Applicant claimed that legislation which granted unemployment benefits to married men, but not married women, was discriminatory; Committee held that discriminatory legislation in the field of economic, social and cultural rights can violate right to equality in International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; Legislation discriminatory on grounds of sex and marital status.
The legislation was amended on 29 April 1985, before the Committee’s view was published, with the elimination of Article 13(1) that required married women prove they were the breadwinner or where permanently separated from their husband.
The case has been widely cited as demonstrating the application of non-discrimination and equality norms to economic and social rights. For a similar case decided by the Committee at the same time see: S. W. M. Brooks v. the Netherlands. The decision also formed the basis for the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on Article 26 which provides an expansive interpretation of rights to equality and non-discrimination under the ICCPR. More recently, in Young v Australia, the Committee applied the case on access to pensions for same-sex couples.
Advocate: Mr. D. J. van der Vos (Former) Head of the Legal Aid Department (Rechtskundige Dienst FNV) Amsterdam The Netherlands