Communications Nos. 406/1990 and 426/1990 Submitted by: Lahcen B. M. Oulajin and Mohamed Kaiss (represented by counsel) Date of communication: 24 April 1990 and 22 August 1990 Alleged victims: The authors State party: The Netherlands Date of adoption of Views: 23 October 1992 (forty-sixth session) and the children were taken in by the author’s family in Morocco. Subject matter: Differentiation between parents of natural children and parents of foster children in social security entitlements 2.3 The authors, who claim to be the only persons to contribute financially to the support of said relatives, applied for benefits under the Dutch Child Benefit Act (Algemene Kinderbijslagwet) claiming their dependents as foster children.1 By letters of 7 May 1985 and 2 May 1984 respectively the Alkmaar Board of Labour (Raad van Arbeid) informed the authors that, while they were entitled to a benefit for their own children, they could not be granted a benefit for their siblings and nephews. It held that these children could not be considered to be foster children within the meaning of the Child Benefit Act, since the authors reside in the Netherlands and cannot influence their upbringing, as required under article 7, paragraph 5, of the Act. Procedural issues: Joinder of communication— inadmissibility ratione materiae Substantive issues: Right to non-interference with family life—Right to privacy— Discrimination on the ground of other status—Objective and reasonable justification Articles of the Covenant: 17(1) and 26 Article of the Optional Protocol: 3 Rules of procedure: Rules 88 and 94(3) Individual opinion: By Mr. Kurt Herndl, Mr. Rein Müllerson, Mr. Birame Ndiaye and Mr. Waleed Sadi 2.4 Both authors appealed the decision to the Board of Appeal (Raad van Beroep) in Haarlem. On 19 February 1986 and 6 May 1986, the Board of Appeal rejected the appeals. They then appealed to the Central Board of Appeal (Centrale Raad van Beroep), arguing, inter alia, that because of lack of money, it had become impossible for them to support their foster children and that, as a result, their family life had suffered; they claimed that they formed a family with their foster children within the meaning of article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. They furthermore submitted that it would amount to discrimination if they were required to participate actively in the upbringing of the children concerned, as this requirement would be difficult to meet for migrant workers. They added that the requirement did not exist in respect of their own children. 1. The authors of the communications are Lahcen Oulajin and Mohamed Kaiss, Moroccan citizens born on 1 July 1942 and 7 July 1950 respectively, at present residing in Alkmaar, the Netherlands. They claim to be victims of a violation by the Netherlands of articles 17 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They are represented by counsel. The facts as submitted by the authors 2.1 Mr. Oulajin’s wife and two children live in Morocco. On 19 October 1981, the author’s brother died, leaving four children, born in 1970, 1973, 1976 and 1979. Subsequently, the author’s wife in Morocco assumed responsibility for her nephews, with the consent of their mother. 2.2 Mr. Kaiss’ wife and child live in Morocco. On 13 July 1979 the author’s father died, leaving two young children, born in 1971 and 1974. Subsequently, the author assumed responsibility for the upbringing of his siblings 1 For the purposes of this decision, a foster child is considered to be a child whose upbringing has been left to persons other than his or her natural or adoptive parents. 117