THE FACTS
The facts of the case as submitted by the applicant may be summarised
as follows:
The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1927 and resident in
Rotterdam. She is assisted in presenting her application by Mr. A. of
the University of Groningen. Her application concerns her pension
rights under the Dutch General Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act
(Algemen Weduwen-en-Wezenwet) 1959.
From the statements and from documents submitted in support of her
application it appears that in 1947 the applicant married Mr. Alf X.,
a Norwegian citizen and steersman and captain on Norwegian ships. In
1948 the couple took up residence in Rotterdam, where they were
allegedly never considered by the taxation authorities as residing in
the Netherlands for purposes of income tax.
After the enactment of the General Old Age Pensions Act (Algemene
Ouderdomswet) in 1956 and the General Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act
in 1959, the applicant's husband was also assessed for compulsory
contributions under these Acts. At the same time, however, he was
required to make compulsory contributions under a Norwegian Statute of
1948 providing for a Norwegian Seamen's Pension Insurance
(Pensjonstrygden for sjomenn). Mr X. therefore refused to pay the Dutch
social insurance contributions, but the competent Dutch authorities
allegedly compelled him to pay and, in 1961 and 1962, even took
judicial steps against him in order to execute their claims under the
above social insurance legislation. The applicant states that her
husband finally acquiesced in the levies and paid them, partly because
the Dutch authorities had assured him that his survivors would receive
the full Dutch pension, and this had been confirmed by an official at
the Norwegian Consulate in Rotterdam.
Mr X. died on .. December 1969. Since then the applicant is receiving
a pension both from the Norwegian Seamen's fund and under the Dutch
social insurance schemes. However, her Dutch pension is reduced
proportionally by the amount which is paid to her under the Norwegian
pension scheme with the consequence that her net receiving are roughly
those normally paid under the Dutch scheme only.
Such reduction is made on the authorities of a Royal Decree of 20 March
1968 implementing Article 30 of the General Widows' and Orphans' Act
by an Act of 30 July 1965. This Decree entered into effect on 18 April
1968 and provides in essence that, where a person is entitled to
benefits under the compulsory social insurance scheme of another State
for a period which overlaps with that for which benefits have accrued
to him under the General Widows' and Orphans' Act, the latter pension
shall be reduced proportionately by taking into account insurance
periods during which the deceased accumulated pension rights under the
foreign insurance scheme. However, the combined pension should not be
less than the full pension under the Dutch scheme.
The applicant objected to the calculation of her pension and submitted
her case to the Social Insurance Board (Raad van Arbeid) in Rotterdam,
being the competent office for the administration of the social
insurance schemes. However, the Board decided that Article 30a of the
Widows' and Orphans' Act and the respective Royal Decree was applicable
in her case and, having regard to her Norwegian pension, fixed her
Dutch pension at 876/2111th of the amount normally due to her under the
Dutch pension scheme. The applicant's appeal to the Appeals Board (Raad
van Beroep) was rejected on .. August 1971 and this decision was
confirmed by the Supreme Appeals Board (Centrale Raad van Beroep) on
.. January 1972. The Supreme Board found that the Norwegian Seamen's
Pension Act of 1948 was to be regarded as forming part of the social
insurance legislation of another State, and that consequently the
relevant provisions of the Royal Decree of 1968 were applicable in the
applicant's case. The Board stated that it had an understanding for the
applicant's concern in view of the fact that during his lifetime her
husband had been obliged to make full contributions under both
insurance schemes whereas her benefits under the Dutch social insurance
scheme were now considerably reduced. However, given the terms of the
Royal Decree which made no exception in cases where contributions have
been paid in two countries during overlapping periods, it was not able
to take this point into account. Furthermore, as regards the
information given by the authorities to the effect that the full
pension would be paid in case of Mr X.'s death, the Board stated that
this had been correct information at the time when it was given, having
regard to the fact that only since 18 April 1968 the Dutch pension was
so reduced under the Royal Decree. The Board finally confirmed that the
actual reduction by the Rotterdam Social Insurance Board had been
correctly calculated.
Complaints
The applicant now complains, in the first place, that the reduction of
her pension benefits under the Dutch Widows's and Orphans' Act violates
her right to the peaceful enjoyment of her possessions within the
meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and also constitutes
discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.
She explains that the Norwegian Seamen's fund was financed through
compulsory contributions by sailors and their employers. It was
distributed in accordance with the number of contributory periods, and
a contributor could therefore be said to have an identifiable share in
that fund. This share constituted a property right that could be
described as "possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1. To reduce the Dutch pension proportionately by the benefits
accruing to her under the Norwegian pension scheme amounted, in the
applicant's submissions, to a deprivation of her possessions.
Indeed, the legislative history of Article 30a of the General Widows'
and Orphans' Act, showed that it was not at all intended to apply to
cases like hers. This amendment was intended by the Netherlands
Government to eliminate the possibility that the survivor of a wage
earner, who had moved to the Netherlands shortly before his death and
had therefore contributed to the Dutch pension scheme only for a short
time, would receive the full Dutch pension in addition to the pension
paid to him under the social insurance scheme of another country which
also adhered to the principles of solidarity and of risk insurance. It
was not, however, intended to deprive persons of rights which had
accrued to them by reason of the fact that they paid contributions
simultaneously under two or more social insurance schemes.
The applicant submits that the deduction of the Norwegian pension from
her Dutch pension could not be considered as being "in the public
interest" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because
there was a twofold disproportionality in relation to the income taxed.
Firstly, Mr X. had been required to make contributions during identical
insurance periods both under the Norwegian and the Dutch social
insurance schemes. Secondly, Mr X. had been required to make the full
contributions to the Dutch social insurance scheme even after the
introduction of Article 30a in the General Widows' and Orphans' Act.
Both measures had the effect of disproportionately reducing his income.
In the applicant's further submission, the deprivation of her
possessions by means of such obligatory accumulation of contributions
did not keep within the conditions provided for by the principles of
international law, or of European law as exemplified by the European
Social Charter and by the preamble to Regulation No. 1408/71 of the
E.E.C. (Official Journal 1971 L 149/2), insofar as these principles
prohibit arbitrary discrimination of foreigners. In the present case,
such arbitrariness was evidenced by the fact that the Dutch legislation
applied reductions only to pension benefits accruing under a foreign
public insurance scheme and not to those paid under a foreign private
insurance.
Furthermore, the practice complained of was discriminatory, within the
meaning of Article 14 of the Convention, on two grounds. Firstly, on
the ground of property, in that the reduction of the Dutch pension
amounted, in fact, to an annihilation of her Norwegian pension; and,
secondly, on the ground of the status of a wage earner employed abroad
in that the reduction was applied only to those who are entitled to
benefits under the social insurance scheme of another State.
The applicant finally invokes Articles 17 and 18 of the Convention. She
alleges that the obligation imposed on her late husband to contribute
to the Dutch social security scheme irrespective of the future
reduction of the benefits accruing to his survivors violated Article
17 of the Convention in that it practically deprived her husband of the
financial means to effect a private insurance and thus restricted the
right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions to a greater extent than is
provided for in the Convention.
She further alleges that the Netherlands Government applied
restrictions on her right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions for a
purpose other than those for which they had been prescribed. She
explains that the social insurance legislation presently in force in
the Netherlands destroyed her expectations to a pension in accordance
with the contributions made under the previous legislation, that it was
based on an arbitrary distinction between private and public pension
schemes, and that it failed to provide for a hardship clause or for an
adequate reduction of the contributions to be made, or for the
possibility of allowing immigrant workers who are already required to
contribute to another social insurance scheme, to make such
contributions on a voluntary basis. Thus, the Dutch system also failed
to guarantee an equal treatment under the law and was contrary to
Article 18 of the Convention.
The applicant claims full payment of the Dutch pension, including the
amounts which have been deducted in the past, as well as compensation
for all further expenses and damages incurred, such as the costs of the
lawsuits and interest.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
A group of three members of the Commission considered the application
on 24 May 1973 and was unanimously of the opinion that, in the present
state of the file, it appeared to be admissible. Consequently, the
President of the Commission made on 25 May 1973 an order in accordance
with Rule 45, 2 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure (old version)
that notice of the application should be given to the Netherlands
Government who should be invited to submit to the Commission their
observations in writing on its admissibility.
The Government submitted such observations on 21 September 1973 and the
applicant's representative replied on 1 October 1973.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. The respondent Government first submitted that the Widows' and
Orphans' Benefits Act (A.W.W.) provided for a compulsory general
widows' and orphans' insurance applicable to the entire population of
the Netherlands by which all residents aged 15 years and over are
insured regardless of their nationality.
The Government then pointed out that Article 30a of the Act was
inserted by an Act of 30 July 1965 to enable measures to be taken by
General Administrative Order to prevent or limit the unjustifiable
cumulation of a widow's pension under the A.W.W. and a widow's pension
under the social legislation of another country. A General
Administrative Order for this purpose was promulgated in the Royal
Decree of 20 March 1968.
In the Government's submission this Decree was based on the
considerations that a situation in which, as a result of a cumulation
of entitlements under the legislative provisions of different
countries, a person acquires an income higher than that intended under
the provisions concerned should be avoided. The respondent Government
added that it was unfair to other contributors that their contributions
should be partly used to finance benefit payments which are out of all
proportion to the incomes earned by the persons concerned while still
in employment.
Finally, international social insurance law did not provide adequate
safeguards against the undesirable cumulation of insurances. Since,
unlike the Netherlands A.W.W. scheme the system of survivorship
insurance applied in most countries was not based on the risk
principle, the "pro rata temporis" system had been taken as the basis
for the regulations preventing or limiting the simultaneous payment of
A.W.W. pensions and equivalent foreign benefits. This meant that
general widows' pensions were only reduced under the foreign scheme.
The regulations also contained a guarantee that beneficiaries would not
receive less than they were entitled to under the A.W.W. pensions in
the absence of any foreign insurance benefits.
The respondent Government then indicated that the above regulations
were modified with effect from 1 January 1972 by a Royal Decree of 21
February 1972 which provides that, when the aforementioned reduction
in A.W.W. pension is being determined, the periods for which
contributions have been paid under the legislative provisions of one
or more foreign countries shall be disregarded, if and insofar as they
coincide with the periods during which the person upon whose death a
widow's pension becomes payable was insured under the A.W.W.
The Government also informed the Commission that the Rotterdam Labour
Council had revised in a decision taken on .. September 1972 the amount
which had originally been fixed as the applicant's pension. The
applicant was already receiving the amount due to her by virtue of this
decision, payments being back-dated to 1 January 1972.
For these reasons the Netherlands Government submitted that the grounds
for the application no longer existed. On the other hand, should the
applicant consider that, in the above-mentioned decision of the
Rotterdam Labour Council, her legal rights had not been sufficiently
implemented, she had access to the domestic remedies available under
Dutch law.
2. The applicant, in the reply submitted on 1 October 1973 by her
representative, first of all apologised for not having informed the
Commission that her pension had increased following the decision of ..
September 1972 by the Labour Council. She explained that she had
misunderstood at the time the legal character of this decision. It was
true that, as a result of the above decision her pension benefits had
been calculated differently and had been increased retrospectively from
1 January 1972 onwards. Nevertheless, in her opinion this decision
could not at all affect the substance of her application in relation
to the period prior to that date, i.e. from December 1969 to January
1972. Furthermore, since the date of 1 January 1972 had been fixed in
the Royal Decree, an appeal lodged against the decision of .. September
1972 would not have had any prospects of success. Therefore, this
decision did not affect the admissibility of the application with
regard to the period from December 1969 to January 1972.
In this connection, the applicant referred to the Explanatory Note by
the Minister of Social Affairs and Health regarding the 1972 Royal
Decree and submitted that the Minister had recognised certain
inequalities in the calculation of pension benefits existing under the
1968 Decree.
In the applicant's further submissions, the decision of .. September
1972 was hardly relevant for the period from 1 January 1972 onwards.
It was true that her pension benefits had been increased. However, she
still claimed the full payment of the Dutch allowance without any
reduction which was roughly 200 guilders a month.
In her opinion she was entitled to both the Dutch and the Norwegian
allowances and the applicant referred again to the promises made by the
Dutch authorities to her late husband when he protested against the
double contributions.
Furthermore, her application was not now inadmissible for
non-exhaustion of domestic remedies to the extent that it was based on
facts posterior to 1 January 1972. The applicant underlined that she
had previously exhausted the domestic remedies with regard to Article
30a of the General Widows' and Orphans' Pension Act being the legal
provision on which the Decree had been based. The 1972 Decree had
entered into force after the final decision in the applicant's case had
been taken (.. January 1972). Therefore it would be twisting the
domestic remedies rule to demand that a victim of a continuous
violation should institute legal proceedings afresh with regard to any
new development in the implementing legislation or administrative
measures.
Apart from this, the applicant submitted that she did not challenge the
legality of the decision of .. September 1972. In her opinion the
legislation and the implementing measures were inconsistent with the
Convention. Therefore, she advanced as a subsidiary argument that since
the object of her application was the compatibility of "legislative and
administrative practices" the condition of exhaustion of domestic
remedies did not apply.
For these reasons the applicant maintained her claim as laid down in
her application both with regard to its substance and its
admissibility.
THE LAW
1. In the present case, the Commission observes that the applicant's
complaints are directed only against the above Netherlands legislation.
Any reference by the applicant to the Norwegian pension and the
insurance system under Norwegian law is therefore not relevant for the
determination of her above complaints. The applicant receives her full
Norwegian pension and there is thus no interference by the Netherlands
authorities with this payment.
2. The applicant has first complained that her claim to a full Dutch
pension has not been satisfied under the relevant legislation in the
Netherlands. However, under Article 25 (1) (Art. 25-1) of the
Convention, it is only the alleged violation of one of the rights and
freedoms set out in the Convention that can be the subject of an
application presented by a person, non-governmental organisation or
group of individuals. With regard to the present complaint no right to
receive a pension under the national insurance scheme of a particular
country is as such included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed
by the Convention and in this respect the Commission refers to its
constant jurisprudence, e.g. decision on the admissibility of
application No. 4130/68 against the Netherlands (Collection of
Decisions, Vol. 38, pp. 9, 13).
It follows that the application for payment of pension as such is
incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention.
3. The applicant has further complained that Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1) has been violated by reason of the reduction of her
pension benefits under the Netherlands law to the extent of benefits
accruing to her under the Norwegian Pension, despite her husband's
compulsory contributions to the Netherlands scheme which were paid in
full.
In particular, she has maintained that there was a forced reduction of
income contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) in that double
contributions had to be paid, and a full contribution was demanded
under the Netherlands scheme even after 1968 when she and her husband
could be affected by Article 30a of the Netherlands statute;
furthermore, that the deduction from her pension under Netherlands law
of a sum equivalent to that accruing under the Norwegian scheme was a
deprivation of possessions and contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 (P1-1), since the Norwegian scheme was a private or professional
scheme and not one of public insurance, in which alone Article 30a of
the Netherlands statute was applicable, and it was not required in the
public interest.
However, with regard to the applicant's complaints relating to the
contributions paid by her husband, the Commission also refers to its
decision on the admissibility of Application No. 4130/68 in which it
found that the obligation to make compulsory contributions was clearly
within the right of a State "to secure the payment of taxes or other
contributions" within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article
1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) and that the contributions themselves were
not out of proportion to the incomes so taxed. The Commission finds
that this reasoning is fully applicable to the facts of the present
application, and in particular, the fact that the applicant's husband
was also contributing to the Norwegian scheme, thus paying double
contributions, was no concern, or responsibility under the Convention
of the Netherlands authorities.
With regard to the complaint that the deduction from the pension paid
to the applicant under the Netherlands statute deprived her of her
possessions contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), the
Commission again refers to its above decision concerning Application
No. 4130/68 in which it examined the system of the Dutch Old Age
Pensions Act and of the General Widows' and Orphans' Act. In that case
the Commission found, from the principle of solidarity underlying the
Netherlands social insurance legislation, the administration of the
pension fund, and the system of distribution of the fund adopted, that
the benefits accruing under the widows' and orphans' pension scheme did
not constitute a property right which could be described as
"possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)
(for full motivation, see Collection of Decisions, Vol. 38, pp. 14,
15). The Commission considers that the conclusion reached above is
equally applicable in the present application, the benefits accruing
under the pension scheme not constituting property rights which can be
described as "possessions" in the sense of Article 1 of Protocol No.
1 (P1-1). It follows that there is no basis for any deprivation of
possession in which an issue of the public interest arises as suggested
by the applicant.
An examination by the Commission of these complaints as they have been
submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore
disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set
out in the Convention or its Protocols and particularly in Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention.
4. The applicant has also maintained that, contrary to Article 17
(Art. 17) of the Convention, the obligation imposed on her late husband
to contribute to the Netherlands social insurance scheme, irrespective
of the future reduction of benefits accruing to his survivors,
restricted the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions to a greater
extent than is provided for by the Convention.
It is true that under Article 17 (Art. 17) of the Convention nothing
in the Convention "may be interpreted as implying for any State, group
or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed
at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set out in the
Convention or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided
for therein".
However, the Commission has just found that the contributions which the
applicant's husband was required to make to the Dutch social insurance
scheme were covered by the terms of the second paragraph of Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1-2) and were not disproportionate to the income
so taxed. Moreover, the applicant's submissions that the Netherlands
Government have abused their right to "secure the payment of taxes or
other contributions" in insisting on full contributions despite the
future deduction from benefits payable under Article 30a, are
ill-founded since contributors to a national insurance scheme could not
be allowed to reduce or evade their obligations by invoking payments
made to a foreign scheme, public or private.
An examination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been
submitted again does not therefore disclose any appearance of a
violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and
particularly in Article 17 (Art. 17).
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.
5. The applicant has further complained that, contrary to Article
18 (Art. 18) of the Convention, the Netherlands Government, presumably
by reason of the obligation imposed on her late husband to contribute
to the Dutch social insurance scheme in addition to his contributions
to the Norwegian scheme, as well as the reduction of her benefits
resulting from Article 30a of the Widows' and Orphans' Benefits Act and
the Royal Decrees implementing that provision, applied restrictions on
the rights to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions for a purpose other
than those for which they had been prescribed.
It is true that under Article 18 (Art. 18) of the Convention the
"restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and
freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for
which they have been prescribed."
However, the applicant has not in any way shown how the "restrictions"
of the enjoyment of possessions, involved in the payment of compulsory
contributions, have been applied by the Netherlands authorities for a
purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.
Furthermore, insofar as her allegations relate to the distribution of
survivor's benefits in accordance with the above legislation, the
Commission has just established that no property right within the
meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) is involved in the
circumstances of this case which could have been restricted or with
regard to which any restrictions could have been misapplied.
Again, therefore, an examination of this complaint as it has been
submitted does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights
and freedoms set out in the Convention and particularly in Article 18
(Art. 18).
It follows that this part of the application is equally manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) (Art. 27-2), of the
Convention.
6. The applicant has finally complained that Article 30a of the
Widows' and Orphans' Benefits Act and the Royal Decrees implementing
the Act are discriminatory, and thus in breach of Article 14 (Art. 14)
of the Convention, namely on two grounds: firstly, on the ground of
property in that the reduction of the Dutch pension amounted in fact
to an "annihilation" of her Norwegian pension, and secondly on the
ground of status in that the reduction was applied only to wage-earners
who are also entitled to benefits under the social insurance scheme of
another State.
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides that the "enjoyment of
the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention shall be secured
without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other
status".
Referring again to its decision on the admissibility of Application No.
4130/68 against the Netherlands, the Commission first finds that it has
competence to examine the applicant's complaints under this provision.
It is true that, in accordance with the established jurisprudence of
the European Court and Commission on Human Rights, Article 14 (Art. 14)
of the Convention has no independent existence. Although it is not
necessary first to establish the existence of a violation of any of the
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, the allegations under
Article 14 (Art. 14) must be related to such rights and freedoms. It
is further true that, in accordance with the Commission's finding under
2) above, the pension benefits to which the applicant is entitled under
the relevant Netherlands legislation are not to be regarded as
"possessions" within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)
in the circumstances of the present case. Nevertheless, the allegations
which the applicant has made under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the
Convention are related to the right to peaceful enjoyment of
possessions and therefore raise an issue under Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1). Consequently, the Commission has competence to examine
the question of a violation of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention
read in conjunction with that provision.
However, the Commission finds that there has been no discrimination in
breach of the above provision in the present case.
Insofar as the applicant claims that she has been discriminated against
on the ground of property in that the reductions made under the Dutch
pension scheme amounted in fact to a loss of her Norwegian pension, it
is difficult to appreciate her argument in the context of Article 14
(Art. 14) of the Convention. In any event, as the Commission has
already pointed out above, any reference to the applicant's Norwegian
pension must be regarded as irrelevant in the present case.
On the other hand, the applicant also claims that the reduction of
pension benefits, in accordance with the Royal Decrees implementing
Article 30a of the Widows' and Orphans' Benefits Act, are only applied
to foreign wage earners being also entitled to benefits under the
social insurance scheme of another state and that this amounts to
discrimination based on status. The Commission recalls, however, that
not every difference in treatment in the exercise of the rights and
freedoms recognised in the Convention, is forbidden by Article 14
(Art. 14). In particular, the principle of equality of treatment is not
violated if the distinction has an objective and reasonable
justification, i.e. if it pursues a legitimate aim and if the
relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim
sought to be realised is not unreasonable.
The object of any social security scheme is to ensure that any person
who is unable, for whatever reason, to provide for himself has a
certain minimal financial basis on which he can exist. In the case of
old age and survivors' insurance, as it exists in the Netherlands, a
person is obliged during the period of his life in which he is able to
engage in a gainful occupation to contribute a certain fixed part of
his income to the general fund which the State has at its disposal in
order to realise the above aims.
In the present case the applicant complains of an inequality existing
by reason of the fact that her husband was required to make full
contributions under the social insurance legislation of both Norway and
the Netherlands, but that she herself receives a full pension only
under the Norwegian scheme while the Netherlands impose a reduction
calculated on the basis of the insurance period completed under the
Norwegian legislation.
However, in a pension fund system based on the solidarity principle,
as it exists in the Netherlands, there is no direct relationship
between the amount of contributions made and the pension benefits which
may eventually be received by the individual concerned (see Application
No. 4130/68, loc. cit.). The application of such a system may involve
a differentiation between certain categories of pensioners and may even
cause hardships in individual cases. However, any such differentiation
cannot be described as being discriminatory within the meaning of
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention. It is the consequence of a
system by which the State, in a comprehensive way, aims at providing
a minimum financial basis, and thus an adequate standard of living, for
all old people and survivors within its jurisdiction, and it therefore
has an objective and reasonable justification within the sense of
Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention.
Incidentally, any hardship which the applicant may have suffered by
reason of the double contributions made by her husband, has been
removed by the Royal Decree of 21 February 1972 and the decision given
thereunder. Indeed, as from 1 January 1972 the applicant receives the
full Dutch pension, in addition to the Norwegian pension, for the
period in which her husband made compulsory contributions on both
insurance funds, and the only reduction which is still being made
relates to the period prior to the enactment of the Widows' and
Orphans' Benefits Act during which the applicant's husband was not
required to contribute, and probably did not contribute, to any Dutch
national insurance scheme.
An examination of this complaint as it has been submitted including an
examination ex officio does not therefore disclose any violation of the
rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and particularly in
Article 14 (Art. 14), read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1).
It follows that this part of the application is again manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)
(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION
INADMISSIBLE