’WPC5 l¾ŁóŽWBŅ)3Ćķ ’ĆŒ qšƒMēēŚc%ZX8ɦ+É ŹÓ„¾x1”@<Ń9ĻŽ-£„ ’>Ō˜ø³ßBźøēWk^hö:š•~Žō1Ÿ^:Śj3§0žL_ōł;æ5厹s)ę N‰S”ÄŚ ÓœŅo+õ¾ēūTŌnY¦”L{ņī³­4ŗˆŚNmĖŌÅi“ÜeÓūõay‚5/œ’eŲS·Īq1‹˜jž™įĄēēŁwŖ m†F=Žs*@©]ƒqČüW*mözpŠ–ų°;XI1„8Ś_Ž20‚Öq¤AĖxMß1!zĮåæĢö1sį(é»S“3µ‚Fy•…B“ÓiÆ…ŒÅULł.ø.•‰5ķ¼Ipzp²sI¢@p!߂Ļ!‹‚čœx¢‚²Ś&Ńķ«}a;QNk„^IńŽĀõŹćī›'¬8¤Jų؜C—@”ø$ŸĪŻTv©·ƒ~÷¹4|żĒżĮ—²]²ŗGŃm[ExŌŠ[ųÕ Eņ"ßĢmTDĆļz­‰ Ó¶š#öäß&+“­ß֒r™śū-RB6c’šŹVÕ[q.aūO°DuˆĮҐ•óć_ē*½ūł“– E #ĮšUN[ %© 0:Æ^ éwõ4ł  m˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - StandardČŠššČŠ0(ČhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ūœ$””ŌUKUS.,ŌN“(, tQ+ DocumeÜį¤3|x’U‹’ĄĄĄŻ ƒūœ!ŻŌUKUS.,ŌŻ  ŻŌ_ŌÓ  Óņ ņCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONŠ ° ŠĢņņŌ_ŌMostafaŌ_Ō€v.€DenmarkóóŠ ą ŠĢCommunication€No.€19/2000Š pĄ ŠĢ10€August€2001Š P   ŠĢŌ_ŌCERDŌ_Ō/C/59/D/19/2000€Š 0 € ŠĢĢADMISSIBILITYó óŠ P  ŠĢĢņņņņSubmitted€byóó:€Ō_ŌSarwarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌSelimanŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌMostafaŌ_Ō€[represented€by€counsel]€Š Š  ŠĢņņAlleged€victimóó:€The€petitioner€Š ° ŠĢņņState€party€concernedóó:€Denmark€Š ą ŠĢņņDate€of€communicationóó:€12€April€2000€óóŠ pĄ ŠĢĢą  ąņņThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8€ofŠ @ Šthe€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€Š 0€ ŠĢą  ąņņMeeting€onóó€10€August€2001,€Š ` ŠĢą  ąņņAdoptsóó€the€following:€Š š@ ŠĢĢņņÓ=ÓÓ  Óņ ņóóDecision€on€admissibilityó ó€Š Ą! ŠÓ¤ÓÓÓĢĢ1.€€The€petitioner€(initial€submission€dated€12€April€2000)€is€Mr.€Ō_ŌSarwarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌSelimanŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌMostafaŌ_Ō,€an€IraqiŠ $ą" Šcitizen€currently€residing€in€Denmark,€together€with€his€wife€and€daughter.€He€claims€that€his€rightsŠ €%Š # Šunder€article€6€of€the€Convention€have€been€violated€by€Denmark.€He€is€represented€by€counsel.€Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢņ ņThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€petitioneró ó€Š P( #& ŠĢ2.1€€The€petitioner€was€registered€as€an€applicant€for€renting€an€apartment€with€the€Danish€housingŠ 0*€%( Šcompany€DAB€(Dansk€Ō_ŌAlmennyttigtŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌBoligselskabŌ_Ō).€On€8€June€1998€the€DAB€informed€him€that€anŠ  +p&) Šapartment€was€available€and€asked€him€whether€he€would€be€interested€in€it.€The€petitionerŠ ,`'* Šconfirmed€that€he€was€interested.€However,€under€the€existing€legislation€the€municipality€of€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_ŌŠ -P(+ ŠŌ_ŌTastrupŌ_Ō€had€to€approve€the€contract.€In€a€letter€of€16€June€1998€the€municipality€informed€theŠ š-@), Špetitioner€that€his€application€had€not€been€approved€due€to€social€housing€criteria.€Š ° ŠĢ2.2€€In€a€letter€of€22€June€1998,€the€petitioner€asked€the€municipality€to€reconsider€its€decision.€HeŠ ą Šstated€that€he€had€a€good€job€as€an€engineer€and€also€worked€as€an€interpreter;€his€wife,€who€was€alsoŠ €Š Šan€engineer,€was€training€as€a€kindergarten€employee€and€they€both€spoke€Danish;€their€daughterŠ pĄ Šattended€a€Danish€kindergarten.€Š ` ° ŠĢ2.3€€In€a€letter€dated€3€July€1998€the€municipality€informed€the€petitioner€that€the€case€would€not€beŠ @  Šreopened€and€that€his€complaint€had€been€forwarded€to€the€Social€Appeals€Board€(Det€Ō_ŌSocialeŌ_ŌŠ 0 € ŠŌ_ŌAnkenaevnŌ_Ō).€Š  p  ŠĢ2.4€€On€8€July€1998,€the€petitioner€contacted€the€non-governmental€organization€Documentary€andŠ P  ŠAdvisory€Centre€on€Racial€Discrimination€(Ō_ŌDRCŌ_Ō).€The€petitioner€informed€the€staff€of€the€centre€thatŠ š@  Šwhen€he€contacted€the€municipality€on€1€July€1998€and€explained€that€he€would€submit€a€letter€fromŠ ą0  Šthe€doctor's€family€supporting€his€application€in€view€of€the€fact€that€his€daughter€suffered€fromŠ Š  Šasthma,€the€municipality€officer€replied€that€even€if€he€sent€the€letter,€his€application€would€beŠ Ą Šrejected.€Š ° ŠĢ2.5€€The€petitioner€reported€the€case€to€the€police€of€Ō_ŌGlostrupŌ_Ō,€which€in€a€decision€of€24€NovemberŠ ą Š1998€refused€to€investigate€the€matter€under€the€Danish€Act€on€Racial€Discrimination.€In€a€decisionŠ €Š Šof€29€April€1999€the€State€Attorney€for€Ō_ŌSealandŌ_Ō€concluded€that€there€was€no€reason€for€changing€theŠ pĄ Šdecision€of€the€police.€The€petitioner€also€brought€the€case€before€the€Parliamentary€OmbudsmanŠ `° Šwho,€in€a€decision€of€4€November€1998,€indicated€that€the€petitioner€should€wait€for€the€decision€ofŠ P  Šthe€Social€Appeals€Board.€Š @ ŠĢ2.6€€In€a€letter€dated€1€October€1998€the€Social€Appeals€Board€informed€the€petitioner€that€theŠ  p ŠMunicipality€of€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌTastrupŌ_Ō€had€decided€to€change€its€previous€decision€rejecting€the€petitioner'sŠ ` Šapplication.€Later€on,€on€12€October€1999,€the€Ministry€of€Housing€and€Urban€Affairs€informed€theŠ P ŠŌ_ŌDRCŌ_Ō€that€the€family€was€invited€to€contact€the€municipality.€Š š@ ŠĢ2.7€€In€a€letter€of€27€November€1999€the€Social€Appeals€Board€informed€the€Ō_ŌDRCŌ_Ō€that€the€apartmentŠ Š  Što€which€Ō_ŌSarwarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌSelimanŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌMostafaŌ_Ō€was€to€be€approved€had€been€assigned€to€another€person,€thereforeŠ Ą! Šit€would€be€impossible€to€give€Ō_ŌSarwarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌSelimanŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌMostafaŌ_Ō€full€satisfaction€in€his€request€as€neither€theŠ °"  ŠAppeals€Board€nor€the€Municipality€had€legal€authority€to€cancel€a€rental€agreement€made€by€theŠ  #š! Šhousing€company.€Furthermore,€on€26€January€2000€the€housing€company€informed€the€Ō_ŌDRCŌ_Ō€thatŠ $ą" Šthe€applicable€legislation€did€not€make€it€possible€for€the€company€to€change€the€decision€which€hadŠ €%Š # Šbeen€annulled€by€the€Social€Appeals€Board.€Š p&Ą!$ ŠĢ2.8€€The€Social€Appeals€Board€adopted€its€final€decision€on€the€matter€on€15€March€2000.€ItŠ P( #& Šconcluded€that€the€municipality's€decision€of€16€June€1998€was€invalid,€as€Ō_ŌSarwarŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌSelimanŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌMostafaŌ_ŌŠ @)$' Šdid€fulfil€the€conditions€for€approval€to€the€housing€facility.€Š 0*€%( ŠĢņ ņThe€complaint€ó óŠ ,`'* ŠĢ3.€€Counsel€claims€that€the€State€party€has€breached€its€obligations€under€article€6€of€the€Convention.Š š-@), ŠHe€states€that,€despite€the€decision€of€the€Social€Appeals€Board,€the€petitioner€has€still€not€beenŠ ° Šprovided€with€an€appropriate€apartment€and€that€the€Danish€legislation€does€not€provide€for€adequateŠ  š Šsatisfaction€in€cases€like€the€one€under€consideration.€Since€neither€the€police€of€Ō_ŌGlostrupŌ_Ō€nor€theŠ ą ŠState€Attorney€were€willing€to€interfere€in€the€case,€there€is€no€possibility€for€the€petitioner€to€makeŠ €Š Šuse€of€any€further€remedies€at€the€national€level.€Š pĄ ŠĢņ ņObservations€by€the€State€party€ó óŠ P   ŠĢ4.1€€By€a€submission€of€13€December€2000,€the€State€party€challenges€the€admissibility€of€theŠ 0 € Šcommunication.€It€recalls€that€on€1€September€1998€the€municipality€had€decided€to€alter€its€decisionŠ  p  Šof€16€June€1998€and€informed€the€Social€Appeals€Board€that€it€had€decided€to€approve€the€petitionerŠ `  Šfor€the€dwelling€applied€for€or€a€corresponding€one.€As€a€result€the€Board€considered€that€the€appealŠ P  Šhad€become€moot€and,€on€1€October€1998,€notified€the€petitioner€accordingly.€However,€in€the€lightŠ š@  Šof,€ņņinter€aliaóó,€a€request€from€the€Parliamentary€Ombudsman,€the€Board€decided€subsequently€toŠ ą0  Šconsider€the€appeal€concerning€the€decision€of€16€June€1998.€In€its€decision€of€15€March€2000€the€Š Š  ŠBoard€found€that€the€decision€of€16€June€1998€was€invalid,€although€it€had€been€modified€by€theŠ Ą Šdecision€of€1€September€1998.€Š ° ŠĢ4.2€€The€State€party€further€recalls€that€in€a€letter€of€12€October€1999€addressed€to€the€Ō_ŌDRCŌ_Ō,€theŠ ą ŠMinistry€of€Housing€and€Urban€Affairs€stated€that€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō-Ō_ŌTaastrupŌ_Ō€local€authority's€administration€ofŠ €Š Šthe€rules€on€approval€of€tenants€for€non-profit€housing€in€general€was€contrary€to€the€rules€in€force,Š pĄ Šas€the€local€authority€used€unlawful€criteria€such€as€whether€the€tenant€was€a€refugee€or€anŠ `° Šimmigrant.€She€indicated€that,€in€the€future,€she€would€be€very€alert€to€the€manner€in€which€localŠ P  Šauthorities€administered€the€approval€scheme€and€continue€her€efforts€to€ensure€that€the€localŠ @ Šauthorities€do€not€violate€national€or€international€law€regarding€racial€discrimination.€Š 0€ ŠĢ4.3€€Having€acknowledged€that€the€decision€of€16€June€1998€was€unlawful€according€to€Danish€law,Š ` Šthe€State€party€examines€the€consequences€of€such€acknowledgment,€in€light€of€the€petitioner'sŠ P Šclaims€under€article€6€of€the€Convention.€The€State€party€understands€those€claims€to€mean€that,€asŠ š@ Ša€result€of€the€wrongful€act€and€on€the€basis€of€article€6€of€the€Convention,€the€petitioner€should€(a)Š ą0 Šhave€had€the€apartment€which€he€had€been€wrongfully€refused;€or€(b)€have€had€a€similar€dwellingŠ Š  Šassigned€to€him;€or€(c)€have€received€financial€compensation.€Š Ą! ŠĢ4.4€€Options€(a)€and€(b)€are€not€possible.€A€non-profit€housing€organisation€such€as€the€DAB€is€notŠ  #š! Špart€of€the€local€authority,€but€an€independent€legal€entity€whose€activities€are€governed€by€specificŠ $ą" Šrules.€When€a€local€authority€refuses€to€approve€a€person€as€a€tenant,€the€non-profit€housingŠ €%Š # Šorganisation€will€offer€the€apartment€in€question€to€another€person€on€the€waiting€list.€This€meansŠ p&Ą!$ Šthat€the€apartment€will€not€be€vacant€when€it€is€subsequently€established€that€the€local€authority'sŠ `'°"% Šrefusal€to€approve€the€applicant€was€wrongful.€Article€6€of€the€Convention€cannot€be€interpreted€toŠ P( #& Šmean€that€the€Convention€would€require€specific€performance€in€such€a€situation.€Š @)$' ŠĢ4.5€€The€State€party€interprets€article€6€as€having€two€parts.€The€first€one€concerns€the€provision€ofŠ  +p&) Šš šeffective€protection€and€remediesšš€and€the€second€one€the€provision€of€š šadequate€reparation€orŠ ,`'* Šsatisfactionšš.€The€first€part€imposes€on€the€States€parties€a€positive€obligation€to€introduce€remediesŠ -P(+ Šthat€are€available,€adequate€and€effective€and€that:€(Ō_ŌiŌ_Ō)€protect€the€citizens€against€acts€of€racialŠ š-@), Šdiscrimination€contrary€to€the€Convention;€(ii)€make€it€possible€for€the€citizens€to€have€establishedŠ ° Šwhether€they€have€been€subjected€to€racial€discrimination€contrary€to€the€Convention;€and€(iii)€makeŠ  š Šit€possible€for€the€citizens€to€have€the€acts€of€racial€discrimination€brought€to€an€end.€The€State€partyŠ ą Šconsiders€that€this€part€of€article€6€is€not€relevant€for€assessing€whether€the€applicant€is€entitled€toŠ €Š Šspecific€performance.€Š pĄ ŠĢ4.6€€The€second€part€applies€to€situations€where€a€person€has€been€subjected€to€racial€discrimination.Š P   ŠIn€such€cases€the€States€parties€must€ensure€that€the€victim€has€access€to€'adequate€reparation€orŠ @  Šsatisfaction'.€That€means€that€the€act€or€€omission€constituting€racial€discrimination€is€brought€to€anŠ 0 € Šend€and€that€the€consequences€for€the€victim€are€remedied€in€such€manner€that€the€state€of€affairsŠ  p  Šprior€to€the€violation€is€restored€to€the€widest€extent€possible.€There€will€always€be€cases€in€whichŠ `  Šit€is€not€possible€to€restore€the€situation€prior€to€a€violation.€This€may€be€due€to€the€fact,€for€example,Š P  Šthat€the€racially€discriminatory€act€or€omission€is€delimited€in€time€and€place€and€therefore€cannotŠ š@  Šbe€reversed€(such€as€a€racist€statement),€or€that€the€interests€of€innocent€third€parties€should€also€beŠ ą0  Šprotected.€In€such€cases€one€has€to€determine€whether€there€have€been€attempts€to€remedy€theŠ Š  Šconsequences€for€the€victim€of€the€racially€discriminatory€act€or€omission.€Š Ą ŠĢ4.7€€The€present€case€is€one€of€those€where€it€is€impossible€to€restore€the€situation€prior€to€theŠ  š Šviolation.€The€apartment€for€which€the€petitioner€was€wrongfully€refused€approval€as€a€tenant€hasŠ ą Šbeen€let€to€a€third€party€and€regard€for€the€interests€of€such€party€is€a€crucial€argument€againstŠ €Š Šsubsequently€calling€into€question€the€legal€relationship€between€that€party€and€the€non-profitŠ pĄ Šhousing€organisation.€To€the€extent€that€the€petitioner€claims€that€on€the€basis€of€article€6€he€isŠ `° Šentitled€to€specific€performance,€the€State€party€finds€that€the€communication€should€be€declaredŠ P  Šinadmissible€on€the€ground€that€no€prima€facie€case€of€violation€of€the€Convention€has€beenŠ @ Šestablished€in€respect€of€this€part€of€the€communication.€Š 0€ ŠĢ4.8€€Furthermore,€neither€the€Social€Appeals€Board€nor€any€other€authority€have€the€possibility€ofŠ ` Šassigning€another€dwelling€to€a€person€whom€a€local€authority€has€wrongfully€refused€to€approveŠ P Šas€a€tenant€of€a€non-profit€dwelling.€Apart€from€cases€where€a€local€authority€can€assign€a€non-profitŠ š@ Šdwelling€for€the€purpose€of€solving€urgent€social€problems,€it€is€the€non-profit€housing€organisationŠ ą0 Šitself€who€allocates€vacant€dwellings€to€applicants.€In€practice,€the€person€in€question€will€remainŠ Š  Šon€the€waiting€list€and€will€have€an€apartment€offered€when€one€becomes€vacant,€whereupon€theŠ Ą! Šlocal€authority€will€approve€the€person,€unless€new€circumstances€have€arisen€as€a€result€of€whichŠ °"  Šthe€person€no€longer€satisfies€the€conditions€for€approval.€In€this€case,€however,€the€petitioner€hadŠ  #š! Šchosen€to€have€his€name€removed€from€the€waiting€list€of€the€DAB€in€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō-Ō_ŌTaastrupŌ_Ō.€Š $ą" ŠĢ4.9€€Regardless€of€the€wrongful€conduct€of€the€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō-Ō_ŌTaastrupŌ_Ō€municipality,€it€was€the€petitioner'sŠ p&Ą!$ Šown€choice€not€to€remain€on€the€list,€as€a€result€of€which€it€became€impossible€for€the€DAB€to€offerŠ `'°"% Šhim€another€dwelling.€To€the€extent€that€the€petitioner€claims€that€as€a€consequence€of€article€6€ofŠ P( #& Šthe€Convention€he€should€have€been€offered€another€and€corresponding€dwelling€without€otherwiseŠ @)$' Šsatisfying€the€general€conditions€for€obtaining€one,€including€being€on€the€waiting€list,€theŠ 0*€%( Šcommunication€should€be€declared€inadmissible,€as€no€prima€facie€case€of€violation€of€theŠ  +p&) ŠConvention€has€been€established€in€respect€of€this€part€of€the€communication.€Š ,`'* ŠĢ4.10€€As€for€the€question€of€damages,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€issue€has€not€been€broughtŠ š-@), Šbefore€the€Danish€courts€and,€therefore,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies.€ForŠ ° Šthis€purpose€it€is€irrelevant€that€the€police€and€the€public€prosecutor€rejected€the€petitioner's€claims.€Š  š ŠĢ4.11€€The€local€authority's€refusal€to€approve€the€petitioner€as€a€tenant€raised€two€different€issues:Š €Š ŠFirst,€whether€the€refusal€constituted€a€criminal€offence€and€second€whether€the€refusal€wasŠ pĄ Šotherwise€wrongful,€including€whether€the€local€authority€had€used€unlawful€criteria€such€as€theŠ ` ° Špetitioner's€race,€colour,€descent€or€national€or€ethnic€origin.€The€police€and€the€public€prosecutorŠ P   Šonly€had€to€assess€the€first€issue,€while€the€second€one€was€assessed€by€other€authorities,€includingŠ @  Šthe€Social€Appeals€Board.€Š 0 € ŠĢ4.12€€The€State€party€claims€that€the€decisions€of€the€police€and€the€public€prosecutor€were€decisiveŠ `  Šin€the€context€of€the€criminal€proceedings,€but€did€not€in€any€way€preclude€the€petitioner€fromŠ P  Šinstituting€civil€proceedings.€In€connection€with€such€proceedings€the€petitioner€would€have€beenŠ š@  Šable€to€refer,€ņņinter€aliaóó,€to€the€decision€of€the€Social€Appeals€Board€and€the€opinion€of€the€MinistryŠ ą0  Šof€Housing€and€Urban€Affairs.€If€the€petitioner€believes€that€he€has€suffered€a€pecuniary€orŠ Š  Šnon-pecuniary€loss,€the€institution€of€civil€proceedings€will€be€an€effective€remedy.€Damages€do€notŠ Ą Šdepend,€directly€or€€indirectly,€on€the€outcome€of€criminal€proceedings.€Š ° ŠĢ4.13€€It€follows€from€the€general€rules€of€Danish€law€on€damages€in€tort€that€administrativeŠ ą Šauthorities€may€incur€liability€in€damages€for€actionable€acts€and€omissions.€It€is€therefore€possibleŠ €Š Što€claim€damages€for€losses€suffered€by€a€person€because€of€an€invalid€administrative€decision.€CasesŠ pĄ Šin€dispute€are€dealt€with€by€ordinary€courts€in€connection€with€civil€proceedings€against€theŠ `° Šadministrative€authority€in€question.€Š P  ŠĢņ ņCounsel's€commentsó ó€Š 0€ ŠĢ5.1€€Counsel€argues€that€the€fact€that€neither€the€Social€Appeals€Board€nor€any€other€authority€haveŠ ` Šthe€possibility€to€assign€another€appropriate€dwelling€to€a€person€who€has€wrongfully€been€refusedŠ P Šapproval€as€a€tenant€of€a€non-profit€dwelling€only€demonstrates€the€failure€of€Danish€legislation€toŠ š@ Šprovide€effective€reparation€in€a€case€like€the€one€under€consideration.€Š ą0 ŠĢ5.2€€Counsel€refers€to€the€State€party's€statement€in€paragraph€4.8€above€that€the€person€in€questionŠ Ą! Šwould€remain€on€the€waiting€list€and€have€an€apartment€offered€when€one€becomes€vacant.€HeŠ °"  Šclaims€that€the€petitioner€was€not€aware€of€that€practice€and€that€the€letter€of€1€September€1998€fromŠ  #š! Šthe€Municipality€of€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō-Ō_ŌTaastrupŌ_Ō€to€the€Social€Appeals€Board€was€never€sent€to€the€petitioner€orŠ $ą" Šthe€Ō_ŌDRCŌ_Ō.€Š €%Š # ŠĢ5.3€€Counsel€disagrees€with€the€State€party's€statement€that€it€was€possible€for€the€petitioner€to€claimŠ `'°"% Šdamages€for€losses€suffered€or€for€tort€and€says€that€Danish€courts€have€refused€to€apply€rules€onŠ P( #& Šdamages€in€tort€in€cases€of€discrimination.€The€fact€that€a€person€has€been€subjected€toŠ @)$' Šdiscrimination€does€not€automatically€entitle€that€person€to€damages€in€tort.€In€this€respect€heŠ 0*€%( Šprovides€copy€of€a€decision€of€4€August€2000€concerning€a€case€in€which€discrimination€wasŠ  +p&) Šestablished€where€the€Copenhagen€City€Court€did€not€find€that€the€act€of€discrimination€entitled€theŠ ,`'* Švictims€to€damages€Ō_ŌinŌ_ŌŌ_ŌŌ_Ō€tort.€Counsel€reiterates€that€all€domestic€remedies€have€been€exhausted.€Š -P(+ ŠŠ š-@), Š5.4€€Counsel€further€submits€that€the€Convention€is€not€incorporated€into€domestic€law€and€expressesŠ ° Šdoubts€as€to€whether€the€Danish€courts€would€apply€the€Convention€in€a€dispute€between€privateŠ  š Šparties.€Š ą ŠĢņ ņAdditional€information€by€the€State€party€ó óŠ pĄ ŠĢ6.1€€In€response€to€a€request€by€the€Committee€to€furnish€additional€information€on€effectiveŠ P   Šremedies€available€to€the€author€for€the€implementation€of€the€decision€of€the€Social€Appeals€BoardŠ @  Šdated€15€March€2000,€or€for€receiving€compensation,€the€State€party,€by€note€of€6€July€2001,€affirmsŠ 0 € Šthat€the€institution€of€a€civil€action€against€the€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō-Ō_ŌTaastrupŌ_Ō€local€authority€for€compensation€forŠ  p  Špecuniary€or€non-pecuniary€damage€is€an€available€and€effective€remedy.€The€author€had€theŠ `  Špossibility€of€instituting€an€action€before€the€ordinary€courts€based€on€the€Ō_ŌHojeŌ_Ō-Ō_ŌTaastrupŌ_Ō€localŠ P  Šauthority's€decision€of€16€June€1998€and€invoking€the€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€FormsŠ š@  Šof€Racial€Discrimination.€In€this€connection€the€State€party€refers€to€the€practical€effect€of€theŠ ą0  ŠCommittee's€recommendation€in€a€prior€case€No.€17/1999€ņņŌ_ŌBabakŌ_Ō€Ō_ŌJebelliŌ_Ō€v.€Denmarkóó,€whichŠ Š  Šillustrates€that€Danish€courts€interpret€and€apply€section€26€of€€the€Act€on€Liability€in€Damages€ActŠ Ą Šin€the€light€of€Article€6€of€the€Convention.€Accordingly,€the€State€party€concludes€that€theŠ ° Šcommunication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€because€the€author€has€not€exhausted€available€andŠ  š Šeffective€domestic€remedies.€Š ą ŠĢ6.2€€On€18€July€2001,€counsel€informed€the€Committee€that€he€had€no€further€comments€to€theŠ pĄ Šadditional€information€from€the€State€party.€Š `° ŠĢņ ņAdmissibility€considerations€ó óŠ @ ŠĢ7.1€€Before€considering€the€substance€of€a€communication,€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€ofŠ  p ŠRacial€Discrimination€examines€whether€or€not€the€communication€is€admissible,€pursuant€to€articleŠ ` Š14,€paragraph€7(a)€of€the€Convention€and€rules€86€and€91€of€its€rules€of€procedure,.€Š P ŠĢ7.2€€The€Committee€notes€that€the€petitioner€brought€his€claim€before€the€police€and€the€StateŠ ą0 ŠAttorney€who,€in€a€decision€of€29€April€1999,€refused€to€investigate€the€matter€under€the€Danish€ActŠ Š  Šon€Racial€Discrimination.€Parallel€to€that,€the€Social€Appeals€Board€examined€the€case€andŠ Ą! Šconcluded,€on€15€March€2000,€that€the€decision€of€the€Municipality€not€to€approve€the€author€as€aŠ °"  Štenant€was€invalid.€In€the€meantime,€the€municipality€had€decided€to€alter€its€previous€decision€andŠ  #š! Šapprove€the€petitioner€for€the€apartment€applied€for€or€an€equivalent€one.€The€Social€Appeals€BoardŠ $ą" Šinformed€the€petitioner€of€the€new€municipality's€decision€by€letter€of€1€October€1998.€Š €%Š # ŠĢ7.3€€The€Committee€notes€that,€despite€the€new€decision€of€the€municipality€and€the€one€of€the€SocialŠ `'°"% ŠAppeals€Board,€the€petitioner€was€not€provided€with€an€apartment€equivalent€to€the€one€initiallyŠ P( #& Šapplied€for,€nor€granted€compensation€for€the€damages€caused€to€him€as€a€result€of€the€first€decisionŠ @)$' Šof€the€municipality.€The€Committee€notes,€however,€that€the€petitioner€did€not€meet€one€of€theŠ 0*€%( Šconditions€required€to€be€assigned€an€equivalent€apartment,€namely,€to€remain€on€the€waiting€list.Š  +p&) ŠThis€failure€cannot€be€attributed€to€the€State€party.€In€the€circumstances,€the€petitioner€could€notŠ ,`'* Šobtain€redress€in€the€form€of€assignment€of€the€original€or€of€an€equivalent€dwelling.€He€could,Š -P(+ Šhowever,€have€sought€compensation.€Š š-@), Ї7.4€€As€to€the€question€of€damages,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€petitioner€did€not€institute€civilŠ ° Šproceedings€and,€therefore,€has€not€exhausted€domestic€remedies.€Despite€the€arguments€given€byŠ  š Šthe€petitioner€and€the€reference€to€previous€jurisprudence€of€the€Danish€courts,€the€CommitteeŠ ą Šconsiders€that€doubts€about€the€effectiveness€of€such€proceedings€cannot€absolve€a€petitioner€fromŠ €Š Špursuing€them.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€considers€that,€by€not€exhausting€the€available€domesticŠ pĄ Šremedies,€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€meet€the€requirements€or€article€14,€paragraph€7(a)€of€theŠ ` ° ŠConvention.€Š P   ŠĢ8.€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination€therefore€decides:€Š 0 € ŠĢą  ą(a)€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible;€Š `  ŠĢą  ą(b)€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€to€the€petitioner.Š š@  ŠĢ9.€€In€accordance€with€rule€93,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Committee's€rules€of€procedure,€a€decision€takenŠ Š  Šby€the€Committee€that€a€communication€is€inadmissible€may€be€reviewed€at€a€later€date€by€theŠ Ą ŠCommittee€upon€a€written€request€by€the€€petitioner€concerned.€Such€written€request€shall€containŠ ° Šdocumentary€evidence€to€the€effect€that€the€reasons€for€inadmissibility€referred€to€in€paragraph€7€(a)Š  š Šof€article€14€are€no€longer€applicable.€Š ą ŠĢĢÓųÓ