CCPR/C/114/D/2183/2012 7.2 On 25 January 2015, the author submitted his comments on the information provided by the State party concerning his submission to the European Court of Human Rights. He stated that because his complaint to the European Court had been registered only on 25 March 2014, he had considered that there was no case pending before the Court when submitting his complaint to the Committee. He did not reply to the letter from the European Court asking him to confirm his standing interest in having his complaint considered by the Court, believing that if his reply was not received, the Court would discontinue his case. 7.3 On 16 February 2015, the author transmitted to the Committee his letter to the European Court, dated the same day, in which he asks the Court to discontinue consideration of his complaint. The author insists on having his communication considered by the Committee.4 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must determine, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 In accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that while submitting his initial communication in April 2012, the author stated explicitly that he did not submit a similar complaint to any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. Nevertheless, on 15 December 2014, the State party informed the Committee that a similar complaint had been filed by the author with the European Court of Human Rights in May 2010 and had been registered by the Court as application No. 43325/10. The Committee also notes that the author informed the Committee about the request to discontinue consideration of his case that he allegedly sent to the Court on 16 February 2015. However, according to the information on file, the case remains pending before the Court. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that where the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, the Committee has no competence to deal with a communication under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.5 In the light of the information before it, the Committee considers that it is precluded from considering the present communication by virtue of article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author of the communication. 4 5 6 On 27 February 2015, the Registry of the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that the author’s case was still pending before the Court. See, for example, communication No. 1573/2007, Šroub v. the Czech Republic, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 October 2009, para. 8.2.