WPC %.lZKKо bcfإU#x˱e{%]*DҘ`#[I#,:`[;NGߝ٨qaPX\.` zI#N\n'dZ|'1ҍ8%PK¢`J)XQAӼgģ-PdڈAױRW Eٖ`ڦd@ۅ%gVvX̴dQQBs3l|D樨=j tL#24U'ʼnOiKR?VuXPrZђ`#oٝiw!lHW3%JdwVpRYN&/4oUNuYvfg_`k|:$#u~q$S`o\ jwؖќšd}vy&k)$U>l 0v 0<+ 0Yg 0_ 0i 0N 0( D+G AMr  0 # UNF % M ( N ^ w 4  m \  `&Times New Roman' P.P.C. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 212/1986 (24 March 1988), U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/OP/4, U.N. Doc.CCPR/C/OP/"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , 4Heading 3 S p^S   XXX p^S<:Default Para64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    < :Normal (Web) S =jS =jSӁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2xD$ #!..      X-XXXX-XXX-  ($'dxd A<< c#|x(#$..      X3XXXX3XXX3HP LaserJet 4000 Series PS0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularXWw) Kk):i+00U #!..      X-XXXX-XXX-  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _P.P.C._ԁv.TheNetherlands | CommunicationNo.212/1986 H 24March1988  d ADMISSIBILITY     Submittedby:P.P.C.(namedeleted)on27October1986 x  Allegedvictim:Theauthor D  Stateparty:TheNetherlands ` Declaredinadmissible:24March1988(thirtysecondsession) ,    DecisiononAdmissibility     1.Theauthorofthecommunication,dated27October1986,isP.P.C.,acitizenofthe @ Netherlands,residinginthatcountry.Heallegesthatheisthevictimofaviolationofarticle &v 26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRightsbytheGovernmentofthe  \ Netherlands.Heisrepresentedbycounsel. B 2.1.TheauthorstatesthathehasbeenunemployedsinceNovember1982andthathe  receivedunemploymentbenefitsuntilJuly1984andsincethenbenefitsequaltotheamount  ofthelegalminimumwage.From14Augustto14Octoberhewasbrieflyemployed,his   incomeforthatperiodbeing200guildersamonthhigherthantheminimumwage.From14 p!  Octoberonwardsheagaindrewunemploymentbenefits.Beyondthat,herequestedthelocal V"! authoritiesofMaastrichttogranthimbenefitsunderalawprovidingadditionalassistance <#" topersonswithaminimumincomeforlossofpurchasingpoweroveracertainyear. "$r# Assessmentofentitlementtobenefitsunderthatlawisbasedonaperson'sincomeduring %X $ themonthofSeptembermultipliedby12.ButbecauseP.P.C.hadworkedduringthemonth %>!% ofSeptember,theannualcalculationshowedafiguremuchhigherthanhisrealincomein &$"& 1984and,consequently,hedidnotqualifyforbenefitsunderthe"compensationslaw"of ' #' 1984.TheauthortookhiscasetothehighestadministrativeorganintheNetherlands, (#( AdministratieveRechtspraakOverheidsbeschikkingen(AROB),whichmaintainedthatthe )$) calculationwasbasedonnormsappliedequallytoallandthatthereforetherehadbeenno l*%* discriminationinhiscase.Theauthorclaimstohaveexhausteddomesticremedies. R+&+ 2.2.Theauthormaintainsthatabroadinterpretationofarticle26oftheCovenantwouldbe -n(- inlinewiththatprevailingintheparliamentarydebatesintheNetherlandsatthetimewhen  theCovenantwasratified.  3.Byitsdecisionof9April1987,theHumanRightsCommitteetransmittedthe b communicationunderrule91oftheprovisionalrulesofproceduretotheStateparty H concerned,requestinginformationandobservationsreevanttothequestionofadmissibility . ~ ofthecommunication.  d 4.Ititssubmissiondated25June1987,theStatepartyreservedtherighttosubmit  0 observationsonthemeritsofthecommunicationwhichmightturnouttohavean!ffecton    thequestionofadmissibility.ForthatreasontheStatepartysuggestedthattheCommittee    mightdecidetojointhequestionoftheadmissibilitytotheexaminationofthemeritsofthe   communication. x  5.Theauthor'sdeadlineforcommentsontheStateparty'ssubmissionexpiredon26 D  September1987.Nocommentshavebeenreceivedfromtheauthor. *z  6.1.BeforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinaHumanRightsCommitteemust,in F communication,theaccordancewithrule87ofitsprovisionalrulesofprocedure,decode , whetherornotitisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant.  6.2.Pursuanttoarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol,theCommitteemayonlyconsider  communicationsfromindividualswhoclaimthatanyoftheirrightsenumeratedinthe t Covenanthavebeenviolated.TheCommitteehasalreadyhadanopportunitytoobservethat Z thescopeofarticle26canalsocovercasesofdiscriminationwithregardtosocialsecurity @ benefits(communicationsNos.172/1984,180/1984and182/1984).Itconsiders,however, &v thatthescopeofarticle26doesnotextendtodifferencesofresultsintheapplicationof  \ commonrulesintheallocationofbenefits.'inthecaseatissue,theauthormerelystatesthat B thedeterminationofcompensationbenefitsonthebasisofaperson'sincomeinthemonth ( ofSeptemberledtoanunfavourableresultinhiscase.Suchdeterminationis,however,  uniformforallpersonswithaminimumincomeintheNetherlands.Thus,theCommittee  findsthatthelawinquestionisnotprimafaciediscriminatory,andthattheauthordoesnot,   therefore,haveaclaimunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol. p!  7.TheHumanRightsCommitteethereforedecides: <#" (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; %X $ (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtothe_author.___