public education institutions, and by circular Ho. 83-547 of 30 December 1983
specifying objectives. The teaching of Breton, however, is not obligatory but
a function of the optional choices of students ana teachers. The Rectors of
the various academies may adapt teaching requirements in the light of local
characteristics and with a view to the financial resources available to them.
4.7 With respect to the author's allegation that his CAPES forces him to
teach subjects other than Breton, the State party explains that all teachers
who obtain CAPES may be called upon to teach in any of the academies created
by the Minister of Education, throughout France. The specificity of teaching
requirements of Breton therefore has led the authorities to require candidates
to CAPES to acquire the certificate for two subjects. Teachers of Breton are
required to teach a second subject in addition to the hours of Breton taught,
so as to fulfil the necessary service requirements laid down in their
statute. The State party concludes that the author cannot pretend that he is
discriminated on grounds of language if the Lycee de Vannes asked him to teach
geography and history, in addition to Breton; if Breton classes are not
organized, this is by no means owing to discriminatory considerations but to
the fact that this option is chosen by too limited a number of students, and,
in the author's case, norms that are of general application simply have been
applied to his situation,
4.8 With respect to the alleged violation of article 27, the St&te party
refers to the "declaration" made by the Government of France upon accession to
the Covenant, which stipulates: "in the light of article 2 of the
Constitution of the French Republic, ... article 27 [of the Covenant] is not
applicable as far as the Republic is concerned",
4.9 Finally, the State party contends that a violation of article 2 of the
Covenant cannot be committed directly and in isolation, and that any violation
of this provision can only be a corollary to the violation of another
provision of the Covenant. Since the author has not shown that his rights
under the Covenant have been breached, he cannot invoke article 2.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
5.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human
Bights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,
decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the
Covenant.
5.2 Concerning the author's claim under article 19, paragraph 2, the
Committee observes that 8.L.M. has failed to substantiate how his freedom of
expression was violated by the French authorities' policy yis-a-yis, the
teaching of Breton. In this respect, therefore, he has failed to advance a
claim within the meaning of article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
5.3 As to the claim of a violation of article 27, the Committee reiterates
that France's "declaration" made in respect of this provision is tantamount to
a reservation and therefore precludes the Committee from considering
complaints against France alleging violations of article 27 of the
Covenant, a/
-370-