CERD/C/71/D/40/2007 Page 5 2.7 Under Danish law, a case can only be tried twice before national courts. If the case is of significant importance, there is the possibility to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. After the judgement of the High Court of Eastern Denmark, the complainant indeed applied for leave to appeal. On 5 December 2006, his application was dismissed. The complaint 3.1 The petitioner claims that Denmark has violated article 2, paragraph 1 (d); article 5 (e) (v); and article 6 of the Convention. 3.2 He contends that, as a consequence of the school’s discriminatory practice, he was not offered the same possibilities of education and training as his fellow students and no remedies were allegedly available to address this situation effectively, in violation of article 5 (e)(v) of the Convention. Furthermore, he experienced a financial loss as a result of national procedures. 3.3 The petitioner claims that Danish national legislation does not offer effective protection to victims of discrimination based on ethnicity, as required by article 2, subparagraph 1 (d) of the Convention, and does not meet the requirements of article 6. According to the petitioner, this resulted in his claims being dismissed. He further claims that the legislation is not interpreted by Danish courts in accordance with the Convention, since the concept of shared burden of proof and the right to obtain an assessment of whether discrimination based on ethnicity has taken place are not enforced. State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication 4.1 On 17 April 2007, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It claims that the communication is inadmissible ratione personae because the petitioner is not a “victim” for the purposes of article 14 of the Convention. It refers to the Human Rights Committee’s case-law on article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on “victim status”.1 Under this case-law, the victim must show that an act or an omission of a State party has already adversely affected his or her enjoyment of a right or that such an effect is imminent, for example, on the basis of existing law and/or judicial or administrative practice. The State party submits that its alleged failure to provide effective protection and effective remedies against the reported act of racial discrimination does not constitute and imminent violation of the petitioner’s rights under the articles of the Convention invoked. 1 The State party invokes the Human Rights Committee’s Views in E.W. et al v the Netherlands (Communication No. 429/1990), adopted on 8 April 1993, para. 6.4; Bordes and Temeharo v France (Communication No. 645/1995), adopted on 22 July 1996. para. 5.5; and Aalbersberg et al v the Netherlands (Communication 1440/2005), adopted on 12 July 2006, para. 6.3.