information made available to it by the parties, as provided in article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. a matter that had been declared inadmissible ratione materiae had not, in the meaning of the reservation, been "considered" in such a way that the Committee was precluded from examining it. 5.2 The Committee recalled that the concept of "suit at law" under article 14, paragraph 1, was based on the nature of the right in question rather than on the status of one of the parties. The Committee considered that a procedure concerning a dismissal from employment constituted the determination of rights and obligations in a suit at law, within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Accordingly, on 7 July 1993, the Committee declared the communication admissible. Information received admissibility after the decision 7.2 The Committee notes that the issue before it is whether the duration of the proceedings before the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy concerning the author's second dismissal of 23 March 1989 violated the author's right to a fair hearing within the meaning of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 7.3 The Committee recalls that the right to a fair hearing under article 14, paragraph 1, entails a number of requirements, including the condition that the procedure before the courts must be conducted expeditiously.2 The Committee notes that in the instant case, the author, on 30 March 1989, initiated proceedings against his dismissal before the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy and that the Tribunal, after having concluded the preliminary inquiry on 19 October 1989, rendered its judgement in the case on 20 December 1991. on 6.1 By a letter dated 17 June 1994, the author informs the Committee that the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy, on 20 December 1991, ruled in his favour and that he was reinstated in his post. He adds, however, that the city administration, on 17 December 1992, has again unilaterally terminated his employment and that this decision now is again before the administrative tribunals. He further submits that the continuing conflict with the administration and the long delays before the Tribunal have resulted in feelings of anguish and depression, as a result of which his health has seriously deteriorated. 7.4 The Committee notes that the author obtained a favourable decision from the Administrative Tribunal of Nancy and that he was reinstated in his post. Bearing in mind the fact that the Tribunal did consider whether the author's case should have priority over other cases, the Committee finds that the period of time that has elapsed from the submission of the complaint of irregular dismissal to the decision of reinstatement does not constitute a violation of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 6.2 No information or observations have been forwarded by the State party, despite a reminder sent on 3 May 1994. The Committee notes with regret the absence of cooperation from the State party, and recalls that it is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol, that a State party should make available to the Committee all the information at its disposal. In the circumstances, due weight must be given to the author's allegations, to the extent that they have been substantiated. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a violation of any of the provisions of the Covenant. 2 See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortyfourth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/44/40), annex X.E, communication No. 207/1986 (Yves Morael v. France), Views adopted on 28 July 1989, para. 9.3. Examination of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the 69