Internal€Appeals€Committee,€which€on€6€December€1982Ð †)Ö$) Ðsubmitted€its€report€rejecting€the€author's€appeal€and€concluding€that€"no€breach€of€theÐ l*¼%* ÐService€Regulations€or€of€any€rule€of€general€law€affecting€international€civil€servants€hasÐ R+¢&+ Ðbeen€established".€In€reaching€its€decision,€the€Internal€Appeals€Committee€relied€heavilyÐ 8,ˆ', Ðon€the€judicial€precedents€of€the€Administrative€Tribunal€of€the€International€LabourÐ -n(- ÐOrganisation.€On€16€February€1983,€the€author€proceeded€to€appeal€to€the€AdministrativeÐ ° ÐTribunal€of€ILO,€which€dismissed€his€complaint€(Judgement€No.€568€of€20€December€1983),Ð –æ Ðconcluding€thatÐ |Ì ÐÌThe€circumstances.€in€which€the€organization€was€created€.€.€.€show€that€it€was€necessary€forÐ H˜ Ðthe€organization€to€recruit€a€large€staff€to€fill€all€grades€from€the€highest€to€the€lowest€andÐ . ~ Ðso,€when€fixing€the€initial€grade,€to€take€into€account€experience€gained,€first,€in€patentÐ  d Ðoffices€and,€second.€in€industry€generally.€In€reckoning€this€experience€the€organizationÐ ú J Ðdistinguishes€between€the€first€and€second€categories.€The€complainant€contends€that€this€isÐ à 0 Ðan€unreal€distinction€and€consequently€one€which€offends€against€the€principle€of€equalityÐ Æ   Ðof€treatment.€In€the€opinion€of€the€Tribunal.€the€distinction€is€not€unreal€and€the€complainantÐ ¬ ü  Ðhas€not€shown€any€breach€of€principle.€He€is€employed€as€a€search€examiner€and€in€that€workÐ ’â  Ðit€is€reasonable€to€believe€that€experience€in€the€handling€of€patent€applications€is€moreÐ xÈ  Ðimmediately€useful€than€general€experience€as€an€industrial€engineer.Ð ^®  ÐÌ2.2.€The€author€applied€to€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rightsòò€1óó€on€13€June€1984,Ð *z  Ðwhich€on€15€May€1986€declared€his€application€inadmissible€òòrationsóó€òòmateriae€óóon€theÐ ` Ðgrounds€that€litigation€concerning€the€modalities€of€employment€as€a€civil€servant,€on€eitherÐ öF Ðthe€national€or€international€level,€fell€outside€the€scope€of€the€European€Convention€onÐ Ü, ÐHuman€Rights.Ð Â ÐÌ2.3.€The€author€then€turned€to€the€Human€Rights€Committee,€which€he€considers€competentÐ ŽÞ Ðto€consider€the€case,€since€five€States€parties€(France,€Italy,€Luxembourg,€the€NetherlandsÐ tÄ Ðand€Sweden)€to€the€European€Patent€Convention€are€also€parties€to€the€Optional€Protocol€toÐ Zª Ðthe€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€He€argues€that€"pursuant€to€articleÐ @ Ð25€(c),€every€citizen€shall€have€access,€on€general€terms€of€equality,€to€public€service€in€hisÐ &v Ðcountry.€EPO,€though€a€public€body€common€to€the€Contracting€States,€constitutes€a€bodyÐ  \ Ðexercising€Dutch€public€authority".€The€appeal€to€the€President€of€EPO€and€the€opinionÐ òB Ðgiven€by€the€Internal€Appeals€Committee,€the€author€argues,€do€not€constitute€an€effectiveÐ Ø( Ðremedy€within€the€meaning€of€article€2€of€the€Covenant€against€.€violations€of€article€25€òò(c)Ð ¾ Ðof€óóthe€Covenant.€Moreover,€"the€Internal€Appeals€Committee€is€a€travesty€of€competence,Ð ¤ô Ðindependence€and€impartiality€as€required€by€article€14€of€the€Covenant.€IAC€declines€toÐ Š Ú Ðadjudicate€on€the€basis€of€public€international€law€invoked€by€the€applicant,€i.e.€law€whichÐ p!À  Ðthe€Contracting€States€undertook€solemnly€to€observe".Ð V"¦! ÐÌ3.1.€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ "$r# ÐCommittee€shall,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ %X $ Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ3.2.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€observes€in€this€connection€that€it€can€only€receive€andÐ º' #' Ðconsider€communications€in€respect€of€claims€that€come€under€the€jurisdiction€of€a€StateÐ  (ð#( Ðparty€to€the€Covenant.€The€author's€grievances,€however,€concern€the€recruitment€policiesÐ †)Ö$) Ðof€an€international€organization,€which€cannot,€in€any€way,€be€construed€as€coming€withinÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€jurisdiction€of€the€Netherlands€or€of€any€other€State€party€to€the€International€CovenantÐ R+¢&+ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights€and€the€Optional€Protocol€thereto.€Accordingly,€the€author€hasÐ 8,ˆ', Ðno€claim€under€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð -n(- Ї4.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:Ð ° ÐÌThe€communication€is€inadmissible.Ð |Ì ÐÌÌ_________Ð . ~ ÐÌ1/€€€When€ratifying€the€Optional€Protocol€the€Netherlands€did€not€make€a€reservation€aimedÐ ú J Ðat€precluding€examination€by€the€Human€Rights€Committee€of€a€case€previously€consideredÐ à 0 Ðunder€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€Ô_Ôsettlement.Ô_ÔÔ_ÔÔ_Ô