AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

                      Application No. 14518/89

                      by S.

                      against Switzerland

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 30 May 1991, the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

                  J.A. FROWEIN

                  S. TRECHSEL

                  F. ERMACORA

                  E. BUSUTTIL

                  G. JÖRUNDSSON

                  H.G. SCHERMERS

                  H. DANELIUS

             Mrs.  G. H. THUNE

             Sir  Basil HALL

             MM.  F. MARTINEZ

                  C.L. ROZAKIS

             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             MM.  A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

                  B. MARXER

             Mr.  J. RAYMOND, Deputy Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on 29 December

1988 by S. against Switzerland and registered on 9 January 1989 under

file No. 14518/89;

        Having regard to:

-       the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

26 June 1990 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant

on 10 September 1990;

-       the submissions of the parties at the hearing on 30 May 1991;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows:

        The applicant, a Swiss citizen born in 1948, is a communal

employee and housewife residing at Schattdorf in Switzerland.  Before

the Commission she is represented by Mr.  L. Minelli, a lawyer

practising at Forch in Switzerland.

A.    Particular circumstances of the case

I.

        In 1973 the applicant was employed by the D. industrial company

in Altdorf in Switzerland.  From her salary she paid regular

contributions to the Federal Invalidity Insurance (Invaliden-

versicherung).

        In spring 1975 the applicant was afflicted by open lung

tuberculosis.  On 29 April 1976 she applied to the Invalidity

Insurance for a pension as, due to her illness, she was unable to

work.

        The competent Compensation Office (Ausgleichskasse) of the

Swiss Machine and Metal Industry (Schweizerische Maschinen- und

Metallindustrie) decided on 24 September 1976 to grant the applicant

half an invalidity pension for the period from 1 April to 31 October

1976.        On 28 September 1978 the D. company gave notice to the

applicant on account of her illness, as from 1979 onwards.

        The applicant filed a further application for a pension to the

Invalidity Insurance.  Based on two expert opinions, the Compensation

Office decided on 25 March 1980 to award the applicant a full

invalidity pension retroactively as from 1 May 1978.  The Office

assumed in particular that the applicant was somatically and mentally

unfit for employment.

        In 1981 and again in 1982 the Insurance reviewed the

applicant's situation and, as a result, confirmed the pension.

II.

        On 4 May 1984 the applicant gave birth to a son.

        Subsequently, the applicant's invalidity pension was

reviewed.  In 1985 the Compensation Office ordered the applicant's

medical examination by the Medical Observation Centre (Medizinische

Abklärungsstelle) of the Invalidity Insurance.

        The Medical Observation Centre then requested Drs.  F. and B.

to prepare two advisory reports (Konsilien) on the applicant's

health, namely a pulmological report and a pschychiatric report,

respectively.  Dr.  F. prepared his report on 10 December 1985, Dr.  B.

on 24 December 1985.

        The Medical Observation Centre prepared its report on

14 January 1986.  The report summarised the advisory reports of Dr.  F.

and Dr.  B.  The advisory report of Dr.  B. was also attached to the

report of the Medical Observation Centre.  In its report the Centre

concluded that the applicant would not at all be able to work as an

office employee; her ability to do household work amounted to about

60-70%.

        On 21 March 1986 the Compensation Office terminated, as from

1 May 1986, the applicant's pension which by then amounted to

2,016 SFr per month.  The Office considered that, after the birth of

her son, her family circumstances had changed substantially in that

she now had new duties in respect of the child.  Her health was now

also better.  The Compensation Office further considered that according

to the expert opinion of the Medical Observation Centre the applicant

was able to take care of her household and her child to the extent of

60-70%.

        On 21 April 1986 the applicant appealed against this decision

to the Appeal Board for Old Age, Survivors' and Invalidity Insurance

(Rekurskommission für die Alters-, Hinterlassenen- und

Invalidenversicherung) of the Canton of Uri, requesting payment of a

full invalidity pension, subsidiarily of half a pension.  She stated

inter alia that according to the Federal Invalidity Insurance Act

(Bundesgesetz über die Invalidenversicherung) she was entitled to an

invalidity pension if her invalidity amounted to at least 66 and 2/3%,

which it did.

        By letter of 26 May 1986 the applicant, who was at that time

not represented by a lawyer, complained to the Invalidity Commission

of Canton Uri that her request for consultation of the case-file,

which the Appeal Board had transmitted to that Commission, had been

refused.  She again requested the case-file and permission to consult

photocopies of certain documents.

        By letter of 28 July 1986 to the Commission the applicant

again requested permission to consult the case-file, in particular

with regard to "all medical reports, protocols and laboratory results

from 1975-1986" ("alle Arztberichte, Protokolle, Laborauswertungen von

1975-1986").  She also requested photocopies of important documents.

        On 8 May 1987 the Appeal Board dismissed the appeal.  At the

outset, it found that the right to consult the case-file did not

include the right to take documents away (Herausgabe) nor a right to

receive photocopies.  It sufficed that the applicant had been granted

the opportunity to consult her case-file at the Registry of the Appeal

Board.  While the applicant had on numerous occasions been asked to do

so, she had not used this opportunity.

        In the Appeal Board's opinion it could not be discarded that

the applicant, after the birth of her son, would have limited herself

to her household even without becoming an invalid.  The Board further

found, inter alia with reference to the expert opinion of the Medical

Observation Centre, that as a housewife the applicant was not

sufficiently disabled to obtain a pension.  The Appeal Board

considered that increased working activity could be expected from the

applicant, if she at all wanted to work under the prevailing family

circumstances.  The refusal of a pension could help the applicant to

resolve the neurotic fixation that she was unable to work.

        On 11 August 1987 the applicant wrote to the Appeal Board

stating that she needed all documents and expert opinions, in order to

assess the chances of her litigation.  She referred inter alia

to a perfusion scintigram, a lung function test, blood gas analyses

and a plethsmograph.

        By letter of 13 August 1987 the Appeal Board replied with

reference to the various medical documents:

"these constituted the basis for the various medical reports.

They are only contained in our case-file to the extent that you

are permitted to consult them.  We are not therefore in a position

to go beyond and allow you to consult further documents."

"diese (bildeten) Grundlagen für die jeweiligen Arztberichte ...

Sie befinden sich nur im Rahmen des Ihnen gewährten Akteneinsichts-

rechts bei unseren Akten.  Wir sind daher nicht in der Lage,

darüber hinaus Ihnen weitere Unterlagen zur Einsichtnahme

vorzulegen."

III.

        Against the decision of the Uri Appeal Board the applicant

filed on 20 August 1987 an administrative law appeal (Verwaltungs-

gerichtsbeschwerde) with the Federal Insurance Court (Eidgenössisches

Versicherungsgericht) in which she requested payment of a full pension

or, subsidiarily, that the case should be sent back for renewed

decision by the previous instance.  She also requested permission to

consult the entire case-file (vollumfängliches Akteneinsichtsrecht).

        On 20 October 1987 the Compensation Office filed its

observations to the Federal Insurance Court in which it supported

termination of the applicant's invalidity pension.  The Federal Social

Insurance Office (Bundesamt für Sozialversicherung) filed its

observations on 9 November 1987.  With reference to a report of its

own medical service it proposed dismissal of the applicant's

administrative law appeal.  This report referred inter alia to the

expert opinion of the Medical Observation Centre.

        By letter of 23 November 1987 the Federal Insurance Court

informed the applicant that the entire case-file had been sent to the

Uri Appeal Board which "in the next 14 days will hold all documents

ready for consultation" ("in den nächsten 14 Tagen alle Akten zur

Einsichtnahme bereit halten wird").  The applicant would thereafter

have ten days time to supplement her administrative law appeal.

        On 30 November 1987 the applicant consulted the case-file at

the Uri Appeal Board where she photocopied certain documents.  On 1

December 1987 the case-file was sent back to the Federal Insurance

Court.

        By letter of 7 December 1987 Mr.  Sch., a lawyer, informed the

Federal Insurance Court that he would henceforth represent the

applicant.  Mr.  Sch. also asked the Court to transmit the case-file to

him.  This the Court did on 11 December 1987.

        On 11 January 1988 the applicant filed a supplement to her

administrative law appeal with the Federal Insurance Court.  Therein

the applicant noted in particular that the expert opinion of the

Medical Observation Centre assumed, with reference to the report of

Dr.  F., that her lung function was normal.  Yet Dr.  F.'s report was

not in the case-file.  The applicant also complained of the arbitrary

opinion of the Appeal Board according to which, even if she had not

become an invalid, she would on account of the birth of her child

limit herself to her household.

        On 21 June 1988 the Federal Insurance Court partly upheld

the applicant's administrative law appeal in that it determined that,

as from 1 May 1986, the applicant's degree of invalidity amounted to

33,3%.  The Court found that, if the conditions of economic hardship

were met, the applicant was entitled to half an invalidity pension.

As the file contained no information in this respect, the Court sent

the case back to the Compensation Office for a new decision based on

the considerations of its decision.  The Court's decision was served

on the applicant on 2 July 1988.

        In its decision the Federal Insurance Court stated that in the

present case its examination was not limited to the violation of

Federal law and the transgression or the abuse of appreciation

(Überschreiten oder Missbrauch des Ermessens).  Rather, it could also

examine the appropriateness of the contested decision, and it was not

bound by the facts found by the previous instance.  The Court was

free, if necessary, to go beyond the application of the parties,

either to their advantage or disadvantage.

        With regard to the applicant's complaint that the Appeal Board

had not handed over to her all the documents for consultation, the Court

found that his complaint was now remedied in that the applicant had

been able to express herself before the Court; that the latter freely

examined the facts and the law; and that in the proceedings before

the Court the applicant had been able to consult the documents.

        With regard to the pension claim the Court first found, with

reference to general life experience (allgemeine Lebenserfahrung) and

predominant probability (überwiegende Wahrscheinlichkeit), that it

could be assumed that the applicant, whose child was two years old,

"would be active solely as a housewife and mother" ("nur als Hausfrau

und Mutter tätig wäre").  Thus, it was unnecessary to examine the

applicant's ability to work in her previous profession.  Rather, the

Court examined if and to what extent the applicant was restricted in

her activity as a housewife.  It considered it as sufficient to rely

on the expert opinion of the Medical Observation Centre.  While the

Court regarded it as a certain defect (gewisser Nachteil) that the

pulmological report was not in the case-file, it considered that the

internist's examination made it possible to answer the question

whether since 1980 the applicant had undergone pulmonal changes.

Additional medical examinations were hence unnecessary.  The Court

noted that since 1980 the applicant had not been treated on account of

tuberculosis and that in this respect she was fully able to work.  On

the other hand, she had a neurosis which had meanwhile diminished.

B.      Domestic Law and Practice

I.

        The Swiss invalidity insurance is governed by the Federal

Invalidity Insurance Act of 1959, and by the Federal Old Age and

Survivors' Insurance Act (Bundesgesetz über die Alters- und Hinterlas-

senenversicherung) of 1946.  The invalidity insurance is compulsory

for all persons residing in Switzerland; persons who are not

compulsorily insured, for instance Swiss expatriates, have the

possibility voluntarily to be insured (Sections 1 and 2 of the Federal

Invalidity Insurance Act).

        The invalidity insurance is operated by cantonal and

professional associations, in particular the Cantonal Compensation

Offices which are supervised by the Confederation.

        The invalidity insurance is financed by contributions of the

insured and the employer (each paying 1,2% of the insured persons's

salary) as well as of the State which currently pays approximately 50%

of the entire insurance costs.  The insured's contribution is deducted

automatically from his salary.  Children, spouses and widows without

employment are dispensed from contributions; for other persons without

employment, the annual contributions vary between 36 and 1200 SFr

(Section 3 of the Federal Invalidity Insurance Act; Section 3 of the

Federal Old Age and Survivors' Insurance Act).  There is no upper

limit to the contributions of the insured person and the employer.

        According to Section 40 of the Federal Invalidity Insurance

Act, a person is entitled (Anspruch) to an insurance benefit if his

invalidity amounts to at least 40%.  In this case he is entitled to

quarter of a pension.  In the case of invalidity of at least 50%, he

is entitled to half a pension.  In the case of invalidity of at least

50%, he is entitled to half a pension, if the invalidity is at least

66 2/3%, a full pension.  Section 40 para. 2 states:

"For the calculation of the invalidity, the salaried income

is considered which the insured person could have gained

after the invalidity arose, and after conducting any

rehabilitation measures, by means of an activity which could

reasonably be expected from him, if the situation on the

labour market is stable; this income is placed into relation

with the salaried income which the person could have gained

if he had not become an invalid."

"Für die Bemessung der Invalidität wird das

Erwerbseinkommen, das der Versicherte nach Eintritt der

Invalidität und nach Durchführung allfälliger

Eingliederungsmassnahmen durch eine ihm zumutbare Tätigkeit

bei ausgeglichener Arbeitsmarktlage erzielen könnte, in

Beziehung gesetzt zum Erwerbseinkommen, das er erzielen

könnte, wenn er nich invalid geworden wäre."

        According to Section 36 of this Act taken together with

Section 30 of the Federal Old Age and Survivors' Insurance Act, the

pension is calculated on the basis of the average yearly income of the

insured; this is determined by adding all the income in respect of

which the insured has paid contributions, and dividing the sum through

the number of years in which contributions were paid.  The maximum

pension is limited to double the minimum pension.  Payment of

contributions can be enforced.  The claims expire if they have not

been made within five years (Sections 15 and 16 of the Federal Old Age

and Survivors' Insurance Act).

II.

        The Swiss Federal Court has derived from Article 4 of the

Swiss Federal Constitution, which enshrines the principle of equality,

the constitutional right in proceedings to consult the case-file.

However, there is no right to take the case-file away or to prepare

photocopies therefrom;  it suffices if the file can be consulted at the

seat of the Office concerned and notes can be made (see ATF [Arrêts du

Tribunal Fédéral Suisse] 108 Ia 7).  More recently the Federal Court

has granted a right to have copies made if they do not cause too much

work and too high costs for the authorities (see ATF 112 Ia 377).

        With regard to the proceedings before the Appeal Board the

Federal Invalidity Insurance Act envisages in Section 69 the

possibility of an appeal against orders of Compensation Offices and

refers in this respect to Sections 84-86 of the Federal Old Age

and Survivors' Insurance Act.  Section 85 para. 1 of this Act

states:

"The Cantons determine an Appeal Board which is independent of

the administration.  An already existing Court authority can be

determined as such.  Persons who have been involved in the

preparation or supervision of the insurance may not belong to the

Appeal Board or its Secretariat."

"Die Kantone bestimmen eine von der Verwaltung unabhängige

kantonale Rekursbehörde.  Als solche kann eine bereits bestehende

Gerichtsbehörde bezeichnet werden.  An der Durchführung der

Versicherung oder an der Aufsicht über die Versicherung

beteiligte Personen dürfen weder der Rekursbehörde noch ihrem

Sekretariat angehören."

        Para. 2 of Section 85 mentions various requirements of the appeal

proceedings, inter alia that they must be simple, speedy and in

principle free of charge, and that the Appeal Board determines the

facts ex officio.  Section 85 para. 2(e) states in particular:

"If it is justified under the circumstances, the parties are to

be invited to a hearing.  The deliberations of the Appeal Board

take place without the presence of the parties."

"Rechtfertigen es die Umstände, so sind die Parteien zu einer

Verhandlung vorzuladen.  Die Beratung der Rekursbehörde hat in

Abwesenheit der Parteien stattzufinden."

        With regard to the administrative law proceedings before the

Federal Court and the Federal Insurance Court, Section 112 of the

Federal Judiciary Act (Organisationsgesetz) states that in certain

cases concerning disciplinary punishments an oral hearing must be

held.  Para. 2 of Section 111 continues: "In the case of appeals

against other orders, the President of the deciding department may

order a final hearing with parties' submissions" ("Im Falle von

Beschwerden gegen andere Verfügungen kann der Präsident der

urteilenden Abteilung eine Schlussverhandlung mit Parteivorträgen

anordnen").

        According to Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure (Reglement)

of the Federal Insurance Court, the parties have no right to demand an

oral hearing.  The President may order an oral hearing upon the request

of a party or on his own accord.

        In the proceedings before the Federal Insurance Court, the

applicant can also complain of the inadequateness of the previous

decision.  The Court is not bound by the determination of facts by the

previous instance.  In its decision the Court is also not bound by the

requests of the parties and may decide to their advantage or

disadvantage (Section 132 of the Federal Judiciary Act).

COMPLAINTS

1.      The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention that in the proceedings before the Swiss authorities she

had insufficient access to the case-file.  She submits that while the

opposing party could consult the documents at leisure in its own

office, she only had the possibility of consulting the documents at

the Uri Court Registry, and that the documents were not handed out to

her and no copies were prepared for her.  The applicant, who points

out that the Medical Observation Centre is not a truly independent

body, also complains that, in the proceedings before the Federal

Court, one particular document, namely a pulmological expert opinion

of Dr.F., was never shown to her and that she could not comment

thereupon before the Federal Insurance Court.  Thus, no evidence

proceedings were conducted before this Court.

2.      The applicant further complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention of the various proceedings and the ensuing decisions.  She

claims that she was not heard either by the Appeal Board or by the

Federal Insurance Court.  By assuming that she would be active solely

as a mother the Court was also not deciding impartially.  The

applicant submits in particular that for a layperson the Appeal Board

does not appear to be a Court and that in the light of the Swiss

interpretative declaration to Article 6 para. 1 for a layperson there

does not appear to be a possibility of an appeal to the Federal

Insurance Court.  In the light of the Adler case (Adler v.  Switzerland,

Comm.  Report 15.3.85, D.R. 46 p. 36) the latter Court should on its

own accord have granted an oral hearing.

3.      Under Article 14 taken together with Article 6 para. 1 of the

Convention, the applicant alleges an unjustified discrimination on the

ground of her sex in that the Federal Insurance Court assumed on the

basis of "general life experience" that women with small children give

up salaried work.  The applicant submits that, if she had been male,

the Federal Insurance Court would not have assumed that she would no

longer work after the birth of a child.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

        The application was introduced on 29 December 1988 and registered

on 9 January 1989.

        On 2 April 1990 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application

with regard to the issues under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

concerning access to the case-file.

        The Government's observations were received by letter dated

26 June 1989 and the applicant's observations were dated

10 September 1990.

        On 7 December 1990 the Commission decided to invite the

parties to a hearing on the admissibility and merits of the

applicant's complaints under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

        The hearing took place on 30 May 1991.  The respondent

Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.  O. Jacot-Guillarmod,

by Messrs.  R. Spira and A. Lustenberger, judges at the Federal

Insurance Court, and by Mr.  F. Schürmann of the European Law and

International Affairs Section of the Federal Office of Justice.  The

applicant was represented by her lawyer, Mr.  L.A. Minelli.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains that in the proceedings before the

Swiss authorities she had insufficient access to the case-file.  The

applicant further complains that one particular document, the

pulmological expert opinion of Dr.  F., was never shown to her and that

she could not comment thereupon.  The applicant also complains that

she did not have an oral hearing in these proceedings, and that the

decision of the Federal Insurance Court disclosed its partiality.  The

applicant relies on Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

which states, insofar as it is relevant:

"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations

... , everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ...

by an independent and impartial tribunal established by

law."

        As to the applicability of this provision to the proceedings

at issue, the applicant considers that the circumstances of the

present case (see also above Relevant domestic law and practice) do

not differ substantially from those of the Deumeland and Feldbrugge

cases (Eur.  Court H.R., judgments of 29 May 1986, Series A nos. 99 and

100, respectively).  Thus, while the insurance is regulated by public

law and compulsory, the applicant also refers to the personalised

nature of the asserted right, the connection with the contract of

employment, and the possibility of voluntary insurance.  The applicant

submits that the insurance benefits were essential as a basis of

existence for the applicant.

        As regards the question of the access to the case-file the

applicant points out that social security matters often involve

complex facts.  The applicant should have been able to present the

documents to specialists.  It would therefore have been essential for

her to work with the case-file, or at least photocopies thereof, in

the same manner as the opposing party which had the case-file in its

office.  The applicant also submits that access to Dr.  F.'s report

would have enabled her to submit it to her own medical expert for

examination.  In fact, there were never public proceedings before the

Federal Insurance Court in which it took evidence.  Yet it would have

been important to gain a personal impression of the applicant.

        The respondent Government submit that the present case

involves a typical administrative procedure and does not concern the

determination of the applicant's "civil rights and obligations" within

the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

Reference is made to the general system of the invalidity insurance in

Switzerland (see above Relevant domestic law and practice) and the

case-law of the Court in the Feldbrugge and Deumeland cases (Eur.

Court H.R., ibid.). In fact, given the double control available in

such proceedings, it is unnecessary to apply Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention.

        The Government emphasise that the invalidity insurance is

compulsory and is not attached to the employment contract or to a

person's fortune.  It depends on the degree of invalidity.  The

insurance is governed by the principle of solidarity rather than of

equivalence.  Thus, apart from a small part of the pension there is no

mathematical correspondence between the amount of contribution made

and the amount of pension received.  In the case of minors, the

spouses of insured persons and of widows the pension will not depend

on their contributions.  In the present case the insurance benefit was

calculated on the basis of the applicant's inability to fulfil

household duties rather than the inability to earn.  As a result, the

insurance appertains exclusively to public law.  In fact, contrary to

normal insurances which operate on the principle of capitalisation,

the invalidity insurance is based on the principle of repartition,

i.e. the contributions will finance the pension.

        In respect of the issue of an oral hearing the Government

point out that Section 85 para. 2 of the Federal Old Age and

Survivors' Insurance Act envisages a hearing "if it is justified under

the circumstances" (see above Relevant domestic law and practice).

However, there are practically no hearings.  As a general rule, both

the Appeal Board and the Federal Insurance Court will consider that

the circumstances are not such as to warrant a hearing.  In fact, the

applicability of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention would

considerably slow down the proceedings.

        As regards the issue of access to the case-file, the

Government consider that in any event the applicant can also not claim

to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

The Government recall that under the Swiss Federal Constitution (see

above Relevant domestic law and practice) the parties must have

access to all pertinent documents of the proceedings.  The Government

note that the applicant did not use the opportunity of consulting the

case-file at the Court Registry.  Moreover, on 30 November 1987 the

applicant in fact consulted the case-file at the Registry of the Uri

Appeal Board and made photocopies thereof.  Subsequently, the

applicant's lawyer received the entire case-file.  With reference to

the Artico case (see Eur.  Court H.R., judgment of 13 May 1980, Series

A no. 37, p. 16, para. 33) the Government contend that there was no

breach of the principle of equality of arms if the applicant could

effectively consult the case-file.

        The Government further contend that access to a person's

medical case-file is subjected to the limitations in the second

sentence of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.  Moreover,

the expert opinion of the Medical Observation Centre, which the

applicant could consult, constituted a virtually verbatim synthesis of

the essential parts of other reports and was accessible to the

applicant.  Only in exceptional cases are the individual elements

leading to the synthesis attached thereto.  In fact, both the Appeal

Board and the Federal Insurance Court only relied on the expert

opinion of the Medical Observation Centre.  These authorities did not

have Dr.  F.'s report at their disposal.  The actual assessment of the

applicant's medical situation by the national authorities falls

outside the scope of control of the Convention organs.

        The Commission, having regard to the parties' submissions

under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, considers that

these complaints raise complex issues of fact and law which can only

be resolved by an examination of the merits.  This part of the

application cannot, therefore, be declared manifestly ill-founded

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.  No other grounds for inadmissibility have been

established.

2.      The applicant further complains under Article 14 (Art. 14) taken

together with Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention of an alleged

discrimination on the ground of sex.  She refers in particular to the

Federal Insurance Court's statement that on the basis of "general life

experience" women with small children will give up salaried work.

The applicant submits that such an assumption by the Federal Insurance

Court was not necessary in view of the conclusions of many scientific

studies.  The Federal Court failed to take evidence on this issue.

a)      The Government submit that in this respect the applicant has

not complied with the requirement as to the exhaustion of domestic

remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

in that she never raised this point before the Swiss authorities.

        Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission

may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been

exhausted according to the generally recognised rules of international

law.

        In the present case, the Commission notes, on the one hand,

that the applicant is complaining of the formulation employed by the

Federal Insurance Court in its decision of 21 June 1988.  Against this

decision no further appeal was possible.  On the other hand, to the

extent that the Appeal Board of the Canton of Uri had previously

expressed a similar assumption in its decision of 8 May 1987, the

Commission considers that the applicant complained thereof in her

administrative law appeal statement of 11 January 1988, claiming in

particular that the opinion of the Appeal Board was arbitrary.

        The applicant's complaints cannot therefore be rejected under

Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies.

b)      The Government contend that the assessment of evidence falls

in principle to the national authorities who in the present case did

not discriminate against the applicant on the ground of her sex.

Rather, the criteria established by law to assess the inability to

work do not apply to a housewife for which reason other criteria

become relevant.

        The Commission, having regard to the parties' submissions

under Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention taken together with

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), considers that these complaints raise

complex issues of fact and law which can only be resolved by an

examination of the merits. This part of the application cannot,

therefore, be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of

Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.  No other grounds

for inadmissibility have been established.

        For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,

        without prejudging the merits of the case.

Deputy Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

           (J. RAYMOND)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)