Communication No. 1434/2005 Submitted by: Claude Fillacier (represented by counsel) Alleged victim: The author State party: France Declared inadmissible: 27 March 2006 Subject matter: Reincorporation in the French public service following transfer from Algeria, request for compensation and the “Bône-Assurance” regional mutual insurance fund for farmers, a body not covered by order No. 62-401 of 11 April 1962. The author replied in a letter dated 11 July 1963. The Minister confirmed his decision by letter dated 29 July 1963. Procedural issues: Abuse of the right of submission, State party’s reservation Substantive issues: employment Equal access to 2.4 The author endeavoured unsuccessfully to secure placement from various authorities. Eventually he lodged with the Administrative Court in Toulouse applications for placement and compensation for injury resulting from failure to place him in the corresponding grade in metropolitan France. His applications were denied on 27 June 1986. The author then appealed. On 8 June 1990 the Council of State upheld the ruling of the Toulouse Administrative Court. On 7 January 2004, the author brought the matter to the attention of the European Court of Human Rights, which on 9 November 2004 declared his application to be inadmissible on grounds of late submission. public Articles of the Covenant: 2; 25, para. (c); and 26 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 3 and 5, para. 2 (a) 1. The author of the communication, dated 24 October 2005, is Claude Fillacier, a French citizen born at Bône in Algeria on 3 March 1927. He claims to have been a victim of violations by France of articles 2, 25 (c) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. He is represented by counsel, Alain Garay. The Optional Protocol entered into force for France on 17 May 1984. The complaint 3.1 The author states that his complaint was not “examined” by the European Court of Human Rights because his application was declared inadmissible on purely procedural grounds. He considers that the State party’s reservation does not apply to his case. The author goes so far as to challenge the lawfulness of the reservation, which he says infringes the principle of access to justice. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 Between October 1953 and March 1963, the author occupied a variety of senior administrative posts in a number of social agencies in Algeria, during the period when it was part of France. From June 1960 onwards, he was simultaneously Deputy Director of the “Bône Assurances Sociales” regional mutual social insurance fund for farmers and Deputy Director of the “Bône-Assurance” regional mutual insurance fund for farmers. 3.2 Although his communication relates to events which took place before the State party ratified the Optional Protocol, the author considers that the Human Rights Committee becomes competent if, after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, the acts in question continue to produce consequences which themselves constitute violations of the Covenant. 1 He also points out that his application is admissible since the Covenant and the Optional Protocol lay down no deadline for the submission of communications. 2.2 The author left Algeria for France in March 1963, following decolonization. On 5 March 1963, he asked to be placed in an equivalent post in a similar social insurance agency for farmers in France. This request was based on article 2 of decree No. 62-941 of 9 August 1962 relating to conditions for the placement of permanent French personnel of the agencies listed in article 3 of order No. 62-401 of 11 April 1962 relating to conditions for the incorporation in the public service in metropolitan France of officials and agents of the public service in Algeria and the Sahara. 3.3 The author considers that the French authorities failed to guarantee or protect the rights enumerated in article 25, paragraph (c), taken together with articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant, thereby fundamentally infringing his right to employment and exercising discrimination based on his circumstances and his nationality. He considers that he suffered discrimination as compared with 2.3 By letter of 11 May 1963, the French Ministry of Agriculture informed the author that he could not be placed because of his “shared” employment between the “Bône Assurances Sociales” regional mutual social insurance fund for farmers, which administered a legally obligatory insurance scheme, 1 See Lovelace v. Canada, communication No. 24/1977, Views adopted on 30 July 1981, para. 7.3. 45