other officials who at that time were simultaneously performing corresponding and identical functions in metropolitan France, in the Mutualité Agricole.2 He cites the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 25 (57), which states that “to ensure access on general terms of equality, the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal must be objective and reasonable”. Consequently, the author considers that the criteria used to draw a distinction in his case, namely the nature of the performance of a management function within the regional mutual social insurance fund for farmers, as interpreted by the State party, clearly underlie a difference in treatment which is not based on an objective and reasonable criterion. accession to the Optional Protocol, the State party entered a reservation with regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol indicating that the Committee shall not have competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. However, the Committee finds that the European Court did not “examine” the case in the meaning of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol in so far as its ruling dealt only with a question of procedure. Consequently, no issue arises with regard to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, as interpreted in the light of the State party’s reservation. 3.4 Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the author states that, following the ruling handed down by the Council of State on 8 June 1990, no further domestic remedies are available to him. 4.3 The Committee notes the delay of 15 years in this case and observes that there are no explicit time limits for submission of communications under the Optional Protocol. However, in certain circumstances, the Committee is entitled to expect a reasonable explanation justifying such a delay. In the present case, the Council of State handed down its ruling on 8 June 1990, over 15 years before the communication was submitted to the Committee, but no convincing explanation has been provided to account for such a delay. In the absence of an explanation, the Committee considers that submitting the communication after such a long delay amounts to an abuse of the right of submission, and finds the communication inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol3 and rule 93 (3) of the rules of procedure. 3.5 The author requests the Committee to rule on the granting of just satisfaction to the author, who has suffered serious injury owing to the failures of the French administration. He also asks that the State party should be ordered to pay him the costs he incurred when bringing actions in the French courts. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 5. Consequently, the Human Rights Committee decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 93 (3) of the rules of procedure; 4.2 In accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that a similar complaint lodged by the author was declared inadmissible on grounds of late submission by the European Court of Human Rights on 18 November 2004 (application No. 2188/04). The Committee also points out that at the time of its (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and the author for information. 3 See Gobin v. Mauritius, communication No. 787/1997, decision on admissibility adopted on 16 July 2001, para. 6.3. 2 See Gueye v. France, communication No. 196/1985, Views adopted on 3 April 1989, para. 9.5. 46