Communication No. 53/1979 Submitted byx К. В. on 16 June 1979 Alleged victim: The author State party: Norway Date of decision on inadmissibility: 14 August 1979 (seventh session) the Supreme Court was rejected by the Judicial Select Appeals Committee on 20 March 1979. A petition for a review of the decision of the Judicial Select Appeals Committee was dismissed. Property rights—Inadmissibility ratione materiae The author of the communication, dated 16 June 1979, is a Norwegian citizen living in Norway, who in­ herited a flat in Oslo in 1964, close to her home. She was separated from her husband in 1975 after 26 years of marriage. In December 1976, he sought by proceedings before the Oslo Town Court to obtain the right, against the author's will, to move into her flat, as a tenant. The flat had been rented to unrelated persons since it came into the ownership of the author. In a judgement delivered in December 1977, the Oslo Town Court re­ jected his claim. The author alleges that the decision of the Court of Appeals, having the effect of depriving her of the right to dispose of her property, constitutes a breach of ar­ ticles 2 (1), 3 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Human Rights Committee observes that the right to dispose of property, as such, is not protected by any provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The marriage was dissolved by divorce in February 1978, and by way of an administrative settlement by the special court for matrimonial estates, the flat inherited by the author was assigned to her as her property. A thorough examination of the communication has not revealed any facts in substantiation of the author's claim that she is a victim of a breach by the State party of articles 2 (1), 3 or 26 of the Covenant or of any other rights protected by the Covenant. The ex-husband appealed against the judgement of the Oslo Town Court to the Court of Appeals, which in November 1978 granted him the right to move into the flat and, for that purpose, to deal directly with the present tenants. The author's application to appeal to The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. NINTH SESSION Communication No. 59/1979 Submitted by: K. L. on 27 November 1978 Alleged victim: The author State party: Denmark Date of decision on inadmissibility: 26 March 1980 (ninth session) Discrimination—Taxation—Unsubstantiated tions allega­ sought to brand him as a mentally disturbed person and thereby to ruin his social standing, in particular to the detriment of his opportunities to further his studies and to be gainfully employed. He also claims that the fact that his name has repeatedly been misspelled by Danish authorities is yet another manifestation of the discriminatory treatment he has been subjected to. The author of the communication (consisting of numerous complaints dated between 27 November 1978 and 14 February 1980), K. L., is a Danish citizen of Swedish descent, born on 28 November 1945. He directs his complaints against various pubhc officials, municipal and State authorities from several branches of Government in Denmark on the ground, inter alia, that they have persistently subjected him to discrimina­ tion, because of his ethnic, religious and national background and for political reasons, the Danish authorities being allegedly permeated with radical leftist political ideology and consequently holding persons like the author, who do not claim to hold left wing political convictions, in disfavour. As evidence of the conspiracy against him, the author mentions, among many other alleged facts, that Danish authorities have for years One of the author's complaints is that, at the request of his sister and with the aid of the police, he was unlawfully brought to a hospital and kept there against his will for seven days (25 February to 4 March 1977), during which period he was subjected to a medical ex­ amination on account of an alleged mental illness. He sought unsuccessfully to obtain compensation for the enforced and involuntary detention and alleges that the failure to grant him compensation constitutes violations by the State party of articles 9 (1), 9 (5), 10 (1), 14 (1), 17(1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and 24