State party’s requirement of continued nationality. Only Czechoslovak citizens enjoy restitution rights under Act No. 87/1991, and he is not an ‘eligible person’ under Section 3 of the Act. Although the residency condition was removed by the State party in 1993, the discriminatory citizenship condition remains. Under these conditions, the author, as a United States citizen and not a continuous Czech citizen, has no standing in Czech courts of law and therefore is unable to exhaust domestic remedies. Under the ‘entitled person’ definition, his rights to a remedy do not exist. In his view, the State party uses procedural rules to block restitution, and therefore breaches the Simunek precedent and article 26.11 He concludes that his communication should be declared admissible. article 3 of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes that the last decision in the file is the decision of the Constitutional Court of 4 March 1996, rejecting the author’s request to appeal the previous decision of 29 November 1995. Thus, a period of almost ten years passed before the author submitted his case to the Committee on 16 January 2006. The Committee notes that there are no fixed time limits for submission of communications under the Optional Protocol and that mere delay in submission does not of itself, except in exceptional circumstances, involve an abuse of the right to submit a communication.12 In this instance, although the State party raised the issue that the delay amounts to an abuse of the right of petition, the author has not explained or justified why he waited for nearly ten years before bringing his claims to the Committee. Taking into account the fact that the Simunek decision of this Committee13 was rendered in 1995, and that the file indicates that the author was aware of this decision soon thereafter, 14 the Committee thus regards the delay to be so unreasonable and excessive as to amount to an abuse of the right of submission, and declares the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 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 it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol; 6.2 As to the State party’s argument that the submission of the communication to the Committee amounts to an abuse of the right of submission under (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 12 See communication No. 787/1997, Gobin v. Mauritius, Inadmissibility decision of 16 July 2001, para. 6.3, communication No. 1434/2005, Claude Fillacier v. France, Inadmissibility decision of 27 March 2006, para. 4.3 and communication No. 1101/2002, José María Alba Cabriada v. Spain, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, para. 6.3. 13 Communication No. 516/1992, Simunek et al v. Czech Republic, Views adopted on 19 July 1995. 14 See footnote 3. 11 The author also refers to article 46 of the 1907 Hague Convention which states that “private property cannot be confiscated”. 50