Communication No. 395/1990 Submitted by: M. Th. Sprenger Date of communication: 8 February 1990 Alleged victim: The author State party: The Netherlands Date of adoption of Views: 31 March 1992 (forty-fourth session) applicable under the State Group Regulations for Unemployed Persons. Her companion was, through his employment, insured under the Health Insurance Act. Under article 4, paragraph 1, of the Health Insurance Act, the spouse of an insured person may also be insured if she is below 65 years of age and shares the household, and if the insured person is considered as her, or his, breadwinner. The author explains that she had lived with her companion since October 1982 and that, on 8 August 1983, they formally registered their relationship by notarial contract, providing for the shared costs of the common household, property and dwelling. Subject matter: Differentiation in insurance coverage entitlements between married and unmarried couples Procedural issue: No challenge to admissibility Substantive issues: Discrimination on the ground of other status (marital status)—Objective and reasonable justification Articles of the Covenant: 2(1) and 26 Article of the Optional Protocol: 5(2)(b) Rules of procedure: Rule 94(3) Individual opinion: Dissenting opinions by Mr. Nisuke Ando, Mr. Kurt Herndl and Mr. Birame Ndiaye 2.3 The author’s application for registration as a co-insured person with her partner was rejected by the regional social security body on 4 August 1987, on the ground that the Health Insurance Act did not provide for co-insurance to partners other than spouses. In this context, the author stresses that the very circumstance that she shares a household with her partner prevents her from receiving benefits under the State Group Regulations for Unemployed Persons, by virtue of which she herself would be insured under the Health Insurance Act, in which case the question of co-insurance would never have arisen. 1. The author of the communication is Ms. M. Th. Sprenger, a citizen of the Netherlands, residing at Maastricht, the Netherlands. She claims to be a victim of a violation by the Netherlands of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The facts as submitted by the author 2.4 On 3 February 1988, the Board of Appeal (Raad van Beroep) quashed the decision of 4 August 1987, stating that the discrimination between an official marriage and a common law marriage constituted discrimination within the meaning of article 26 of the Covenant. The judgement was in turn appealed by the regional social security board to the Central Board of Appeal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) which, on 28 September 1988, ruled that the decision of 4 August 1987 did not contravene article 26 of the Covenant. In its decision, the Central Board of Appeal referred to the decision of the Human Rights Committee in communication No. 180/1984, Danning v. the Netherlands1 in 2.1 The author received unemployment benefits under the Netherlands Unemployment Benefits Act until 20 August 1987. At that date, the maximum benefits period came to an end. As a result of the termination of her benefits payment under the Netherlands Unemployment Benefits Act, her public ‘health insurance also expired, pursuant to the Health Insurance Act. The author then applied for benefits pursuant to the State Group Regulations for Unemployed Persons, under which she would be equally entitled to public insurance under the Health Insurance Act. 2.2 The author’s application was rejected on the grounds that she cohabited with a man whose income was higher than the benefits then 1 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-second Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/42/40), 113