CCPR/C/112/D/2068/2011 effective remedy. On 19 January 2011, the author’s father received a “consent” notice that he would be provided with housing and stipulating that he had the right to an apartment of 70 square metres, but that it would remain in the ownership of the Republic of Croatia and he would not acquire the right to own or exchange the said apartment.15 The author and his parents were not provided with an apartment that corresponded to their pre-war accommodation. The author maintains that the consent is a punishment for the author and his family and represents a new injustice. He also contests the observation by the State party that his father rejected all the apartments allocated to him and his family. He maintains that his father has not received any contract or any decision for the use of the apartment and that he cannot acquire such an apartment. He can be arbitrarily deprived of his tenancy rights at any moment, which puts him in a vulnerable position. On 20 January 2011, the author’s father lodged a complaint against the consent to the Ministry of Regional Development. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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 the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 In accordance with article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, the Committee must ascertain whether the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee recalls that when acceding to the Optional Protocol, the State party entered a reservation to article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Protocol, specifying 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 the international investigation or settlement”. The Committee recalls that the concept of “the same matter” has to be understood as including the same author, the same facts and the same substantive rights.16 The Committee notes that the author has filed an application against Croatia, raising issues similar to those included in the present communication, before the European Court of Human Rights. That application, primarily concerning the length of civil proceedings, but also all the other claims included in the present communication was stricken out of the list of cases by the European Court on 18 June 2013, given that a friendly settlement had been reached by the parties.17 Prior to discontinuing the application, the European Court determined that the settlement was based on respect for human rights, as defined in the European Convention on Human Rights, and found no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application, in accordance with article 39 of the Convention. The Committee considers that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the author’s claims were “examined” by the European Court, for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol.18 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is precluded by 15 16 17 18 This is stipulated in the Decision on the sale of apartments owned by the Republic of Croatia, published in the Official Gazette No. 109 on 20 September 2010. See, inter alia, communications No. 1115/2002, Petersen v. Germany, Views adopted on 1 April 2004, para. 6.3; and No. 998/2001, Althammer v. Austria, Views adopted on 8 August 2003, para. 8.4. According to the decision of the European Court on application No. 1286/10, on 7 February 2013 and 27 February 2013, the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties, whereby the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Croatia in respect of the facts giving rise to the application before the Court, against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 3,750 euros to cover any non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses. See communication No. 1384/2005, Petit v. France, Views adopted on 24 July 2007, para. 6.3. 7