CCPR/C/31/D/243/1987

article 13. With re,pect. to article 14, ~he Committ•• not.~ that even if immigration hearing, and de~o~·tat1on proc"ecUng. were to b' de.med to I:on.tltute "Iuit. at It\w'' within th. m.anlng ot artiole 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, •• the author contend., a thorou9h e.amination of the communication hb. not revealed any fact. In .ub.tanti.tion of the author'. claim th~t he ia the victim of a viOlation ot thi. article. In part~cular. it .merge. from the author'. own .ubmi••ion. that he wa. given ampl. opportunity, in formdl proceeding., including oral hearingl with witn~•• te.timony, both before the Adjudicator and before the Canadian Court., to pre.ent hi. ca.e for ~ojou~n in Canada. Mith re.pect to article. 18 and 19 of the Covenant, the Committ.e note. that the author hn. not .ubmitted any evidence to .ub.tantiatei:ow hi•••erci.e of fr.edom of conlcience or e.pre••ion ha. been re.tricted in Canada. Hie apparent contention that the ~~portation proc••ding. re.ulted from the State party'. di.approval of hi. po.\itical opinion. i. refuted by the State party'. uncontalted .tatement that, a. early •• Nov.mber 1980, he had been e.cluded from re-entering Canada on clear national .ecurity ground. (para. 4.2 above). Deportation of an ~lien on .ecurity ground. doe. not con_titute an interference with the right. guarant.ed by article. 18 and 19 of the C~venant. With r~.pect to article. 2 and 2& of the Covenant, the author ha_ failed to e.tablieh h~w the deportation of an 31ien on national .ecurity ground8 con.titutft8 4ilcrimination. 7. Th. Human Right. Committ.e therefore decid.'1 (a) That the communication i8 inadmi••ibl. und.r articl•• 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol becau.e the author'. claim_ are either un.ub.tantiated or incompatible with the provi.ion. of the Covenantl (b) That thi. decl.ion .hall b. communicated to the author of the communication and to the State parly. \1. Communication ..litJ..__-1.4.J.l.liJl,1.L .1i..._...a.•. _y.•.J.1'JLU~ (nlci.ioD, adopted OJl,..5.....1l0y.mb.r.,_19.JlL...A.t.......t.Jw thirty-fir.t"e••ioD)* Submitted bYI S. R. [name deleted] UAt.LJlt,CWllDUAlcatloDI 26 Augu8t 1987 Iha-HwmAD BlghtJL,Comml~, e.tabli8hed under article 28 of the International Covennnt on Civil and Political Right8, ~t.lAg on 5 November 1981, Ado»!. the followingl * Pur.uant to rule 85 of the provisional rul•• of procedur., Committee member Chri.tlne Chanet did not tak8 part in the ado~tlon of the deci8ion. -263 .. Decision on admissibility 1. The author of the communication (initial 10tters dated 1, 7 and 26 October 1987) is S. 14 October 1956, at present living in Paris. violation by the French Government of article and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil letter dated 26 August 1987; further R., a French citizen born on He claims to be a victim of a 1, paragraphs 1 to 3, articles 24, 26 and Political Rights. 2,1 The author is a teacher of French literature and of the Breton language at two high schools in the Greater Paris area. He states that upon the recommendation of the French Ministry of Education, he obtained authorization to teach French literature, which also permitted him to teach Breton, on a part-time basis. For four years, he was able to teach Breton on this basis, although, as he claims, the director of the competent office within the Ministry of Education (Mission de l'action culturelle et des cultures et langues regionales) had promised the creation of a full-time post for the teaching of Breton. That post was not, however, established, although its creation was possible, in the author's opinion, given the anticipated increase in the number of students learning the Breton language at the high school of Enghien and the scheduled creation of a Breton course at the Academy of Versailles. 2.2 In the spring of 1987 (no exact date is given, although the most likely date appears to be early May 1987), the Ministry of Education decided to transfer the author from the Academy of Versailles to the Academy of Lil1e, where he was to be expected to teach only French with effect from the school year 1987/88, but the Rector of the Academy of Versailles, by telex of 17 June 1987 to the Ministry of Education, asked that the author be kept at his present post and requested th~ ~reation of a fUll-time teaching post for Breton. By a decision of 15 September 1987, the author was reinstated in the Academy of Versailles to teach French literature 11 hours per week and Breton six hours per week for the school year 1987/88. He claims that nina hours per week for the teaching of Breton would have been available, but that the Rectorate of the Academy refused to let him teach Breton at the High School of Nanterre aDd instead ordered him to teach French. The Rectorate has also decided to evaluate his performance as a teacher of French and not, as he had requested, as a teacher of Breton. By decision of 6 October 1987, the Ministry of Education formalized the decision of the Academy. It is now threatening to dismiss him. 2.3 The author states that there was a growing demand for the teaching of Breton among high school students, illustrated by the fact that the nuber of high school students who took final school exams (epreuves de Baccalaureat) in Breton in the Paris area rose from 50 in 1985 to 133 in June 1987. 2.4 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author does not state whether he has submitted his case to an administrative tribunal, nor does he state what kind of judicial remedies would be open to him. He attaches copies of an extensive correspondence with the competent authorities in the Ministry of Education as well as copies of numerous - unsuccessful - interventions on his behalf by Deputies of the National Assembly, Mayors and Senators. Although he acknowledges that he has not exhausted domestic remedies, he points to the urgont character of his communication, as he seeks to defend the "civil rights" of students to follow courses in Breton from the beginning of the school year 1987/88. -264- 2.5 The author .tate. that he ha. not .ubmitted hi. ca.e to anoth8r procedure ot international inve.ti9ation ur .ettlement. 3.1 Before conli6er1ng eny claiml contained in a communication, the Human Rightft Committee must, in aocordance with rule 87 of itl provilional rule. of procedure, decide whether or nQt it i. admillible under the Optional Protoool to the Covenant. 3.2 The Committetl oblervee in t.hh connection and on the bait.. of the information before it thllt the Ilutl~or. ha. not lubmitted hie ca.e to any French adminiltrative tr ibunal. I t ha. noted the author' e contention, in hi, le ':.ter of 26 AUCjluet 1987, that hiB communiC6tion prelenle a chal'acter of urCjlency beoauee of an a11eCjled civil right of Itudente to take COUf3e. in the Br.ton lanCjluage ("4roit'~1yil dee '1'~ 11'.obttlliI: un en.eignement.-_.l1L.DL'i.t.OJl"). :.. .. notee, however, that, .t.n the particular circumstance. di.clolld by the communication, the author'. contention de,e. not absolve him from purluing hi. ca.e betore the French courta and f~om e~h.uetlng whatever remedies are available to him. The Committee hal not anouCjlh infor~atJ.on to find that the application of luch remedies would be unreaeonably prolonCjled and conclud~s that the requirement. of article ~, parft9raph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have not been met. 4. The Human Rights Committee therefore deci~e'l (a) That the communication iD inadmieeible, (b) That thie dechion Ihall be co.Nnunlcated to the author and, for informatlol to the State party. H. COIOlUlWJ.CAtlullli.a. ._~.rul.9.Jll...R._I .....~.•.~. Y.L...tU.....tl.thu:land. (Ua.cJ.aJ..wl--A\1Q».t.eiLo.lL.5..NoVUllaL-lil.1 at the thitl.Y.=.ll.ut .'la.iOll)· 5~lttedDYI R. T. Z. [name deleted] Allegod VJ.ct.iml The autlwr DAta 0' communicAtion I 1 Oct~ber 19&7 'Ibo Uwncw Ri\Jbt.1 CgmmiU.e, e ..tab! hhed undtu' ftl t.icl. 28 of the Internat.lonftl Coven~nt on Civil and Political Right., Maeting on !j NovembfH 1987, Adapt, the {ollowlngl " Punwftnt to ("uht 85 of the pruvialonal r'ulell of procedure, COfMlittee membtH Joseph Mommer'steeg c\ld not takilt part in the adoption ot the deci.ion.