this context, the State party refers to the Committee's decision with regard to communication No. 168/1984,1 where the Committee held that the phrase "'the same matter' refers, with regard to identical parties, to the complaints advanced and facts adduced in support of them". since the delay in having his case adjudicated would be at least three years. The author claims that this delay is manifestly unreasonable and cannot be justified by the work backlog of the Administrative Tribunal. The author argues that it is incomprehensible that the Administrative Tribunal was able to adjudicate his first case (concerning the 1988 dismissal) within five months, whereas it apparently will take several years to adjudicate his second petition. 4.3 The State party further submits that the communication is inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant. The State party argues that article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant is not applicable, since the procedure before the Administrative Tribunal does not involve "rights and obligations in a suit at law". In this context, the State party refers to the decision of the European Commission of Human Rights, which held that the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms does not cover procedures governing the dismissal from employment of civil servants, and points out that the text on which the European Commission based its decision is identical to the text of article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. Moreover, unlike article 6, paragraph 1, of the European Convention, article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant does not contain any provision on the right to a judicial decision within a reasonable time. 3.2 The author further claims that States parties to the Covenant have the duty to provide their tribunals with the necessary means to render justice effectively and expeditiously. According to the author, this is not the case if at least three years pass before a case can be heard at first instance. The author claims that in case of appeal to the Administrative Court of Appeal (Cour administrative d'appel), and subsequently to the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat), a delay of about 10 years could be expected. 3.3 The author further submits that a case which concerns the dismissal of a civil servant is by nature an urgent matter; in this context, he submits that he has not received any salary since 23 March 1989. He claims that a decision reached after three years, even if favourable, would be ineffective. The author moreover argues that, since the Chairman of the Administrative Tribunal has discretionary power to put cases on the roll, he could have granted the author's request, taking into account the particular nature of the case. 4.4 The State party further argues that article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which guarantees an effective remedy to any person whose rights or freedoms as recognized in the Covenant are violated, has not been breached, since the procedure before the Administrative Tribunal can be considered an effective remedy. According to the State party, this is shown by the decision of the Administrative Tribunal, which quashed the author's dismissal in December 1988. The State party's information and observations with regard to the admissibility of the communication 4.1 The State party argues that the communication is inadmissible, on account of the reservation made by the Government of France upon the deposit of the instrument of ratification of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with respect to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), that the Human Rights Committee "shall not have the competence to consider a communication from an individual if the same matter is being examined or has already been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement". The Committee's decision on admissibility 5.1 At its forty-eighth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. It noted the State party's contention that the communication was inadmissible because of the reservation made by the State party to article 5, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol. The Committee observed that the European Commission had declared the author's application inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the European Convention. The Committee considered that, since the rights of the European Convention differed in substance and with regard to their implementation procedures from the rights set forth in the Covenant, 4.2 The State party submits that this reservation is applicable to the present case because the author of the communication has already submitted a complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights, which declared it inadmissible. The State party argues that the fact that the European Commission has not decided on the merits does not preclude the application of the reservation, as the case concerns the same individual, the same facts and the same claim. In 1 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fortieth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/40/40), annex XIX, V. Ø. v. Norway, declared inadmissible on 17 July 1985, para. 4.4. 68