EE, Communication Mo. 491/1992,_J.L. y. Australia (decision of 28 July 1992. adopted at the forty-fifth session) Submitted by: J,L. (name deleted) Alleged victim: The author State party: Australia Date of communication: 7 August 1991 (initial submission) The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Meeting on 28 July 1992, Adopts the following! Decision on admissibilitv 1. The author of the communication is J.L., an Australian citizen residing in Moorabbin, Victoria, Australia. He claims to be a victim of violations by Australia of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Sights. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Australia on 25 December 1991. Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author is a solicitor; in the State of Victoria, the practice of law is regulated by the Legal Profession Practice Act of 1958. Pursuant to section 83 (1), no one may practise law unless he or she is duly qualified and holds a certificate issued by the Law Institute of Victoria. Under the Act, two fees must be paid before a practising certificate is issued: an annual practising fee and a compulsory professional indemnity insurance premium. Pursuant to section 90, anyone without a practising certificate is not qualified to practise law. 2.2 Section 88 (2) (c) stipulates that the rules determining a practising fee for solicitors have no effect unless approved by the Chief Justice. The latter may also approve the regulations concerning the professional indemnity insurance. In 1985, the Chief Justice approved a new insurance scheme proposed by the Law Institute, under which its Solicitors' Liability Committee was entitled to henceforth determine the insurance premium. 2.3 In 1986, J.L* refused to pay the increased premium for the new insurance scheme, since he considered it to be invalid. Re claimed that, apart from being a tax which had to be determined by Parliament, the Institute had not sought the necessary recommendations from its members for the new rules, nor had it complied with the so-called regulatory impact statement requirements of the Subordinate Legislation Act of 1962. 2.4 The Institute refused to issue the author's practising certificate; the latter did, however, continue to practise. On 13 May 1986, the Secretary of -440-