ÿWPC3  ƒW Xõ6’‹f„X2ŠÇw¤°IåSy¦æõ‰=â ù×ò?…#Abó@7®aÕBÙ¨ë'/eq 9Ôðºv==¶¿A¹Œ[º¹À é¤Áâ–>ÌøPž¼°{†acÏ­)ÞR\òD¸k.ê×¢tZ㥲Ý6?gú&8{ïG‹Üç¹âråÉ©¡zß”i€©ÚÒ“\[1µ“$WÐéRáM­|ë¶glº?’:‚ [Žw £›à jÌÉúMÃ⑛߮¨Éï0EùòáTBá×eœX8¿ M‹ðç`‡nÅNYy³f0ÄûN’W] ûCê±a=,$xtïŸýõZïüÃsxDþ¶' D\Ù¦Hé2ì"gœ 9hêbÿsJ{L´L´((Þ9°tü–“ˆ„Äç?öøât¦L^©<ùÃtñlE'„€Ü˜!ÆÄíýVüwΉ> ¸o\°FC£,@ k‘­U5xGΔîõ ¥p–·>¸¥=§G£Œ\Yš¬ìåF ¹êj\âóy¥9<~ö7!e|ÈÙÈ|ÅxÆÐ¨×Ù =(dHÿ!ðÈ“®™Õ²rºÌ|Ji´Y »Ödæ*¶ t”i"U>ÜÌ 0µæ 0<› 0Y× 0_0 0i 0PøÆH 0á 0(ï D+ AMB B B B B B B  0NŸ 0Æí #Á³ UNt %ÂMÈ(ÌNô^ öw4 mô\  `‹&Times New Roman' B. d. B. et al. v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 273/1989 (30 March 1989), U.N. Doc. 4rch 1989), U.N. Doc. "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(¹2R$££Ý ƒ6y!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X'XXXÔÔ€X'XXX'ÔÔÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿ#|x(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(ž6y$¡¡ÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X6eXXXÔÔ€X6eXXX6eÔÔÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÙØÙÙØÈÙ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX´{w) K‹k)c(„³CorelÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒ6y!ÝÒܰÒÒܰÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X'XXXÔÔ€X'XXX'ÔÔÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òHUMAN€RIGHTS€COMMITTEEÐ ° ÐÌòòB.€d.€B.€et€al.€v.€The€NetherlandsóóÐ |Ì ÐÌCommunication€No.€273/1989Ð H˜ ÐÌ30€March€1989Ð  d ÐÌÌADMISSIBILITYó óÐ Æ   ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€B.€d.€B.€òòet€al.óóÐ xÈ  ÐÌòòAlleged€victims:óó€The€authorsÐ D”  ÐÌòòState€party€concerned:óó€The€NetherlandsÐ ` ÐÌòòDate€of€Ô_Ôcommunication:óó14Ô_Ô€January€1988€(date€of€initial€letter)óóÐ Ü, ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Human€Rights€Committee,€óóestablished€under€article€28€of€the€International€CovenantÐ ŽÞ Ðon€Civil€and€Political€Rights,Ð tÄ ÐÌòòMeeting€óóon€30€March€1989Ð @ ÐÌòòAdopts€óóthe€following:Ð  \ ÐÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓDecision€on€admissibilityóóó óÐ ¾ ÐÓÓÌÌ1.€The€authors€of€the€communication€(initial€letter€dated€14€January€1988;€further€submissionÐ p!À  Ðdated€29€December€1988)€are€B.€d.€B.,€G.€B.,€C.€J.€K.€and€L.€P.€M.€W.,€four€Dutch€citizens.Ð V"¦! ÐThey€claim€to€be€the€victims€of€a€violation€by€the€Government€of€the€Netherlands€of€articlesÐ <#Œ" Ð14,€paragraph€1,€and€26€of€the€International€Covenant€on€Civil€and€Political€Rights.€They€areÐ "$r# Ðrepresented€by€counsel.Ð %X $ ÐÌ2.1€The€authors€are€joint€owners€of€the€Ô_ÔTelderswegÔ_Ô€physiotherapy€practice€in€Rotterdam.Ð Ô&$"& ÐThey€allege€that€they€have€been€discriminated€against€by€the€Industrial€Insurance€Board€forÐ º' #' ÐHealth€and€for€Mental€and€Social€Interests€(hereafter€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô)€and€the€Central€Appeals€BoardÐ  (ð#( Ð(Ô_ÔCenttaleÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔRaadÔ_Ô€van€Ô_ÔBeroepÔ_Ô)€because€of€the€way€in€which€social€security€contributionsÐ †)Ö$) Ðpayable€by€them€are€regulated€under€Netherlands€social€security€legislation.Ð l*¼%* ÐÌ2.2€The€authors€state€that€the€BVG,€as€the€executive€organ€of€the€social€security€insuranceÐ 8,ˆ', Ðlegislation,€has€the€task€of€assessing€social€insurance€claims€and€of€fixing€the€contributionsÐ -n(- Ðpayable€by€employers€to€finance€these€employees'€insurance€schemes.€Until€1984,€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðheld€the€view€that€part„time€physiotherapists€working€on€the€basis€of€a€collaboration€contractÐ –æ Ðwith€a€practitioner€were€not€in€employment;€there€was€thus€no€question€of€compulsoryÐ |Ì Ðinsurance€for€these€more€or€less€independent€collaborators€within€the€framework€of€the€saidÐ b² Ðemployees'€insurance€scheme.Ð H˜ ÐÌ2.3€This€situation€changed€on€19€April€1983,€when€the€Central€Appeals€Board€ruled€contraryÐ  d Ðto€what€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€had€previously€accepted,€that€part„time€physiotherapists€working€on€anÐ ú J Ðinvoicing€basis€were€in€fact€working€in€such€a€dependent€Ô_ÔsocioÔ_Ô„economic€position€òòvis„„visÐ à 0 Ðóóthe€owner€or€owners€of€the€practice€that€their€work€status€was€socially€comparable€toÐ Æ   Ðemployment€and€had€therefore€to€be€regarded€as€such€in€the€framework€of€social€securityÐ ¬ ü  Ðinsurance€legislation.€On€the€basis€of€this€judgement,€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€informed€the€nationalÐ ’â  Ðprofessional€organizations€of€physiotherapists€that€part„time€physiotherapists€working€on€anÐ xÈ  Ðinvoicing€basis€henceforth€would€have€to€be€insured€and€that€contributions€due€would€haveÐ ^®  Ðto€be€paid€by€the€owner€of€a€physiotherapy€practice€as€if€he€were€an€employer.€In€its€circular,Ð D”  Ðthe€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€announced€that€contributions€due€would€be€collected€from€January€1984,€on€theÐ *z  Ðunderstanding€that€those€required€to€pay€the€contributions€would€send€their€names€to€theÐ ` ÐÔ_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€before€1€January€1985.€The€collection€of€contributions€for€the€years€prior€to€1984Ð öF Ðwould€then€be€waived.Ð Ü, ÐÌ2.4€Despite€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€view€that,€from€1984€onwards,€there€was€no€longer€any€question€ofÐ ¨ø Ðsuch€a€special€situation€in€respect€of€the€obligation€for€owners€of€physiotherapy€practices€toÐ ŽÞ Ðpay€contributions,€the€authors€maintain€that€physiotherapists€are€still€treated€differently€withÐ tÄ Ðregard€to€the€date€of€commencement€of€the€obligation€to€contribute.€Thus,€it€has€becomeÐ Zª Ðapparent€that€those€physiotherapy€practices€which,€at€an€earlier€stage,€were€unambiguouslyÐ @ Ðinformed€in€writing€by€the€association€that€there€was€no€obligation€to€contribute,€wereÐ &v Ðregarded€as€liable€to€pay€the€first€contribution€in€1986,€whereas€practices€that€had€notÐ  \ Ðreceived€a€letter€sent€directly€by€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô,€in€which€they€were€informed€that€there€was€noÐ òB Ðsuch€obligation,€were€required€to€pay€contributions€retroactively€to€January€1984.Ð Ø( ÐÌ2.5€As€soon€as€the€complainants€learned€that,€in€the€former€case,€the€requirement€to€pay€theirÐ ¤ô Ðcontributions€could€have€begun€in€1986€and€thus€did€not€have€retroactive€effect€to€1€JanuaryÐ Š Ú Ð1984,€they€invoked€the€principle€of€equality€before€the€law,€by€means€of€the€appealsÐ p!À  Ðprocedure€then€prevailing€in€the€Central€Appeals€board.€They€argued€that€the€situation€inÐ V"¦! Ðtheir€practice€had€not€been€essentially€different€from€that€in€other€practices€which€hadÐ <#Œ" Ðlearned€directly€from€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€that€no€insurance€obligation€was€required€with€regard€to€theirÐ "$r# Ðpart„time€physiotherapists.€The€part„time€physiotherapist€who€collaborated€with€the€authorsÐ %X $ Ðhas€also€working€on€an€invoicing€basis,€as€others€who€collaborated€with€practices€that,€beforeÐ î%>!% Ð1983,€had€learned€directly€from€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€that€there€would€be€no€question€of€an€insuranceÐ Ô&$"& Ðobligation.Ð º' #' ÐÌ2.6€Despite€the€invocation€of€the€principle€of€equality€before€the€law,€the€Central€AppealsÐ †)Ö$) ÐBoard€held,€in€its€final€judgment€in€the€case€on€19€August€1987,€that€the€decision€by€theÐ l*¼%* ÐÔ_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€to€demand€contributions€from€the€complainants€with€retroactive€effect€to€1984€wasÐ R+¢&+ Ðbased€on€legal€rules€of€compulsory€nature€which€could€not€or€must€not€be€tested€againstÐ 8,ˆ', Ðgeneral€principles€of€law.Ð -n(- ÐÔ_Ô‡2.7€To€the€authors,€the€Central€Appeals€Board€thereby€implicitly€concluded€that€theÐ ° Ðacknowledged€difference€in€treatment€in€the€manner€of€demands€for€contributions€betweenÐ –æ Ðvarious€physiotherapy€practices€is€in€accordance€with€law.€The€authors€point€to€what€theyÐ |Ì Ðconsider€an€inconsistency€in€the€Central€Appeals€Board's€judgement.€On€the€one€hand,€theÐ b² ÐBoard€appears€to€take€the€view€that€the€application€of€compulsory€legal€rules€cannot€or€mustÐ H˜ Ðnot€be€tested€against€general€principles€of€law;€on€the€other€hand,€it€appears€from€establishedÐ . ~ Ðcase„law€that€such€rules€must€not€be€applied€if€they€are€in€conflict€with€the€principle€ofÐ  d Ðconfidence€in€the€law,€i.e.€the€principle€of€the€certainty€of€the€law.€The€authors€question€whyÐ ú J Ðowners€of€physiotherapy€practices€who€were€not€directly€informed€by€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€in€the€pastÐ à 0 Ðthat€part„time€physiotherapists€co„operating€with€them€were€not€subject€to€social€securityÐ Æ   Ðcontributions€should€be€subjected€to€different€and€less€Ô_ÔfavourableÔ_Ô€treatment€with€respect€toÐ ¬ ü  Ðcontributions€due€after€1984€than€those€practitioners€who€had€received€such€directÐ ’â  Ðinformation.Ð xÈ  ÐÌ2.8€The€authors€claim€that€since€the€principle€of€confidence€in€the€law€can,€under€certainÐ D”  Ðcircumstances,€prevent€the€application€of€compulsory€legal€rules,€it€is€all€the€more€surprisingÐ *z  Ðthat€this€does€not€apply€to€the€principle€of€equality€before€the€law,€enshrined€in€article€1€ofÐ ` Ðthe€Netherlands€Constitution€and€article€26€of€the€Covenant.€They€refer€to€the€decisionÐ öF Ðadopted€by€the€Human€Rights€Committee€o€9€April€1987€in€communication€No.€172/1984,Ð Ü, Ðwhich€states,€òòinter€alia,óó€that€article€26€of€the€Covenant€is€not€limited€to€the€civil€and€politicalÐ Â Ðrights€provided€for€in€the€Covenant€but€also€applies€to€social€insurance€law.€Concerning€theÐ ¨ø Ðdifferences€noted€above€in€the€treatment€of€owners€of€physiotherapy€practices€the€authorsÐ ŽÞ Ðallege€that€it€is€possible€to€speak€of€a€violation€of€article€26€in€conjunction€with€article€14,Ð tÄ Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Covenant.€They€contend€that€the€distinction€made€by€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€in€practiceÐ Zª Ðis€an€arbitrary€one.Ð @ ÐÌ3.€By€decision€dated€15€March€1988,€the€Working€Group€of€the€Human€Rights€CommitteeÐ  \ Ðtransmitted€the€communication€to€the€State€party€under€rule€91€of€the€Committee'sÐ òB Ðprovisional€rules€of€procedure,€requesting€information€and€observation€relevant€to€theÐ Ø( Ðquestion€of€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€By€note€date,€6€July€1988,€the€StateÐ ¾ Ðparty€requested€an€extension€of€three€months€for€the€submission€of€its€observations.Ð ¤ô ÐÌ4.1€In€its€submission€under€rule€91,€dated€28€October€1988,€the€State€party€objects€to€theÐ p!À  Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication€on€a€number€of€grounds.€Recapitulating€the€facts,€itÐ V"¦! Ðpoints€out€that€the€alleged€victims€are€joint€owners€of€a€physiotherapy€practice€where€a€part„Ð <#Œ" Ðtime€physiotherapist€worked€on€the€basis€of€a€co„operation€contract€as€from€1982;€she€wasÐ "$r# Ðpaid€by€invoice,€worked€more€or€less€independently€and€was€not€insured€as€an€employeeÐ %X $ Ðunder€social€security€legislation.€The€State€party€further€indicates€that€there€are€three€socialÐ î%>!% Ðsecurity€insurance€schemes:€schemes€paid€out€of€public€funds,€national€insurance€schemesÐ Ô&$"& Ðand€employee€insurance€schemes.€Unlike€the€first€two,€employee€insurance€schemes€are€onlyÐ º' #' Ðapplicable€where€there€is€an€employer/employee€relationship.€Both€employer€and€employeeÐ  (ð#( Ðpay€part€of€the€employment€insurance€contribution,€determined€in€accordance€with€aÐ †)Ö$) Ðstandard€formula.€This€contribution€is€calculated€as€a€certain€percentage€of€the€employee'sÐ l*¼%* Ðincome€and€is€payable€to€the€competent€industrial€insurance€board.Ð R+¢&+ ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€explains€that€for€the€purpose€of€determining€who,€as€an€employee,€shouldÐ -n(- Ðpay€employment€insurance€contributions,€a€broad€definition€of€the€term€"employment"€isÐ ° Ðused.€It€is€not€confined€to€situations€in€which€there€is€an€employment€contract€governed€byÐ –æ Ðcivil€law€but€also€extends€to€co„operative€relationships€that€meet€certain€criteria€defined€byÐ |Ì Ðthe€relevant€act€of€parliament€or€the€executive€rules€and€regulations€based€on€it;€inÐ b² Ðaccordance€with€these€criteria,€employment€relationships€not€governed€by€employmentÐ H˜ Ðcontracts€can€be€equated€with€those€that€entail,€with€all€the€relevant€consequences€concerningÐ . ~ Ðentitlement€to€benefits,€an€obligation€to€pay€contributions.Ð  d ÐÌ4.3€In€the€past€it€had€been€generally€assumed€that€a€physiotherapist€working€forÐ à 0 Ðphysiotherapy€practice€who€was€paid€by€invoice€should€not€normally€be€regarded€as€beingÐ Æ   Ðemployed€by€the€practice.€However,€the€Central€Appeals€Board€took€a€different€view€in€itsÐ ¬ ü  Ðjudgment€of€19€April€1983.€The€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€is€entrusted€with€the€implementation€of€social€securityÐ ’â  Ðlegislation€with€regard€to€employees€in€the€health€sector€and€must€determine€the€socialÐ xÈ  Ðinsurance€contributions€of€employers€and€employees€for€employee€insurance€schemes€suchÐ ^®  Ðas€medical€insurance,€disability€insurance€and€unemployment€insurance€contributions.€AsÐ D”  Ðfrom€1€January€1984,€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€claimed€these€contributions€from€the€applicants€for€theÐ *z  Ðaforementioned€physiotherapist.€The€applicants€did€not€agree€that€this€date€was€correct€andÐ ` Ðcontested€the€decision€on€the€grounds,€òòinter€alia,óó€that€the€principle€of€equality€had€beenÐ öF Ðviolated€because€other€physiotherapists€had€only€been€required€to€pay€contributions€as€fromÐ Ü, Ð1986.€The€court€of€first€instance,€the€Board€of€Appeals€and€the€court€of€second€and€lastÐ Â Ðinstance,€the€Central€Appeals€Board,€dismissed€the€case.€The€main€reason€for€the€dismissalÐ ¨ø Ðof€the€case€was€that€peremptory€statutory€provisions€had€been€properly€applied,€that€suchÐ ŽÞ Ðprovisions€must€always€be€applied€unless€there€are€special€circumstances,€and€that€theseÐ tÄ Ðwere€lacking€in€the€authors'€case.Ð Zª ÐÌ4.4€With€respect€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€State€partyÐ &v Ðacknowledges€that€the€authors€pursued€legal€proceedings€up€to€the€court€of€last€instance.€ItÐ  \ Ðpoints€out,€however,€that€the€authors€did€not€invoke€either€article€26€or€article€14,€paragraphÐ òB Ð1,€before€the€Board€of€Appeal€and,€on€appeal,€before€the€Central€Appeals€Board.€It€wasÐ Ø( Ðmerely€in€a€supplementary€petition€to€the€Central€Appeals€Board,€dated€29€April€1987,€thatÐ ¾ Ðthe€principle€of€equality€was€also€mentioned,€if€only€in€general€terms€and€without€specificÐ ¤ô Ðreference€to€provisions€of€domestic€or€international€law.€Nor€were€the€articles€of€theÐ Š Ú ÐCovenant€invoked€by€the€authors€in€either€of€the€judgements€given€in€the€case.€In€theseÐ p!À  Ðcircumstances,€the€State€party€does€not€"consider€it€to€be€altogether€clear€that€the€applicantsÐ V"¦! Ðnave€exhausted€domestic€remedies,€as€they€did€not€explicitly€invoke€any€provisions€of€theÐ <#Œ" ÐCovenant€during€domestic€proceedings".€The€State€party€requests€the€Committee€to€decideÐ "$r# Ðon€whether€and€to€what€extent€authors€of€a€communication€must€invoke€the€provisions€of€theÐ %X $ ÐCovenant€purported€to€have€been€violated€in€the€course€of€domestic€legal€proceedings.Ð î%>!% ÐÌ4.5€With€respect€to€the€alleged€violations€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€and€article€26,€the€StateÐ º' #' Ðparty€contests€that€the€actions€complained€of€by€the€authors€can€be€brought€within€the€scopeÐ  (ð#( Ðof€application€of€these€provisions€and€thus€considers€the€communication€to€be€inadmissibleÐ †)Ö$) Ðpursuant€to€articles€2€and€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.€With€respect€to€article€14,€paragraphÐ l*¼%* Ð1,€first€sentence,€it€points€out€that€article€14€is€concerned€with€procedural€guarantees€forÐ R+¢&+ Ðtrials€and€not€with€the€substance€of€judgements€handed€down€by€the€courts.€Individuals€whoÐ 8,ˆ', Ðbelieve€that€the€law€has€been€wrongly€applied€to€them€in€the€Netherlands€may€seek€redressÐ -n(- Ðthrough€the€courts.€The€rules€governing€appeals€against€decisions€under€social€securityÐ ° Ðlegislation€are€laid€down€in€the€Appeals€Act€of€1955.€The€State€party€emphasizes€that€it€hasÐ –æ Ðnot€been€alleged€that€the€Board€of€Appeal€or€the€Central€Appeals€Board€failed€to€observeÐ |Ì Ðthese€rules,€which€are€compatible€with€article€14,€and€that€there€is€no€evidence€that€theÐ b² Ðboards€failed€to€observe€them.Ð H˜ ÐÌ4.6€With€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€26,€the€State€party€questions€the€authors'Ð  d Ðapparent€assumption€that€article€26€also€applies€to€the€contributions€that€employers€andÐ ú J Ðemployees€are€required€to€make,€and€invites€the€Committee€to€give€its€opinion€on€thisÐ à 0 Ðquestion.€It€further€indicates€that€the€authors€do€not€appear€to€have€complained€about€theÐ Æ   Ðsubstance€of€the€statutory€provisions€concerning€mandatory€social€insurance€but€only€aboutÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€fact€that€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€set€1€January€1984€as€the€date€from€which€contributions€were€payable.Ð ’â  ÐThe€issue€thus€is€whether€the€application€of€a€law€which€is€not€in€itself€discriminatory€andÐ xÈ  Ðwhich€the€Central€Appeals€Board€considers€to€have€been€correct€can€run€counter€to€articleÐ ^®  Ð26.€Earlier€communications€concerning€Netherlands€social€security€legislation€submitted€toÐ D”  Ðthe€Committee€a/€related€to€provisions€laid€down€by€an€act€of€parliament€which€the€authorsÐ *z  Ðdeemed€to€be€discriminatory.€The€present€communication,€however,€does€not€relate€to€theÐ ` Ðprovision's€substance,€which€is€neutral,€but€to€the€application€of€social€security€legislationÐ öF Ðby€an€industrial€insurance€board.€The€State€party€invites€the€Committee€to€formulate€itsÐ Ü, Ðopinion€on€this€point€and€refers€to€the€Committee's€decision€in€communication€No.Ð Â Ð212/1986,€where€it€was€stated,€òòinter€alia,óó€that€the€scope€of€article€26€of€the€Covenant€doesÐ ¨ø Ðnot€extend€to€differences€of€results€in€the€application€of€common€rules€in€the€allocation€ofÐ ŽÞ Ðbenefits.€b/€This€statement,€according€to€the€State€party,€should€apply€all€the€more€toÐ tÄ Ðsituations€in€which€social€insurance€contributions€are€determined€by€an€industrial€insuranceÐ Zª Ðboard.Ð @ ÐÌ4.7€The€State€party€expresses€doubts€as€to€whether€an€action€by€an€industrial€insurance€boardÐ  \ Ðcan€be€attributed€to€its€State€organs,€in€the€sense€that€the€State€party€could€be€held€liable€forÐ òB Ðit€under€the€Covenant€or€the€Optional€Protocol€thereto.€In€this€context,€it€emphasizes€that€anÐ Ø( Ðindustrial€insurance€board€such€as€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€is€not€a€State€organ:€such€boards€are€merelyÐ ¾ Ðassociations€of€employers€and€employees€established€for€the€specific€purpose€ofÐ ¤ô Ðimplementing€social€security€legislation,€and€the€management€of€such€a€board€consistsÐ Š Ú Ðexclusively€of€representatives€of€the€employers'€and€employees'€organizations.€IndustrialÐ p!À  Ðinsurance€boards€operate€independently€and€there€is€no€way€in€which€the€State€party'sÐ V"¦! Ðauthorities€could€influence€concrete€decisions€such€as€that€complained€of€by€the€authors.Ð <#Œ" ÐÌ5.1€Commenting€on€the€State€party's€Observations,€the€authors,€in€a€submission€dated€29Ð %X $ ÐDecember€1988,€affirm€that€it€was€not€necessary€for€them€to€invoke€either€the€principle€ofÐ î%>!% Ðequality€or€article€26€of€the€Covenant€in€domestic€proceedings.€In€Netherlands€administrativeÐ Ô&$"& Ðlaw,€the€principle€of€equality€has€traditionally€been€a€legal€standard€against€which€the€courtsÐ º' #' Ðtest€the€administrative€practices€of€governmental€authorities.€They€consider€it€to€beÐ  (ð#( Ðunnecessary€to€invoke,€in€administrative€procedures,€sources€of€law€that€embody€theÐ †)Ö$) Ðprinciple€of€equality,€since€the€judge€is€bound€to€accept€this€principle€and€should€òòex€officioóóÐ l*¼%* Ðtest€the€case€against€it.€The€fact€that€the€contested€judgements€do€not€refer€to€the€provisionsÐ R+¢&+ Ðof€the€Covenant€is,€therefore,€irrelevant.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐÐ -n(- Ð5.2€With€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€14,€first€sentence,€of€the€Covenant,€theÐ ° Ðauthors€acknowledge€that€the€provisions€of€article€14€contain€further€guarantees€intended€toÐ –æ Ðsecure€the€conduct€of€a€fair€trial€and€add€that€they€have€no€reason€to€complain€about€theÐ |Ì Ðconduct€of€the€judicial€proceedings€as€such.€They€reiterate,€however,€that€the€judicial€reviewÐ b² Ðof€general€principles€of€justice€in€their€case€by€the€Central€Appeals€Board€was€contradictory,Ð H˜ Ðand€that€the€Board€treated€them€differently€from€others€and,€therefore,€unequally.Ð . ~ ÐÌ5.3€The€authors€further€reject€the€State€party's€contention€that€the€communication€should€beÐ ú J Ðdeclared€inadmissible€because€it€was€directed€against€discriminatory€application€ofÐ à 0 Ðlegislation€which€in€itself€is€neutral.€They€refer€to€the€Committee's€decision€inÐ Æ   Ðcommunication€No.€172/1984€c/€which€stipulated,€òòinter€aliaóó€that€"article€26€is€concerned€withÐ ¬ ü  Ðthe€obligations€imposed€on€States€in€regard€to€their€legislation€and€the€application€thereof".Ð ’â  ÐWith€respect€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€because€it€left€the€implementation€of€someÐ xÈ  Ðaspects€of€social€security€legislation€to€industrial€insurance€boards€and€is€therefore€unableÐ ^®  Ðto€exercise€influence€on€concrete€decisions€adopted€by€such€boards,€they€argue€that€the€mereÐ D”  Ðinability€to€supervise€the€implementation€of€social€security€legislation€by€industrial€insuranceÐ *z  Ðboards€cannot€detract€from€the€fact€that€the€State€party€is€responsible€for€seeing€to€it€thatÐ ` Ðthese€bodies€charged€with€the€implementation€of€the€law€perform€their€statutory€assignmentsÐ öF Ðin€conformity€with€legal€standards.€Where€loopholes€become€apparent,€it€is€for€the€legislatorÐ Ü, Ðto€eliminate€them.€Therefore,€according€to€the€authors,€the€State€party€should€not€be€allowedÐ Â Ðto€claim€that€it€cannot€influence€the€decisions€of€bodies€such€as€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô.€Were€this€to€beÐ ¨ø Ðallowed,€it€would€be€easy€for€States€parties€to€undermine€the€"basic€rights"€of€their€citizens.Ð ŽÞ ÐThe€authors€conclude€that€in€their€case,€the€State€party€seeks€to€deny€its€responsibility€for€theÐ tÄ Ðconcrete€application€of€social€security€legislation€by€invoking€a€situation€which€it€hadÐ Zª Ðcreated€itself.Ð @ ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Human€RightsÐ  \ ÐCommittee€shall,€in€accordance€with€rule€87€of€its€provisional€rules€of€procedure,€decideÐ òB Ðwhether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Optional€Protocol€to€the€Covenant.Ð Ø( ÐÌ6.2€The€Committee€has€ascertained,€as€it€is€required€to€do€under€article€5,€paragraph€2€(a),Ð ¤ô Ðof€the€Optional€Protocol,€that€the€same€matter€is€not€being€examined€under€anotherÐ Š Ú Ðprocedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.Ð p!À  ÐÌ6.3€With€respect€to€the€requirement€of€exhaustion€of€domestic€remedies,€the€committee€hasÐ <#Œ" Ðtaken€note€of€the€State€party's€argument€that€it€is€doubtful€whether€the€authors€have€compliedÐ "$r# Ðwith€article€5,€paragraph€2€(b),€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€given€that€they€did€not€invoke€anyÐ %X $ Ðprovisions€of€the€Covenant€in€the€course€of€domestic€proceedings.€The€Committee€observesÐ î%>!% Ðthat€whereas€authors€must€invoke€the€substantive€rights€contained€in€the€Covenant,€they€areÐ Ô&$"& Ðnot€required,€for€purposes€of€the€Optional€Protocol,€necessarily€to€do€so€by€reference€toÐ º' #' Ðspecific€articles€of€the€Covenant.Ð  (ð#( ÐÌ6.4€With€regard€to€an€alleged€violation€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Covenant,€theÐ l*¼%* ÐCommittee€notes€that€while€the€authors€have€complained€about€the€outcome€of€the€judicialÐ R+¢&+ Ðproceedings,€they€acknowledge€that€procedural€guarantees€were€observed€in€their€conduct.Ð 8,ˆ', ÐThe€Committee€observes€that€article€14€of€the€covenant€guarantees€procedural€equality€butÐ -n(- Ðcannot€be€interpreted€as€guaranteeing€equality€of€results€or€absence€of€error€on€the€part€ofÐ ° Ðthe€competent€tribunal.€Thus,€this€aspect€of€the€authors'€communication€falls€outside€theÐ –æ Ðscope€of€application€of€article€14€and€is,€therefore,€inadmissible€under€article€3€of€theÐ |Ì ÐOptional€Protocol.Ð b² ÐÌ6.5€With€regard€to€an€alleged€violation€of€article€26,€the€Committee€recalls€that€its€firstÐ . ~ Ðsentence€stipulates€that€"all€persons€are€entitled€without€discrimination€to€the€equalÐ  d Ðprotection€of€the€law".€In€this€connection,€it€observes€that€this€provision€should€beÐ ú J Ðinterpreted€to€cover€not€only€entitlements€which€individuals€entertain€òòvis„„vis€óóthe€State€butÐ à 0 Ðalso€obligations€assumed€by€them€pursuant€to€law.€Concerning€the€State€party's€argumentÐ Æ   Ðthat€the€Ô_ÔBVGÔ_Ô€is€not€a€State€organ€and€that€the€Government€cannot€influence€concreteÐ ¬ ü  Ðdecisions€of€industrial€insurance€boards,€the€Committee€observes€that€a€State€party€is€notÐ ’â  Ðrelieved€of€its€obligations€under€the€Covenant€when€some€of€its€functions€are€delegated€toÐ xÈ  Ðother€autonomous€organs.Ð ^®  ÐÌ6.6€The€authors€complain€about€the€application€to€them€of€legal€rules€of€a€compulsoryÐ *z  Ðnature,€which€for€unexplained€reasons€were€allegedly€not€applied€uniformly€to€some€otherÐ ` Ðphysiotherapy€practices;€regardless€of€whether€the€apparent€non„application€of€theÐ öF Ðcompulsory€rules€on€insurance€contributions€in€other€cases€may€have€been€right€or€wrong,Ð Ü, Ðit€has€not€been€alleged€that€these€rules€were€incorrectly€applied€to€the€authors€following€theÐ Â ÐCentral€Appeals€Board's€ruling€of€19€April€1983€that€part„time€physiotherapists€were€to€beÐ ¨ø Ðdeemed€employees€and€that€their€employers€were€liable€for€social€security€contributions;Ð ŽÞ Ðfurthermore,€the€Committee€is€not€competent€to€examine€errors€allegedly€committed€in€theÐ tÄ Ðapplication€of€laws€concerning€persons€other€than€the€authors€of€a€communication.Ð Zª ÐÌ6.7€The€Committee€also€recalls€that€article€26,€second€sentence,€provides€that€the€law€ofÐ &v ÐStates€parties€should€"guarantee€to€all€persons€equal€and€effective€protection€againstÐ  \ Ðdiscrimination€on€any€ground€such€as€race,€Ô_ÔcolourÔ_Ô,€sex,€language,€religion,€political€or€otherÐ òB Ðopinion,€national€or€social€origin,€property,€birth€or€other€status".€The€Committee€notes€thatÐ Ø( Ðthe€authors€have€not€claimed€that€their€different€treatment€was€attributable€to€their€belongingÐ ¾ Ðto€any€identifiably€distinct€category€which€could€have€exposed€them€to€discrimination€onÐ ¤ô Ðaccount€of€any€of€the€grounds€enumerated€or€"other€status"€referred€to€in€article€26€of€theÐ Š Ú ÐCovenant.€The€Committee,€therefore,€finds€this€aspect€of€the€authors'€communication€to€beÐ p!À  Ðinadmissible€under€article€3€of€the€Optional€Protocol.Ð V"¦! ÐÌ7.€The€Human€Rights€Committee€therefore€decides:Ð "$r# ÐÌ(a)€That€the€communication€is€inadmissible;Ð î%>!% ÐÌ(b)€That€this€decision€shall€be€communicated€to€the€State€party€and€to€the€authors.Ð º' #' ÐÌÌòòNotesóóÐ l*¼%* ÐÌa/€€€Communications€Nos.€172/1984€(Ô_ÔBroeksÔ_Ô),€180/1984€(Ô_ÔDanningÔ_Ô)€and€Ô_Ô1B2Ô_Ô/1984€(Ô_ÔZwaanÔ_Ô„deÐ 8,ˆ', ÐVries),€final€views€adopted€on€9€April€1987€(twenty„ninth€session).Ð -n(- Їb/€€€òòP.P.€C.€v.€the€Netherlands,€óóinadmissibility€decision€adopted€on€24€March€1988€(thirty„Ð ° Ðsecond€session),€para.€6.2.Ð –æ ÐÌc/€€€See€note€1;€Committee's€final€views€(twenty„ninth€session),€para.€12.3.