(b) The State party's action seen from the viewpoint of the criteria for permissible State interference in rights protected by article 17 "Guidelines for the change of surname" which, in themselves, are not manifestly arbitrary. These Guidelines have been applied in the present case, and there is no indication that they were applied in a discriminatory fashion. Hence it is equally difficult to call the decision arbitrary. The Committee does so, however, "in the circumstances of the present case" (see para. 10.5 of the Views). To arrive at that finding the Committee introduces a new notion – that of "reasonableness". It finds "the grounds for limiting the authors' rights under article 17 not to be reasonable" (see para. 10.5 of the Views). On the assumption that there exists a right of the individual to change his/her name, the question of the extent to which "interference" with that right is still permissible, has to be examined (and is, indeed, addressed by the Committee in the present Views). What then are the criteria laid down for (State) interference? They are two and only two. Article 17 prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interference with one's privacy. The Committee thus attempts to expand the scope of article 17 by adding an element which is not part of that article. The only argument the Committee can adduce in this context is a simple reference (renvoi) to its own General Comment on article 17 where it stated that "even interference provided by law ... should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances". It is difficult for me to go along with this argumentation and to base on such argumentation a finding that a State party violated this specific provision of the Covenant. It is obvious that the decision of the Dutch authorities not to grant a change of name cannot per se be regarded as constituting "arbitrary or unlawful" interference with the authors' rights under article 17. The decision is based on the law applicable in the Netherlands. Hence it is not unlawful. The Committee itself says so (see para. 10.3 of the Views). The conditions under which a change of name will be authorized in the Netherlands are laid down in generally applicable and published Kurt Herndl Communication No. 455/1991 Submitted by: Allan Singer on 30 January 1991 Alleged victim: The author State party: Canada Declared admissible: 8 April 1993 (forty-seventh session) Date of adoption of Views: 26 July 1994 (fifty-first session) commercial advertisements in English outside his store by advertisements in French. The author appealed against all these summons before the local courts and contended that the Charter of the French Language (Bill No. 101) discriminated against him because it restricted the use of English for commercial purposes; in particular, section 58 of Bill No. 101 prohibited the posting of commercial signs in English outside the author's store. In October 1978, the Court of Sessions of Montreal found against him. The Superior Court of Quebec, Montreal, did likewise on 26 March 1982, and so did the Court of Appeal of Quebec in December 1986. Subject matter: Language-based discrimination in outdoor commercial advertising Procedural issues: Standing of the author – Ineffective remedies Substantive issues: Right to freedom of opinion and expression – Non-discrimination Articles of the Covenant: 19, 26 and 27 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 1 and 5 (2) (b) 1. The author of the communication is Allan Singer, a Canadian citizen born in 1913 and a resident of Montreal, Canada. He claims to be a victim of language discrimination by Canada, in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, without however specifically invoking article 26 thereof. 2.2 The author then took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which, on 15 December 1988, decided that an obligation to use French only in outdoor advertising was unconstitutional and struck down several provisions of the Quebec Charter of the French Language (Charte de la langue française). The Quebec legislature, however, passed another legislative measure, Bill No. 178, on 22 December 1988, the express ratio legis of which was to override the judgement handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada one week earlier. With this, the author contends, he has exhausted available remedies. The facts as presented by the author 2.1 The author runs a stationery and printing business in Montreal. His clientele is predominantly, but not exclusively, anglophone. Starting in 1978, the author received numerous summons from the Quebec authorities, requesting him to replace 78