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.

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