WPC  9: Frd)3*J3,[t.i*bLͫK2θ .OʥCrVߖDxvGf7s۶QH+<#a91\Lc B9c&&$?r/yR?ǒu<[\s|}%$fe%XZV8e{vbhei:+hi,΋,Oޞ?4U>B 0nL 0i 0Y# 0_| 0&U6 %7 = 0M # UN M" (& NN ^ P w\ 4` t mv \  `&Times New Roman' United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurisprudence - 4nt - Jurisprudence - "Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   <:Default ParaXXX< :Normal (Web) S =jS =jS64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    <qy:HTML TypewriK<6X9`(Courier NewK  XXXS\  `&Times New RomanS  <6X9`(Courier New X#|x($..       XkXX XXkXX XkHP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,,,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular* p* RA~1<U  !..       X~XX XX~XX X~  _ HUMANRIGHTSCOMMITTEE  _Bonelo_Ԁv.Spain | CommunicationNo698/1996 H 29July1997  d _CCPR_/C/60/D/698/1996  0 ADMISSIBILITY    Submittedby:Gonzalo_Bonelo_Ԁ_Snchez_Ԁ[representedbycounsel,Mr._Jos_ԀLuis_Maz;n_ D  Costa] *z  Victim:Theauthor F Stateparty:Spain  Dateofcommunication:21September1995(initialsubmission)    TheHumanRightsCommittee,establishedunderarticle28oftheInternationalCovenant @ onCivilandPoliticalRights, &v Meetingon29July1997, B Adoptsthefollowing:    Decisiononadmissibility  p!  1.Theauthorofthecommunication,dated21September1995,isGonzalo_Bonelo_Ԁ_Snchez_, "$r# aSpanishcitizenlivinginSeville,Spain.HeclaimstobeavictimofviolationsbySpainof %X $ articles14,paragraph1,and26oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights. %>!% TheOptionalProtocolenteredintoforceforSpainon25April1985.Theauthoris &$"& representedbycounsel,Mr._Jos_ԀLuis_Maz;n_ԀCosta. ' #' Thefactsassubmittedbytheauthor )$) 2.1On29August1984,theauthor,afullyqualifiedpharmacist,requestedanauthorization R+&+ toopenapharmacyfromtheAssociationofPharmacistsinCdiz(_Colegio_Ԁ_Oficial_Ԁde 8,', _Farmacuticos_ԀdeCdiz).HesoughttoopenapharmacyinasuburbofSanRoque,Cdiz -n(- andbasedhisrequestontherequirementsofRoyalDecree909/78(Real_Decreto_909/1978).  Hisrequestwasdeniedbythedecisionof10October1985,onthegroundthatthenew  pharmacywasnotsufficientlyfarfromthetownnucleustobeseparatedbyanaturalor | artificialbarrier.TheauthorfiledanappealwiththeSpanishGeneralCouncilofOfficial b CollegesofPharmacists(_Consejo_ԀGeneralde_Colegios_Ԁ_Oficiales_Ԁde_Farmacuticos_),which H wasalsodismissed,on14May1986. . ~ 2.2Theauthorthenfiledanadministrativecomplaint(_recurso_Ԁ_contencioso_Ԁ_administrativo_)  J withtheTerritorialCourt(_Audiencia_ԀTerritorial)inSeville.On20January1989,theGeneral  0 Council'sadministrativedecisionof14May1986wasreversed,onthegroundthatthe    requirementoftheseparationwasillegalasitwasderivedfroma1979MinisterialOrder    (_Orden_ԀMinisterial),whichcouldnotsupersedeaRoyalDecree;theauthorwasauthorized   toopenhispharmacy. x  2.3TheSpanishGeneralCouncilofOfficialCollegesofPharmacists(_Consejo_ԀGeneralde D  _Colegios_Ԁ_Oficiales_Ԁde_Farmacuticos_)inturnfiledanappealwiththeSupremeCourtof *z  Spain(Tribunal_Supremo_).On25March1991,thedecisionoftheTerritorialCourt ` (_Audiencia_ԀTerritorial)wasquashedandtheauthorwasdeniedthedisputedauthorization. F Initsjudgment,theSupremeCourtacceptedthatRoyalDecree909/78onlyrequiredthat , thenewpharmacygiveservicetoapopulationofover2,000people,whereastheMinisterial  Orderrequired,additionally,thatthenewnucleusofpopulationbeseparatedfromthe  existingtownshipbyanaturalorphysicalbarrier.TheCourtheldthataMinisterialOrder  couldnotsupersedeaRoyalDecree,asthiswouldbreachtheprincipleofhierarchy;butit t wentontoarguethattherequirementofseparationhadnotbeencompliedwithfullyinthe Z author'scase. @ 2.4On8July1994,aSpecialChamberoftheSupremeCourt(SalaEspecialdelTribunal  \ _Supremo_)dismissedtheauthor'sfurtherappeal(_recurso_Ԁde_revisi;n_).Theauthor's B subsequentappeal(_recurso_Ԁde_amparo_)beforetheConstitutionalCourtwasdeclared ( inadmissibleon13February1995.  Thecomplaint   3.1TheauthorclaimsthattheSupremeCourt'sjudgmentof25March1991wasarbitrary V"! anddeniedhimtherighttoequalitybeforethecourts,inviolationofarticle14,paragraph <#" 1.Inthisrespect,hislawyercontendsthattheSupremeCourthastraditionallyruledin "$r# _favour_Ԁoftheopeningofpharmacies,andenclosescopiesoftwojudgmentstothiseffect1. %X $ However,counselhimselfstatesthattheSupremeCourtjudgmentdeclaredthatthe %>!% jurisprudenceinvokeddidnotcorrespondwiththefactsoftheauthor'scase. &$"& 3.2Counselclaimsafurtherviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,inrespectofthedenialof (#( theauthor'sappeal(_recurso_Ԁde_amparo_).Inthisrespect,heallegesthatthejudgesonthe )$) ConstitutionalCourtdonotthemselvesdecidethequestionofinadmissibility,butthat l*%* decisionsareroutinelypreparedbyateamoflawyers(_cuerpo_Ԁde_letrados_)whoworkforthe R+&+ ConstitutionalCourt,andthatthejudgessimplysignthedecisions.Finally,counselclaims 8,', thattheauthorwasdeniedafairhearingbytheConstitutionalCourtwhenitdismissedhis -n(- _requestforamparo,asonlythePublicProsecutor'sOffice(MinisterioFiscal)wasgiventhe  possibilitytoappeal.  3.3Theauthorclaimsthatastheresultofunjustandpartialjudicialdecisions,togetherwith b theapplicationoflegislationwhichheclaimstobearelicofmedievaltimes,onlyapplied H topharmacistsintheexerciseoftheirprofessionasdispensersofmedicinalgoods,hehas . ~ beensubjectedtodiscrimination,inviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant.  d IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee  0 4.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theHumanRights    Committeemust,inaccordancewithrule87ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetherornot   itisadmissibleundertheOptionalProtocoltotheCovenant. x  4.2TheCommitteehascarefullyexaminedthematerialsubmittedbytheauthorandrefers D  toitsestablishedjurisprudence2thatinterpretationofdomesticlegislationisessentiallya *z  matterforthecourtsandauthoritiesoftheStatepartyconcerned.Inthepresentcase,the ` authorhasnotsubstantiatedhisclaimthatthelawwasinterpretedandappliedarbitrarilyor F thatitsapplicationamountedtoadenialofjusticewhichcouldconstituteadiscrimination , inviolationofarticle26oftheCovenant,theCommitteeconsidersthatthecommunication  isinadmissibleunderarticle2oftheOptionalProtocol.  4.3Withregardtotheauthor'sclaimofaviolationofarticle14,paragraph1,ofthe t CovenantinrespectofthedismissalofhisappealbytheConsitutionalCourt,theCommittee Z hascarefullyexaminedthematerialsubmittedbytheauthor.Itconsidersthattheauthor's @ counseldoesnotsubstantiate,forpurposesofadmissibility,howthefactthattheOfficeof &v thePublicProsecutor(MinisterioFiscal),indefenceofthegeneralinterestofthepublic,  \ mayappealagainsttherejectionofarecursodeamparoorhowthewayinwhichthe B ConstitutionalCourtorganizesitsagendaandconductsitshearingswouldconstitutea ( violationoftheauthor'srighttoafairhearingwithinthemeaningofarticle14,paragraph  1,oftheCovenant.  5.TheCommitteethereforedecides: p!  (a)thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; <#" (b)thatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheauthorandhiscounseland,for %X $ information,totheStateparty. %>!% _____________ ' #' */ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent )$) communication:Mr.NisukeAndo,Mr.PrafullachandraN.Bhagwati,Mr.Thomas l*%* Buergenthal,Ms.ChristineChanet,LordColville,Ms.ElizabethEvatt,Ms.PilarGaitande R+&+ Pombo,Mr.EckartKlein,Mr.DavidKretzmer,Ms.CeciliaMedinaQuiroga,Mr.Fausto 8,', Pocar,Mr.MartinScheininandMr.MaxwellYalden. -n(- Ї1/JudgmentsoftheThirdChamberoftheSupremeCourtof19September1983and28  February1986,whichinterpretRoyalDecree909/1978inanextensivemanner,i.einfavour  oftheprinciple"proaperture". | 2/SeeinteraliatheCommittee'sdecisionincommunicationNo.58/1979(Anna H Maroufidouv.Sweden,paragraph10.1;Viewsadoptedon9April1981.) . ~ [AdoptedinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.  0 SubsequentlytobeissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee's    annualreporttotheGeneralAssembly.]