standing discrimination clause similar to article 26 of the Covenant cannot be found in the European Convention. Furthermore, article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant guarantees a right to equality before the courts which is unique in its form. By reference to the Committee’s decision in Nahlik v. Austria,6 the author adds that the scope of applicability of that provision has been interpreted more broadly than that of article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention. Author’s comments 5.1 By letter of 15 October 2001, the author responded to the State party’s submission, reiterating that, based on the ordinary meaning as well as the context of the State party’s reservation, the Committee is not precluded from examining his communication. He insists that the Austrian reservation does not apply to his communication since the same matter was never “examined” by the European Commission. He compares the Austrian reservation to similar but broader reservations to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol made by 16 other States parties to the European Convention, and submits that the State party is the only one that refers to an examination “by the European Commission of Human Rights”. State party’s observations 4.1 By note verbale of 17 September 2001, the State party made its submission on the admissibility of the communication. It considers that the Committee’s competence to examine the communication is precluded by article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol read in conjunction with the Austrian reservation to that provision. 4.2 The State party argues that the reservation is applicable to the communication because the author has already brought the same matter before the European Commission of Human Rights, resulting in the subsequent examination of the application by the European Court of Human Rights, which assumed the tasks of the Commission following the reorganization of the Strasbourg organs pursuant to Protocol No. 11. 5.2 The author considers it irrelevant that the State party, when entering its reservation, intended to prevent a simultaneous and successive consideration of the same facts by the Strasbourg organs and the Committee, arguing that the intent of the party making a reservation is merely a supplemental means of interpretation under article 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which may only be utilized when an interpretation pursuant to article 31 of the Vienna Convention (ordinary meaning, context, and object and purpose) proves insufficient. 4.3 In the State party’s opinion, the fact that the European Court rejected the application as being inadmissible, does not mean that the Court has not “examined” the author’s complaints, as required by the Austrian reservation. The Court’s reasoning that “there is no appearance of a violation of the applicant’s rights”7 and that the matters complained of “do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols”8 clearly showed that the decision to dismiss the application on grounds of admissibility “also comprises far reaching aspects on the merits”. 5.3 By reference to the jurisprudence of the European and the Inter-American Courts of Human Rights, the author emphasizes that reservations to human rights treaties must be interpreted in favour of the individual. Any attempt to broaden the scope of the Austrian reservation must therefore be rejected, especially since the Committee disposes of adequate procedural devices to prevent an improper use of parallel proceedings at its disposal, such as the concepts of “substantiation of claims” and “abuse of the right to petition”, in addition to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 4.4 While admitting that the European Court did not examine the nature of the disciplinary proceedings against the author, the State party emphasizes the Court’s finding that it cannot be held responsible for disputes between private employers, such as the Regional Health Insurance Board for Workers and Employees, and their employees. 5.4 The author concludes that the communication is admissible in the light of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, since the Austrian reservation does not come into play. Subsidiarily, he submits that the communication is admissible insofar as it relates to the alleged violations of his rights in the disciplinary proceedings, and to the lack of an effective remedy to have these proceedings reviewed by a court of law, because the European Court of human Rights failed to examine his complaints in that regard. 6 Communication No. 608/1995, decision adopted on 22 July 1996, at para. 8.2. Additional observations by the parties 7 See European Court of Human Rights, 3rd Section, decision on admissibility, Application No. 30370/96 (Walter A.F. Kollar v. Austria), 17 March 2000, at para. 2. 8 6.1 By note verbale of 30 January 2002, the State party made an additional submission on the admissibility of the communication in which it See ibid., para. 3. 24