Communication No. 60/1979 Submitted by: J. J. on 14 July 1979 Alleged victim: The author State party: Denmark Date of decision on inadmissibility: 26 March 1980 (ninth session) sions of the Danish authorities concerned in the case. The author's complaint is directed against the refusal of the Ombudsman to censure the decision of the Ministry of Justice. Inadmissibility ratione materiae The author of the communication (dated 14 July 1979) is a Danish citizen residing in Denmark. He states that on 1 November 1970 he contracted to buy an eleven-year-old car for DKr 500. He subsequently sought to invalidate the purchase and applied for leave to file a civil suit free of costs. His application was refused by the district authority and the Ministry of Justice also rejected an application to reverse the deci­ sion of the district authority. He then submitted the matter to the Parhamentary Ombudsman. The latter found no circumstances meriting censure of the deci­ The Human Rights Committee, after careful ex­ amination of the communication, is of the opinion that the communication does not reveal any evidence of violation of the Covenant by the Danish authorities. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: The communication is inadmissible. TENTH SESSION Communication No. 72/1980 Submitted by: K. L. on 4 April 1980 Alleged victim: The author State party: Denmark Decision on inadmissibility: 31 July 1980 (tenth session) Renewed application by author (see communication No. 59/1979)—Taxation—Unsubstantiated allega­ tions—Abuse of right of submission—Exhaustion of domestic remedies The Committee notes that the matters complained of had their origin in the assessment of the author's taxes for the years 1974 and 1975, that is, prior to the entry in­ to force of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol for Denmark on 23 March 1976. This, in itself, does not bar the Committee from examining the claim that the deci­ sion of the Danish State Tax Court, rendered on 3 March 1980, constituted a breach of articles 14 (1) and 26 of the Covenant. Articles of Optional Protocol: 3 and 5 (2) (b) The author of the communication, dated 4 April 1980, K. L., Denmark, complains that a decision con­ cerning him, rendered by the Danish State Tax Court on 3 March 1980, runs counter to articles 14 (1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The complaint has its origin in the assessment by the Danish tax authorities of the author's taxable in­ come for the year 1974, for which he had not filed a tax return. He was informed of the assessment on 12 January 1976. However, before considering any claim on the merits, the Committee must decide whether the conditions for admissibility, as laid down in articles 3 and 5 of the Op­ tional Protocol, have been fulfilled, including the condi­ tion that domestic remedies have been exhausted. In this connection the Committee takes into account: (a) That a similar complaint from the author, re­ garding alleged violations of the Covenant in connec­ tion with the assessment of his taxable income for the year 1976, and subsequent adjudication of his com­ plaints relating thereto, has previously been declared in­ admissible under the Optional Protocol as devoid of any substantiation;' (b) That the present complaint is similarly devoid of any substantiation of facts or law; and The author filed a complaint with the State Tax Court on 17 May 1979, which, on 3 March 1980, dismissed the claim as out of time, on the ground that the time limit for filing such complaint under Danish law is four weeks. The author also claims that he had complained about the assessment of his taxable income for the year 1975, without the court pronouncing itself on that issue. In a further letter, dated 29 April 1980, he specifically men­ tions that he intends to pursue further domestic remedies in the matter complained of in the present communication. ' See the decision concerning communication N o . 5 9 / 1 9 7 9 , p. 24 above. 26