ICCPR Case Digest




Submission: 2016.02.01

View Adopted: 2016.07.14

X v. Netherlands

Filed against the Netherlands and which dealt with the same facts

Substantive Issues
  • Protection of family
  • Rights of the child
Relevant Articles
  • Article 17
  • Article 23
  • Article 24


Consideration of admissibility

4.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.

4.2 The Committee has to ascertain, in accordance with article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, whether the same matter is being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that, on 3 December 2015, a single-judge formation of the European Court of Human Rights found that the author’s complaint, which had been filed against the Netherlands and which dealt with the same facts as those addressed in this communication, was inadmissible. Given that the complaint is no longer being examined by the European Court, the Committee considers that there are no obstacles to consideration of the communication under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol.

4.3 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that the rejection by the courts of the State party of his request for recognition of paternity has violated his and his son’s rights under articles 17, 23 and 24 of the Covenant. According to the author, the courts have not taken into account his rights as a father and have undermined the possibility of him establishing a family relationship with Y. The Committee considers that these allegations relate essentially to the evaluation of the facts and evidence conducted by the domestic courts and the application of domestic legislation. The Committee recalls its constant case law that it is not a final instance competent to re-evaluate findings of fact or the application of domestic legislation, unless it can be ascertained that the proceedings before the domestic courts were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.2 In the present case, in view of the information in the case file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate for purposes of admissibility that the conduct of the domestic court amounted to arbitrariness or a denial of justice. Accordingly, these claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.



Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO and NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook