ÿWPCƒ Ӏ桂ã…çu´a>¦b8ç¼ÚéƒdF%ó=ñ”ì;“g¼jæ—|Ÿõv[¡iH‹†Ò~˜}®ø”Š+Ò5¬_iR+(ZóeéT£^= Yߘ° Äw#’ÇXí«6RÀfÇW±èmóÑ‘ äQg§ãSâÛ»}Á`UyžUüï¾ÝDø z>ê¨A8wu«ôwýÚxn™†Ïyjw6? Ë[ø@â)=x_ÿvåæút]`ÔtüÕ¨j+±TŠ3yÈ"ÊMR_¶Z­Ì»·Á9n|G©žš˜‘7”M–ؒw)À„±ñC®Õ/Ñ;äcsÁÀ°úe : Dm–ÏŠ=Å_1çmVÄ·ù’H *˜Î&­VÈͬܧЯHJ®ÀÙ™8b0ù_9Ew÷vñs´7vNq\t= ¸Ý¿ ±YÅÍ˸z8IÐ)H–xTðaÔvÒ]MK è!ò äv4±ÓH/½Ñ¹#× Ð¿±%dX^û\º4£]®Å×òéïDZ%>›dÔ,¼HÊxpø4•…2È´Gãºô3Ø‚FºáÌB•¤âð[­–&é:;9Ûx…dm'° /6cø¨ažÎã'à£JV+/0 ¼å¸ì½ƒ/E\€b³L!¤U>z̸ 0µ„ 0<9 0Yu 0_Î 0i- 0P–Ææ 0ᬠ0( D+µ AMà - 0Æ= #Á UNÄ %M(ND^ FwR4Vj mlô\  `‹&Times New Roman' Blom v. Sweden, Communication No. 191/1985 (4 April 1988), U.N. Doc. Supp. No. 40 (A/43/404Supp. No. 40 (A/43/40"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 =jSÓ0ÿÿ.Strongò òÔ  Ôó óÔ  Ô Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(¹2dN$££Ý ƒu¬!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xw—XXXÔÔ€Xw—XXXw—ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(žu¬$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XoXXXÔÔ€XoXXXoÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX2¦‡) K‹k)´ëÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒu¬!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€Xw—XXXÔÔ€Xw—XXXw—ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔBlomÔ_Ô€v.€SwedenóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€191/1985Ð H˜ ÐÌ4€April€1988Ð  d ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:€óóCarl€Henrik€Ô_ÔBlomÔ_Ô€(represented€by€legal€counsel)€Ð xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victim:€óóThe€author€Ð D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:€óóSweden€Ð ` ÐÌòòDate€of€communication:€óó5€July€1985€(date€of€initial€letter)€Ð Ü, ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibility:€óó9€April€1987€óóÐ ¨ø ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ Zª Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€Ð @ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€4€April€1988,€Ð  \ ÐÌòòHaving€concluded€óóits€consideration€of€communication€No.€191/1985,€submitted€to€theÐ Ø( ÐCommittee€by€Carl€Henrik€Blom€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€International€CovenantÐ ¾ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€Ð ¤ô ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€account€óóall€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€of€theÐ p!À  Ðcommunication€and€by€the€State€party€concerned,€Ð V"¦! ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:€Ð "$r# ÐÌÌÓMÓòòÓ  Óò òViews€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€Optional€Protocolóó€ó óÐ Ô&$"& ÐÔ_ÔÓAÓÓÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€5€July€1985€and€further€letters€datedÐ †)Ö$) Ð24€February€1986€and€19€January€1988)€is€Carl€Henrik€Blom,€a€Swedish€citizen,€born€inÐ l*¼%* Ð1964.€He€is€represented€by€legal€counsel.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€theÐ R+¢&+ ÐSwedish€authorities€of€article€2,€paragraph€3,€and€article€26€of€the€International€Covenant€onÐ 8,ˆ', ÐCivil€and€Political€Rights€in€conjunction€with€article€3€(c)€and€article€5,€paragraph€(b),€of€theÐ -n(- ÐUNESCO€Convention€against€Discrimination€in€Education€of€1960.€Article€13€of€theÐ ° ÐInternational€Covenant€on€Economic,€Social€and€Cultural€Rights€is€also€invoked.€Ð –æ ÐÌ2.1€During€the€school€year€1981/82,€the€author€attended€grade€10€at€the€Rudolf€SteinerÐ b² ÐSchool€in€Goteborg,€which€is€a€private€school.€According€to€Decree€No.€418€on€Study€Aid,Ð H˜ Ðissued€by€the€Swedish€Government€in€1973,€a€pupil€of€an€independent€private€school€canÐ . ~ Ðonly€be€entitled€to€public€assistance€if€he€attends€a€programme€of€courses€which€is€placedÐ  d Ðunder€State€supervision€by€virtue€of€a€governmental€decision€under€the€Ordinance.€TheÐ ú J Ðgovernment€decision€is€taken€after€consultation€with€the€National€Board€of€Education€andÐ à 0 Ðthe€local€school€authorities.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ2.2€The€author€states€that€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School€submitted€an€application€on€15€OctoberÐ ’â  Ð1981€to€be€placed€under€State€supervision€with€respect€to€grade€10€and€above€(the€lowerÐ xÈ  Ðgrades€were€already€in€that€category).€After€the€local€school€authorities€and€the€NationalÐ ^®  ÐBoard€gave€a€favourable€opinion,€the€decision€to€place€grade€10€and€above€under€StateÐ D”  Ðsupervision€was€taken€on€17€June€1982,€effective€as€of€1€July€1982,€that€is€for€the€schoolÐ *z  Ðyear€1982/83€onwards,€and€not€from€autumn€1981,€as€the€school€had€requested.€Ð ` ÐÌ2.3€On€6€June€1984,€the€author€applied€for€public€financial€aid€in€the€amount€of€SKr€2,250,Ð Ü, Ðin€respect€of€the€school€year€1981/82.€By€a€decision€of€5€November€1984,€his€applicationÐ Â Ðwas€rejected€by€the€National€Board€for€Educational€Assistance€on€the€grounds€that€the€schoolÐ ¨ø Ðhad€not€been€under€State€supervision€during€the€school€year€in€question.€The€author€allegesÐ ŽÞ Ðthat€this€decision€was€in€violation€of€the€provisions€of€the€international€treaties€invoked€byÐ tÄ Ðhim.€He€states€that€an€appeal€against€the€decision€"was€not€allowed".€Believing,€however,Ð Zª Ðthat€the€decision€of€the€National€Board€for€Educational€Assistance€violated€his€rights€underÐ @ Ðthe€1960€UNESCO€Convention,€the€author€submitted,€at€the€beginning€of€1985,€a€claim€forÐ &v Ðcompensation€to€the€Chancellor€of€Justice€òò(Justiekanslern).€óóBy€a€decision€of€14€FebruaryÐ  \ Ð1985€the€Chancellor€of€Justice€declared€that€the€decision€of€the€National€Board€forÐ òB ÐEducational€Assistance€was€in€accordance€with€domestic€law€in€force€and€could€not€give€riseÐ Ø( Ðto€State€liability.€It€was€also€pointed€out€that€the€Decree€on€Study€Aid€was€a€governmentÐ ¾ Ðdecision,€in€respect€of€which€an€action€for€compensation€could€not€be€permitted€under€theÐ ¤ô Ðrelevant€provisions€of€the€Damages€Act.€The€Chancellor€finally€mentioned€that€Mr.€BlomÐ Š Ú Ðwould€be€free€to€pursue€the€matter€before€the€courts.€The€Chancellor€pointed€out,€however,Ð p!À  Ðthat€the€courts€would€be€duty€bound,€òòex€officioóó,€to€apply€Swedish€law,€including€the€relevantÐ V"¦! Ðprovisions€of€the€Damages€Act€to€which€he€had€referred.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ2.4€From€the€decision€of€the€Chancellor€of€Justice,€the€author€draws€the€conclusion€that€itÐ %X $ Ðwould€be€of€no€avail€to€initiate€court€proceedings€against€the€State.€Consequently,€heÐ î%>!% Ðmaintains,€there€are€no€further€domestic€remedies€to€exhaust.€This€situation,€he€claims,Ð Ô&$"& Ðconstitutes,€in€itself,€a€violation€of€article€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.€Ð º' #' ÐÌ2.5€The€author's€allegation,€that€the€decision€not€to€grant€him€public€assistance€was€inÐ †)Ö$) Ðviolation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€is€based€on€the€argument€that€he€was€subjected€toÐ l*¼%* Ðdiscrimination€as€a€pupil€of€a€private€school.€Pupils€of€public€schools€are€said€to€haveÐ R+¢&+ Ðreceived€public€assistance€for€the€school€year€1981/82.€This€discriminatory€treatmentÐ 8,ˆ', Ðallegedly€contravenes€the€basic€idea€of€equality€for€all€in€education€and€it€also€allegedlyÐ -n(- Ðinterferes€with€the€parents'€right€to€choose€independent€private€schools€provided€for€in€articleÐ ° Ð13€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Economic€and€Social€Rights€and€article€5,€paragraph€iÐ –æ Ð(b),€of€the€UNESCO€Convention€against€Discrimination€in€Education€of€1960€to€whichÐ |Ì ÐSweden€is€a€State€party.€The€author€also€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€article€3€(c)Ð b² Ðof€that€same€Convention.€Ð H˜ ÐÌ2.6€The€author€requests€the€Committee€to€condemn€the€alleged€violations€of€article€2,Ð  d Ðparagraph€3,€and€article€26€of€the€Covenant,€to€invite€the€State€party€to€take€the€necessaryÐ ú J Ðsteps€to€give€effect€to€its€obligations€under€article€2,€paragraph€3,€and€to€urge€the€State€partyÐ à 0 Ðto€discontinue€the€alleged€discriminatory€practices€based€on€the€1973€Study€Aid€Act.Ð Æ   ÐFurthermore,€he€asks€the€Committee€to€urge€the€Swedish€Government€to€pay€him€and€hisÐ ¬ ü  Ðclass„mates€the€amount€of€public€assistance€due€for€the€school€year€1981/82€with€accruedÐ ’â  Ðinterest€according€to€Swedish€law€as€well€as€his€expenses€for€legal€advice.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ3.€By€its€decision€of€15€October€1985,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ D”  Ðtransmitted€the€communication€under€rule€91€of€the€provisional€rules€of€procedure€to€theÐ *z  ÐState€party€concerned,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€ofÐ ` Ðthe€admissibility€of€the€communication.€The€Working€Group€also€requested€the€State€partyÐ öF Ðto€explain,€in€so€far€as€such€explanation€might€be€relevant€to€the€question€of€admissibility,Ð Ü, Ðwhy€grade€10€of€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School€in€Goteborg€was€placed€under€State€supervisionÐ Â Ðonly€as€of€1€July€1982€but€not€for€the€preceding€school€year,€as€requested.Ð ¨ø ÐÌ4.1€In€its€submission€dated€8€January€1986,€the€State€party€indicates€that€the€1962€Act€onÐ tÄ ÐSchools€recognizes€the€existence€of€private€schools€independent€of€the€public€sector€schoolÐ Zª Ðsystem.€The€private€schools€are,€in€principle,€financially€sufficient,€and€there€is€no€legalÐ @ Ðobligation€for€the€State€or€local€government€to€provide€any€financial€contribution.€However,Ð &v Ðthere€are€no€legal€impediments€excluding€various€forms€of€public€support,€and€in€practiceÐ  \ Ðmost€of€the€private€schools€are€in€one€way€or€another€supported€by€local€government€and,Ð òB Ðin€addition,€approximately€half€of€them,€including€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School,€receive€StateÐ Ø( Ðcontributions.€Ð ¾ ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€indicates€further€that,€in€accordance€with€regulations€set€forth€in€the€1973Ð Š Ú ÐAct€on€Study€Aid€òò(studiestodslag€óó1973:349)€and€the€1973€Decree€on€Study€AidÐ p!À  Ð(studiestodskungorelse€1973:418),€pupils€attending€schools,€whether€public€or€private,€mayÐ V"¦! Ðbe€eligible€for€various€forms€of€public€financial€support.€As€far€as€is€relevant€for€theÐ <#Œ" Ðconsideration€of€the€present€case,€chapter€1,€section€1,€of€the€Decree€provides€that€financialÐ "$r# Ðsupport€may€be€granted€to€pupils€attending€public€schools€or€schools€subject€to€StateÐ %X $ Ðsupervision.€Consequently,€for€pupils€attending€a€private€school€to€be€eligible€for€publicÐ î%>!% Ðfinancial€support,€the€school€has€to€be€placed€under€State€supervision.€Decision€on€suchÐ Ô&$"& Ðsupervision€is€taken€by€the€Government€upon€application€submitted€by€the€school.€In€theÐ º' #' Ðpresent€case,€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School€applied€in€October€1981€to€have€the€part€of€itsÐ  (ð#( Ðeducational€programme€corresponding€to€the€òògymnasium,€óóthat€is€grades€10€to€12,€placedÐ †)Ö$) Ðunder€State€supervision.€Education€on€this€higher€level€had€not€previously€been€offered€byÐ l*¼%* Ðthe€school.€After€having€considered€the€application,€as€well€as€observations€on€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðapplication€submitted€by€the€Municipal€School€Administration,€the€Education€CommitteeÐ 8,ˆ', Ðof€the€County€of€Goteborg€and€Bohus,€and€the€National€Board€of€Education,€the€GovernmentÐ -n(- Ðon€17€June€1982€granted€the€application€as€of€1€July€1982.€Ð ° ÐÌ4.3€On€5€November€1984,€the€National€Board€for€Educational€Assistance€informed€theÐ |Ì Ðauthor€that€financial€support€for€his€studies€could€not€be€granted€on€the€ground€that€theÐ b² Ðschool€was€not€at€that€time€subject€to€State€supervision€with€respect€to€the€educationalÐ H˜ Ðprogramme€of€grade€10.€Ð . ~ ÐÌ5.1€As€to€the€alleged€violations€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð ú J Ðthe€State€party€submits€the€following:€Ð à 0 ÐÌ"Blom€contends€that€the€refusal€to€grant€him€public€financial€support€for€the€school€yearÐ ¬ ü  Ð1981/82€amounts€to€a€violation€of€article€26.€In€the€Government's€view,€however,€the€notionÐ ’â  Ðof€discrimination€implies€a€comparison€between€two€or€more€different€groups€or€categoriesÐ xÈ  Ðof€individuals€and€a€finding,€first,€that€one€group€or€category€is€being€treated€differently€fromÐ ^®  Ðanother€group€or€category€and,€secondly,€that€this€different€treatment€is€based€on€arbitraryÐ D”  Ðand€unjustified€grounds,€such€as€those€enumerated€in€article€26.€Accordingly,€differentÐ *z  Ðtreatment€does€not€constitute€discrimination€when€the€distinction€is€based€on€objective€andÐ ` Ðreasonable€criteria.€There€is€no€obligation€under€article€26,€or€under€any€other€provision€ofÐ öF Ðthe€Covenant,€to€provide€public€financial€support€to€pupils.€Therefore,€the€State€is€at€libertyÐ Ü, Ðto€decide€whether€to€give€such€support€and,€if€financial€support€is€provided,€to€set€theÐ Â Ðconditions€under€which€it€should€be€granted,€provided€only€that€the€State's€considerationsÐ ¨ø Ðare€not€based€on€unjustified€grounds,€such€as€those€enumerated€in€article€26."€Ð ŽÞ ÐÌ5.2€The€State€party€further€argues€that:€Ð Zª ÐÌ"As€regards€schools,€like€any€other€institution€or€activity€in€society,€it€is€naturally€legitimateÐ &v Ðfor€the€State,€before€granting€public€financial€support€to€the€school€or€its€pupils,€to€considerÐ  \ Ðwhether€the€school€meets€reasonable€standards€of€quality€and€whether€it€fulfils€a€need€ofÐ òB Ðsociety€or€the€presumptive€pupils.€It€is€equally€justified€if€financial€support€is€provided,€thatÐ Ø( Ðthe€State€take€the€necessary€measures€in€order€to€assure€itself€that€the€facts€andÐ ¾ Ðcircumstances€underlying€the€decision€are€not€subsequently€changed.€These€are€„€and€on€thisÐ ¤ô Ðpoint€no€other€view€has€been€expressed€by€Blom€„€the€motives€for€the€requirement€that€aÐ Š Ú Ðprivate€school€be€State„supervised€in€order€for€its€pupils€to€be€eligible€for€public€financialÐ p!À  Ðsupport.€The€Government€submits€that€this€does€not€constitute€discrimination€within€theÐ V"¦! Ðmeaning€of€article€26."€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ5.3€The€State€party€adds:€Ð %X $ ÐÌ"In€view€of€the€aforesaid,€and€for€the€following€reasons,€the€Government€further€maintainsÐ Ô&$"& Ðthat€Blom's€communication€as€regards€this€point€should€be€declared€inadmissable€inÐ º' #' Ðaccordance€with€the€provisions€of€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€Blom€contends,€as€theÐ  (ð#( Ðsole€'discriminatory€basis'€for€the€alleged€violation€of€article€26,€that€he€chose€to€attend€theÐ †)Ö$) ÐRudolf€Steiner€School€because€of€his,€and€his€parents',€religion,€political€or€other€opinion',Ð l*¼%* Ðand€that€the€different€treatment€regarding€public€financial€support€was€a€direct€result€of€thisÐ R+¢&+ Ðchoice.€In€the€opinion€of€the€Government,€this€obviously€does€not€amount€to€saying€that€theÐ 8,ˆ', ÐState's€policy€of€different€treatment€of€public€and€private€schools€is€based€on€such€groundsÐ -n(- Ðas€religion€or€political€or€other€opinion€...€What€Blom€appears€to€be€arguing€is€that,€becauseÐ ° Ðhe€chose€the€school€for€religious€and€political€reasons,€and€because€the€State,€although€notÐ –æ Ðfor€religious€or€political€reasons,€treated€this€private€school€differently€from€public€schools,Ð |Ì Ðhe€has€been€treated€in€a€discriminatory€way€on€the€ground€of€his€religion€and€his€politicalÐ b² Ðopinion.€The€lack€of€merits€in€this€line€of€arguing€must€in€the€Government's€opinion€beÐ H˜ Ðconsidered€so€obvious€as€to€make€the€communication€inadmissable€under€article€3€of€theÐ . ~ ÐOptional€Protocol."€Ð  d ÐÌ5.4€The€State€party€further€submits:€Ð à 0 ÐÌ"Blom€further€alleges€that€article€2,€paragraph€3,€has€been€violated€since€the€decision€not€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðgrant€him€public€financial€support€could€not€be€appealed.€This€provision€guarantees€anÐ ’â  Ðeffective€remedy€only€when€the€rights€and€freedoms,€as€recognized€in€the€Covenant,€haveÐ xÈ  Ðbeen€violated.€In€the€present€case,€the€only€such€violation€that€has€been€contended€is€the€oneÐ ^®  Ðunder€article€26.€Therefore,€the€obvious€lack€of€merit€in€the€arguments€put€forward€by€BlomÐ D”  Ðregarding€the€alleged€violation€of€article€26€is€equally€relevant€here.€Consequently,€theÐ *z  Ðcommunication€as€regards€this€point€as€well€should€be€declared€inadmissible."€Ð ` ÐÌ5.5€As€regards€the€question€posed€in€the€decision€of€the€Committee's€Working€Group€as€toÐ Ü, Ðthe€reasons€why€the€school€was€placed€under€State€supervision€only€as€of€1€July€1982,€theÐ Â ÐState€party€explains€Ð ¨ø ÐÌ"that€the€application€for€State€supervision€was€made€very€late€„€three€and€a€half€months€fromÐ tÄ Ðthe€outset€of€the€fiscal€year€1981/82€and€a€long€time€after€the€education€of€that€school€yearÐ Zª Ðhad€begun€„€and€that€the€decision,€which€depended€on€various€opinions€from€otherÐ @ Ðauthorities,€could€not€be€made€until€a€couple€of€weeks€before€the€end€of€the€said€fiscal€year.Ð &v ÐIt€seems€as€if€the€sole€reason€for€the€present€case€is€that€those€responsible€for€the€RudolfÐ  \ ÐSteiner€School€did€not€act€with€sufficient€promptness€in€applying€for€State€supervision."€Ð òB ÐÌ5.6€Finally,€the€State€party€mentions€that€two€other€applications€concerning€related€issuesÐ ¾ Ðwith€respect€to€pupils€of€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School€of€Norrkoping€have€been€declaredÐ ¤ô Ðinadmissible€by€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights€in€Strasbourg€(applicationsÐ Š Ú Ð10476/83€and€10542/83).€Ð p!À  ÐÌ6.1€In€his€comments,€dated€24€February€1986,€the€author€stresses€that€the€refusal€to€grant€himÐ <#Œ" Ðfinancial€support€"was€in€fact€directed€against€him€as€belonging€to€a€distinct€group",€thisÐ "$r# Ðgroup€being€composed€of€himself€and€his€class„mates,€as€compared€with€pupils€attendingÐ %X $ Ðpublic€schools€or€private€schools€already€subject€to€State€supervision.€He€further€states€thatÐ î%>!% Ðat€the€time€of€application€in€October€1981€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School€was€already€complyingÐ Ô&$"& Ðwith€the€five€administrative€requirements€imposed€on€private€schools€subject€to€StateÐ º' #' Ðsupervision.€Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ6.2€The€author€challenges€the€State€party's€arguments€for€considering€the€communicationÐ l*¼%* Ðinadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€by€stressing€that€he€was€invoking€"theÐ R+¢&+ Ðgrounds€enumerated€in€article€26€of€the€Covenant€referring€to€the€passage€'discrimination€onÐ 8,ˆ', Ðany€ground',€which€includes€a€reference€to€'other€status'.€Accordingly,€for€whatever€reasonsÐ -n(- Ð[he]€and€his€class„mates€chose€to€attend€the€Rudolf€Steiner€School,€they€all€belong,€becauseÐ ° Ðof€this€choice,€to€the€distinct€group€...€[and]€this€'other€status'€...€is€obviously€the€ground€forÐ –æ Ðthe€different€treatment€imposed€on€him€resulting€from€the€State's€deliberate€policy."€Ð |Ì ÐÌ6.3€With€respect€to€the€State€party's€statement€that€two€other€applications€by€other€authorsÐ H˜ Ðhave€been€declared€inadmissible€by€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights,€the€authorÐ . ~ Ðexplains€that€the€applicants€there€had€complained€of€discrimination€based€upon€the€fact€thatÐ  d Ðsome€municipalities€in€Sweden€do€not€grant€free€textbooks€to€pupils€attending€privateÐ ú J Ðschools,€as€do€most€other€municipalities.€According€to€the€author,€these€decisions€have€noÐ à 0 Ðrelevancy€whatever€to€the€question€of€financial€support€under€the€Act€on€Study€Aid.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ7.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ ’â  ÐCommittee€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ xÈ  Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.€Ð ^®  ÐÌ7.2€With€regard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€CommitteeÐ *z  Ðobserved€that€the€matter€complained€of€by€Carl€Henrik€Blom€was€not€being€examined€andÐ ` Ðhad€not€been€examined€under€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.Ð öF ÐThe€Committee€noted€that€consideration€by€the€European€Commission€of€Human€Rights€ofÐ Ü, Ðapplications€submitted€by€other€students€at€the€same€school€relating€to€other€or€similar€factsÐ Â Ðdid€not,€within€the€meaning€of€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€constituteÐ ¨ø Ðan€examination€of€the€same€matter.€As€set€forth€in€the€Committee's€prior€decisions,€theÐ ŽÞ Ðconcept€of€the€"same€matter"€within€the€meaning€of€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),€of€the€OptionalÐ tÄ ÐProtocol€must€be€understood€as€including€"the€same€claim€concerning€the€same€individual,Ð Zª Ðsubmitted€by€him€or€someone€else€who€has€the€standing€to€act€on€his€behalf€before€the€otherÐ @ Ðinternational€body".€b/€The€reservation€of€the€State€party€in€respect€of€matters€alreadyÐ &v Ðexamined€under€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement,€therefore,€didÐ  \ Ðnot€apply.€Ð òB ÐÌ7.3€With€regard€to€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€Committee€wasÐ ¾ Ðunable€to€conclude,€on€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it,€that€there€were€availableÐ ¤ô Ðremedies€in€the€circumstances€of€the€case€which€could€or€should€have€been€pursued.€TheÐ Š Ú ÐCommittee€noted€in€that€connection€that€the€State€party€did€not€contest€the€author's€claim€thatÐ p!À  Ðdomestic€remedies€had€been€exhausted.€Ð V"¦! ÐÌ7.4€With€regard€to€the€State€party's€submission€that€the€"lack€of€merit"€in€the€author'sÐ "$r# Ðarguments€should€render€the€communication€"inadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€OptionalÐ %X $ ÐProtocol",€the€Committee€noted€that€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol€provided€thatÐ î%>!% Ðcommunications€should€be€declared€inadmissible€if€they€were€(a)€anonymous,€(b)€constitutedÐ Ô&$"& Ðan€abuse€of€the€right€of€submission€or€(c)€were€incompatible€with€the€provisions€of€theÐ º' #' ÐCovenant.€The€Committee€observed€that€the€author€had€made€a€reasonable€effort€toÐ  (ð#( Ðsubstantiate€his€allegations€and€that€he€had€invoked€specific€provisions€of€the€Covenant.Ð †)Ö$) ÐTherefore,€the€Committee€decided€that€the€issues€before€it,€in€particular€the€scope€of€articleÐ l*¼%* Ð26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€should€be€examined€with€theÐ R+¢&+ Ðmerits€of€the€case.€Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð7.5€The€Human€Rights€Committee€noted€that€it€could€only€consider€a€communication€in€soÐ ° Ðfar€as€it€concerned€an€alleged€breach€of€the€provisions€of€the€International€Covenant€on€CivilÐ –æ Ðand€Political€Rights.€Ð |Ì ÐÌ7.6€The€Committee€observed€that€both€the€author€and€the€State€party€had€already€madeÐ H˜ Ðextensive€submissions€with€regard€to€the€merits€of€the€case.€However,€the€CommitteeÐ . ~ Ðdeemed€it€appropriate€at€that€juncture€to€limit€itself€to€the€procedural€requirement€of€decidingÐ  d Ðon€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€It€noted€that,€if€the€State€party€should€wish€to€addÐ ú J Ðto€its€earlier€submission€within€six€months€of€the€transmittal€to€it€of€the€decision€onÐ à 0 Ðadmissibility,€the€author€of€the€communication€would€be€given€the€opportunity€to€commentÐ Æ   Ðthereon.€If€no€further€submissions€were€received€from€the€State€party€under€article€4,Ð ¬ ü  Ðparagraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€the€Committee€would€proceed€to€adopt€its€final€viewsÐ ’â  Ðin€the€light€of€the€written€information€already€submitted€by€the€parties.€Ð xÈ  ÐÌ8.€On€9€April€1987,€the€Committee€therefore€decided€that€the€communication€was€admissibleÐ D”  Ðin€so€far€as€it€related€to€alleged€violations€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€PoliticalÐ *z  ÐRights€and€requested€the€State€party,€should€it€not€intend€to€make€a€further€submission€in€theÐ ` Ðcase€under€article€4,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€so€to€inform€the€Committee,€soÐ öF Ðas€to€permit€an€early€decision€on€the€merits.€Ð Ü, ÐÌ9.€The€State€party,€on€23€October€1987,€and€the€author,€on€19€January€1988,€informed€theÐ ¨ø ÐCommittee€that€they€were€prepared€to€let€the€Committee€consider€the€case€on€the€merits€asÐ ŽÞ Ðit€then€stood.€Ð tÄ ÐÌ10.1€The€Human€Rights€Committee€has€considered€the€merits€of€the€communication€in€theÐ @ Ðlight€of€all€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€provided€in€article€5,Ð &v Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€The€facts€of€the€case€are€not€in€dispute.€Ð  \ ÐÌ10.2€The€main€issue€before€the€Committee€is€whether€the€author€of€the€communication€is€aÐ Ø( Ðvictim€of€a€violation€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€because€of€the€alleged€incompatibility€ofÐ ¾ Ðthe€Swedish€regulations€on€education€allowances€with€that€provision.€In€deciding€whetherÐ ¤ô Ðor€not€the€State€party€violated€article€26€by€refusing€to€grant€the€author,€as€a€pupil€of€aÐ Š Ú Ðprivate€school,€an€education€allowance€for€the€school€year€1981/82,€whereas€pupils€of€publicÐ p!À  Ðschools€were€entitled€to€education€allowances€for€that€period,€the€Committee€bases€itsÐ V"¦! Ðfindings€on€the€following€observations.€Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ10.3€The€State€party's€educational€system€provides€for€both€private€and€public€education.Ð %X $ ÐThe€State€party€cannot€be€deemed€to€act€in€a€discriminatory€fashion€if€it€does€not€provide€theÐ î%>!% Ðsame€level€of€subsidy€for€the€two€types€of€establishments,€when€the€private€system€is€notÐ Ô&$"& Ðsubject€to€State€supervision.€As€to€the€author's€claim€that€the€failure€of€the€State€party€toÐ º' #' Ðgrant€an€education€allowance€for€the€school€year€1981/82€constituted€discriminatoryÐ  (ð#( Ðtreatment,€because€the€State€party€did€not€apply€retroactively€its€decision€of€17€June€1982Ð †)Ö$) Ðto€place€grades€10€and€above€under€State€supervision,€the€Committee€notes€that€the€grantingÐ l*¼%* Ðof€an€allowance€depended€on€actual€exercise€of€State€supervision€since€State€supervisionÐ R+¢&+ Ðcould€not€be€exercised€prior€to€1€July€1982€(see€para.€2.2€above),€the€Committee€finds€thatÐ 8,ˆ', Ðconsequently€it€could€not€be€expected€that€the€State€party€would€grant€an€allowance€for€anyÐ -n(- Ðprior€period€and€that€the€question€of€discrimination€does€not€arise.€On€the€other€hand,€theÐ ° Ðquestion€does€arise€whether€the€processing€of€the€application€of€the€Rudolf€Steiner€SchoolÐ –æ Ðto€be€placed€under€State€supervision€was€unduly€prolonged€and€whether€this€violated€any€ofÐ |Ì Ðthe€author's€rights€under€the€Covenant.€In€this€connection,€the€Committee€notes€that€theÐ b² Ðevaluation€of€a€school's€curricula€necessarily€entails€a€certain€period€of€time,€as€a€result€ofÐ H˜ Ða€host€of€factors€and€imponderables,€including€the€necessity€of€seeking€advice€from€variousÐ . ~ Ðgovernmental€agencies.€In€the€instant€case€the€school's€application€was€made€in€OctoberÐ  d Ð1981€and€the€decision€was€rendered€eight€months€later,€in€June€1982.€This€lapse€of€timeÐ ú J Ðcannot€be€deemed€to€be€discriminatory,€as€such.€Nor€has€the€author€claimed€that€this€lapseÐ à 0 Ðof€time€was€attributable€to€discrimination.€Ð Æ   ÐÌ11.€The€Human€Rights€Committee,€acting€under€article€5,€paragraph€4,€of€the€OptionalÐ ’â  ÐProtocol€to€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights,€is€of€the€view€that€theÐ xÈ  Ðfacts€as€submitted€do€not€sustain€the€author's€claim€that€he€is€a€victim€of€a€violation€of€articleÐ ^®  Ð26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€In€the€light€of€the€above,€theÐ D”  ÐCommittee€does€not€have€to€make€a€finding€in€respect€of€the€author's€claim€of€a€violation€ofÐ *z  Ðarticle€2,€paragraph€3,€of€the€Covenant.Ð ` ÐÓÈÓ