Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> ALBERT AND LE COMPTE v. BELGIUM - 7299/75;7496/76 [1983] ECHR 1 (10 February 1983)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1983/1.html
Cite as: [1983] 5 EHRR 533, (1983) 5 EHRR 533, 5 EHRR 533, [1983] ECHR 1
[New search] [Contents list] [Help]
In the case of Albert and Le Compte,
The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary
session in pursuance of Rule 48 of the Rules of Court and composed
of the following judges:
Mr. G. WIARDA, President,
Mr. R. RYSSDAL,
Mr. J. CREMONA,
Mr. THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON,
Mr. W. GANSHOF VAN DER MEERSCH,
Mrs. D. BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT,
Mr. D. EVRIGENIS,
Mr. G. LAGERGREN,
Mr. L. LIESCH,
Mr. F. GÖLCÜKLÜ,
Mr. F. MATSCHER,
Mr. J. PINHEIRO FARINHA,
Mr. E. GARCÍA DE ENTERRÍA,
Mr. L.-E. PETTITI,
Mr. B. WALSH,
Sir VINCENT EVANS,
Mr. R. MACDONALD,
Mr. C. RUSSO,
Mr. R. BERNHARDT,
Mr. J. GERSING,
and also Mr. M.-A. EISSEN, Registrar, and Mr. H. PETZOLD, Deputy
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private from 28 to 30 September 1982, and from
26 to 28 January 1983,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case of Albert and Le Compte was referred to the Court by the
European Commission of Human Rigths ("the Commission"). It
originated in two applications against Belgium (nos. 7299/75 and
7496/76) lodged with the Commission in 1975 and 1976 by two Belgian
nationals, Dr. Alfred Albert and Dr. Herman Le Compte, under
Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention"). The Commission
ordered the joinder of the applications on 10 July 1979.
2. The Commission's request was lodged with the registry of the Court
on 12 March 1982, within the period of three months laid down by
Articles 32 para. 1 and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47). The request referred
to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration made
by the Kingdom of Belgium recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the Commissions's
request was to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether the
disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicants before the
competent bodies of the Belgian Ordre des médecins (Medical
Association) breached the rights guaranteed by the Convention,
particularly by Articles 3 and 6 thereof (art. 3, art. 6).
3. The Chamber of seven judges to be constituted included, as ex
officio members, Mr. W. Ganshof van der Meersch, the elected judge
of Belgian nationality (Article 43 of the Convention) (art. 43),
and Mr. G. Wiarda, the President of the Court (Rule 21 3 (b) of the
Rules of Court). On 26 March 1982, the President drew by lot, in the
presence of the Registrar, the names of the five other members of the
Chamber, namely Mr. M. Zekia, Mr. J. Cremona, Mr. D. Evrigenis,
Mr. R. Macdonald, and Mr. J. Gersing (Article 43 in fine of
the Convention and Rule 21 para. 4) (art. 43).
4. After assuming the office of President of the Chamber
(Rule 21 para. 5), Mr. Wiarda ascertained through the Registrar the
views of the Agent of the Belgian Government ("the Government") and
the Delegates of the Commission as regards the procedure to be
followed. On 3 May 1982, having particular regard to their concurring
statements, he concluded that there was no need for memorials to be
filed; he also directed that the oral proceedings should open
on 27 September.
5. On 28 May 1982, the Chamber decided under Rule 48 to relinquish
jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the plenary Court.
6. On 27 August, the President instructed the Registrar to request
the Commission to produce several documents to the Court and the
Government to furnish certain information. The representatives
complied with these requests on 8 and 27 September.
7. The oral proceedings were held in public at the Human Rights
Building, Strasbourg, on 27 September 1982. The Court held a
preparatory meeting immediately beforehand.
There appeared before the Court:
- for the Government
Mr. J. NISET, LEGAL ADVISER at the Ministry of Justice, Agent,
Mr. J.-M. NELISSEN GRADE, Counsel,
Mr. J. PUTZEYS,
Mr. S. GEHLEN, lawyers for the Ordre des médecins,
Mr. F. VERHAEGEN, adviser at the Ministry of Public Health,
Mr. F. VINCKENBOSCH, secrétaire d'administration at the
Ministry of Public Health, Advisers;
- for the Commission
Mr. G. SPERDUTI,
Mr. M. MELCHIOR, Delegates,
Mr. J. BULTINCK, Dr. Le Compte's lawyer before the Commission,
assisting the Delegates (Rule 29 para. 1, second sentence,
of the Rules of Court).
THE FACTS
I. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Doctor Albert
8. Dr. Alfred Albert is a medical practitioner. He was born in 1908,
lives at Molenbeek and is a Belgian national.
9. By letter of 9 April 1974, the Brabant Provincial Council of the
Ordre des médecins (Medical Association) notified him of the opening
of an enquiry regarding him; it summoned him to appear before its
Bureau on 8 May to answer questions in connection with a series of
certificates of unfitness for work issued by him, asking him to
bring with him the medical files of the patients concerned.
The applicant appeared on the prescribed date. The Bureau of the
Provincial Council informed him that he was accused of having issued
spurious certificates.
On 16 May, the President of the Provincial Council sent Dr. Albert a
registered letter which read:
"Dear Colleague,
The Brabant Council of the Ordre des médecins requests the honour of
your appearance before it on Tuesday, 4 June 1974 at 8.30 p.m., 32
Place de Jamblinne de Meux, in order to present your defence in
connection with the following complaint, namely that of
- having issued various certificates of unfitness for work,
in particular:
on 26.12.1973 to B...,
on 7.1.1974 to T...,
on 9.1.1974 to A...,
without having satisfied yourself in a strict manner, by means of a
sufficiently thorough examination, of the justification of the
unfitness for work and while not possessing any medical record in
relation to these patients,
these facts having compromised the reputation, probity and dignity of
the medical profession.
The case-file concerning you may be consulted at the Council's office
on any working day from 9.00 a.m. until 11.30 a.m., and from 2.00 p.m.
5.00 p.m., except on Saturday afternoon, from 18 to 31 May inclusive.
You may be assisted by one or more lawyers.
Yours faithfully, ..."
On 4 June, the Provincial Council heard Dr. Albert and suspended his
right to practise medicine for a period of two years. It found that
Dr. Albert had "carried out no medical examinations such as to
warrant finding a state of unfitness for work", that he had been
unable to produce "any medical document whatsoever capable of
establishing" such a state, and that neither had "his memory
permitted him ... to come forward with any justification". It
considered that "it ought to impose a very severe sanction" in
view of "the very serious disciplinary record" of the applicant
(two suspensions from practice following criminal convictions).
Mr. Albert was notified of the decision on 11 June.
10. Dr. Albert appealed to the French-language Appeals Council of the
Ordre on 18 June. The Provincial Council's legal assessor did
likewise on 26 June in order to have the penalty increased.
On 19 November, the Appeals Council upheld the decision given at
first instance.
11. By judgment of 12 June 1975, the Court of Cassation rejected the
applicant's appeal on a point of law alleging violation of the
rights of defence and, in so far as relevant, of Article 97 of the
Constitution.
B. Doctor Le Compte
12. Dr. Herman Le Compte, a Belgian national born in 1929 and living
at Knokke-Heist, is a medical practitioner.
13. On 22 Febrary 1974, the West Flanders Provincial Council of the
Ordre des médecins informed him that an enquiry had been ordered
concerning him for "improper publicity" (ongeoorloofde
publiciteit) and "contempt (beledigingen) of the Ordre": he had
given three interviews to magazines and sent a letter to the
President of the Provincial Council.
On 26 March, the applicant wrote to the said President to advise him
of his intention to exercise his right, under sections 40 an 41 of
the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970, to challenge the Provincial
Council's members as a whole.
On 27 March, the Provincial Council, by decision rendered in
absentia, rejected the applicant's challenge and suspended his right
to practise medicine for a period of two years.
14. The applicant entered an appeal on 5 April 1974. He alleged,
amongst other things, violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention:
"This provision of the Convention guarantees to a litigant that his
case will be dealt with at a public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal. In the particular circumstances of the case,
neither of these two guarantees was assured.
(a) Cases before the Councils of the Ordre des médecins are not dealt
with at a public hearing even though no reason of public policy
exists for dealing with cases in camera or, at least, for
pronouncing decisions in camera. Consequently, honest treatment in
accordance with the principles of the European Convention is
rendered impossible.
(b) The Councils of the Ordre are, by reason of their membership
alone, neither independent nor impartial since half of their members
are other medical practitioners." (Translation from Dutch)
The legal assessor of the Provincial Council did not avail himself of
his own right to appeal.
On 28 October, the Dutch-language Appeals Council rejected the
grounds challenging its members and changed the applicants'
suspension into striking his name from the register of the Ordre.
On 4 November, Dr. Le Compte lodged an objection (opposition) against
this decision, which had been given in absentia.
As he had been summoned to appear at a hearing on 16 December, he
lodged a further challenge on 6 December against the Appeals
Council's members as a whole.
On 6 January 1975, the Appeals Council rejected both the objection
and the challenge.
15. The applicant thereupon appealed on a point of law to the court
of Cassation, but his appeal was dismissed by judgment of
7 November 1975, which was notified to him on 25 November.
16. The striking of Dr. Le Compte's name from the register of the
Ordre took effect on 26 December.
Under sections 7 para. 1 and 31 of Royal Decree No. 79 of
10 November 1967 and section 38 para. 1 of Royal Decree No. 78 of the
same date, being struck off the register has the consequence of
debarring him from practising medicine.
II. THE ORDRE DES MEDECINS
17. Belgian legislation on the Ordre des médecins, particularly on
the organs of the Ordre and the procedure followed in disciplinary
matters, is described in the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere
judgment of 23 June 1981 (Series A no. 43, pp. 11-17, paras. 20-34).
The Court refers back to this judgment in this connection.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
18. Dr. Albert applied to the Commission on 10 December 1975,
Dr. Le Compte on 6 May 1976.
Both applicants alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
of the Convention. They maintained in particular that they
had not been given a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time
by and independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Dr. Albert further asserted that he had not received the benefit of
the guarantees of Article 6 paras. 2 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) (art. 6-2,
art. 6-3-a, art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-d).
Dr. Le Compte, for his part, contended that the striking of his name
from the register of the Ordre was an inhuman or degrading punishment
in breach of Article 3 (art. 3) and that the obligation to join the
Ordre and submit to its disciplinary organs violated Article 11
(art. 11) taken on its own or in conjunction with Article 17
(art. 17+11).
19. The Commission declared both applications admissible on
4 December 1979 after ordering their joinder on 10 July 1979 under
Rule 29 of its Rules of Procedure.
In its report of 14 December 1981 (Article 31 of the Convention)
(art. 31), its expressed the opinion:
- that there had been no violation of Article 3 (art. 3) (unanimously);
- that neither Dr. Albert (8 votes to 4, with 1 abstention) nor
Dr. Le Compte (12 votes, with 1 abstention) had been subject to a
"criminal charge";
- that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) applied to the "contestations"
(disputes) over "civil rights and obligations" which had led to the
disciplinary measures taken against the applicants (12 votes to 1);
- that, in the circumstances, the organs of the Ordre were
"established by law" and were "independent" (10 votes, with
3 abstentions);
- that Dr. Albert (7 votes to 4, with 2 abstentions) and Dr. Le Compte
(8 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions) had been given a hearing by an
"impartial tribunal";
- that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) had been violated in that neither
applicant had been given a "public hearing" (11 votes to 1, with
1 abstention).
Noting that Dr. Le Compte's allegations regarding Article 11 (art. 11)
were similar to those he had made in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven
and De Meyere, the Commission referred back to its report of
14 December 1979 (paras. 61-65) and to the Court's judgment of
23 June 1981 (Series A no. 43, p. 17, para. 36, and pp. 26-27,
paras. 62-66).
The report contains four separate opinions.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT
20. At the hearing held on 27 September 1982, the Government
requested the Court
"to hold that there has been, in the present cases, no violation of
Article 3 (art. 3) or of any of the provisions of Article 6 (art. 6)
of the Convention".
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 3 (art. 3)
21. One of the applicants, Dr. Le Compte, invoked Article 3 (art. 3)
of the Convention, which provides:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment."
In his submission, his being struck off the register of the Ordre des
médecins constituted a degrading, if not inhuman, punishment both in
its nature and in its effects on his private, professional and
family life.
22. The Court concurs in substance with the contrary opinion
expressed by the Commission in paragraph 57 of its report. It
observes that withdrawal, as a disciplinary measure, of the right to
practise is intended to penalise a doctor whose serious misconduct
has shown that he no longer satisfies the required conditions for
exercising the medical profession. The Court sees no cause to
question the very principle of the legitimacy of measures of this
kind, which moreover exist in the majority of the member States of
the Council of Europe. Neither is it called upon to determine
whether this measure was justified in the present case.
Taken on its own, the withdrawal complained of had as its object the
imposition of a sanction on Dr. Le Compte for the misconduct imputed
to him, but not the debasement of his personality; nor, as far as
its consequences are concerned, did it adversely affect his
personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (art. 3).
There has accordingly been no breach of that Article (art. 3).
II. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
23. Doctors Albert and Le Compte claimed to be victims of violations
of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, which reads:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any
criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and
public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced
publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part
of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national
security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles
or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or
to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests
of justice."
24. The first matter for decision is whether this provision is
applicable; the Commission and the applicants affirmed that it was,
but this was disputed by the Government.
A. APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
25. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) applies only to the determination of
"civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge" (in the
French text: "contestations sur [des] droits et obligations de
caractère civil" and "bien-fondé de toute accusation en matière
pénale"). As the Court has held on several occasions, there are some
cases (in the French text: "causes") which are not comprised within
either of these categories and which thus fall outside the ambit of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (see the above-mentioned Le Compte,
Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 19, para. 41,
and the references therein to previous case law)
Disciplinary proceedings do not ordinarily lead to a contestation
(dispute) over "civil rights and obligations"; however, the
position may be otherwise in certain circumstances (ibid., p. 19,
para. 42). Again, disciplinary proceedings as such cannot be
characterised as "criminal", although this may not hold good for
certain specific cases (see the Engel and others judgment of
8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-36, paras. 80-85).
26. As in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, it is
necessary to determine whether Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) applied to
the whole or part of the proceedings that took place before the
provincial and Appeals Councils, which are disciplinary organs, and
subsequently before the Court of Cassation.
1. Existence of "contestations" (disputes) over "civil rights and
obligations"
27. Dr. Le Compte and, in his alternative submission, Dr. Albert
contended that the disciplinary proceedings taken against them gave
rise to "contestations" (disputes) over their "civil rights and
obligations".
The issue thus raised is to a large extent the same as that already
decided in the judgment of 23 June 1981, a judgment delivered by the
plenary Court (Rule 48 of the Rules of Court). The Court sees no
cause to depart from that judgment, especially since Dr. Le Compte,
the Government and the Commission each referred back to their
respective arguments in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and
De Meyere.
As in that case, the evidence discloses the existence of a veritable
"contestation" (dispute). The Ordre des médecins alleged that the
applicants had committed professional misconduct rendering them
liable to sanctions and they denied those allegations. After the
Provincial Council had found them guilty and ordered their
suspension from practice - decisions that were taken after hearing
Dr. Albert's submissions on issues of fact and of law in his case
(Brabant) and in absentia in the case of Dr. Le Compte (West
Flanders) -, the applicants appealed to the Appeals Council. Their
appeals proved unsuccessful, whereupon they applied to the Court of
Cassation (see paragraphs 11 and 15 above).
28. In addition, it must be shown that the "contestation"
(dispute) related to "civil rights and obligations", in other
words that the "result of the proceedings" was "decisive" for
such a right (see the Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A
no. 13, p. 39, para. 94).
(a) On the first point (direct relationship between the
"contestation" (dispute) and a right), the Court would recall that
a tenuous connection or remote consequences do not suffice for
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1): a right must be the object - or one
of the objects - of the "contestation" (dispute) (see the
above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A
no. 43, p. 21, para. 47).
According to the Government, "the sole object of disciplinary
proceedings" is to "investigate" and "decide whether the person
being proceeded against has contravened the rules of professional
conduct" or "damaged the reputation or dignity of the profession
and, if so", "to impose a disciplinary sanction on him".
The Court is unable to share this point of view. The suspensions
ordered by the Provincial Council against Dr. Albert on 4 June 1974 and
against Dr. Le Compte on 27 March 1974 were to deprive them
temporarily of their right to practise medicine. The appeals they
brought were primarily aimed at having the measures in question
cancelled. The right to practise was therefore directly in issue
before the Appeals Council, which moreover could, and in the case of
Dr. Le Compte did, increase the severity of the sanction. It
remained in issue before the Court of Cassation, which likewise was
required to examine - within the limits of its jurisdiction - the
applicants' complaints against the decisions affecting them.
(b) On the second point (whether it was a civil right), the Court
notes that - as in the König case and the case of Le Compte,
Van Leuven and De Meyere - the right in issue was the right to
continue to exercise the medical profession. In its judgments
of 28 June 1978 and 23 June 1981, the Court found that, in the
particular circumstances of each of the two last-mentioned cases, this
was a private right and thus a civil right within the meaning of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1); it therefore concluded that
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was applicable (Series A no. 27, p. 32,
para. 95, and Series A no. 43, p. 22, para. 48).
The effect of the disciplinary sanctions in question was to divest the
applicants, temporarily (Dr. Albert) or permanently (Dr. Le Compte), of
the aforesaid right, which they had duly acquired and which allowed
them to pursue the goals of their professional life.
It is not for the Court to go beyond the facts submitted for its
consideration and determine whether, for the medical profession as a
whole, this right profession as a whole, this right is a civil right,
within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) (see notably,
mutatis mutandis, the Golder judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A
no. 18, p. 19, para. 39). It is sufficient to note that it is by means
of private relationships with their client and patients that doctors
in private practice, such as the applicants, avail themselves of the
right to continue to practise; in Belgium, the relationships are
usually contractual and, in any event, are directly established
between individuals on a personal basis. Accordingly, the right to
continue to practise constituted, in the case of the applicants, a
private right and thus a civil right within the meaning of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), notwithstanding the specific character of
the medical profession - a profession which is exercised in the
general interest - and the special duties incumbent on its members.
29. Since the "contestation" (dispute) over the decisions taken
against them concerned a "civil right", the applicants were
entitled to have their cases (in French: "causes") heard by a
"tribunal" satisfying the conditions laid down in Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) (see the above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A
no. 18, p. 18, para. 36). In many member States of the Council of
Europe, the duty of adjudicating on disciplinary offences is conferred
on jurisdictional organs of professional associations. Even in
instances where Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is applicable, conferring
powers in this manner does not in itself infringe the Convention (see
the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment,
Series A no. 43, p. 23, first sub-paragraph). Nonetheless, in such
circumstances the Convention calls at least for one of the two
following systems: either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply
with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), or they do not
so comply but are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body
that has full jurisdiction and does provide the guarantees of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
In the present instance, the applicants' cases were dealt with by
three bodies, namely the Provincial Council, the Appeals Council and
the Court of Cassation. As in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and
De Meyere, the Court does not consider it indispensable to pursue this
point as regards the Provincial Council (ibid.). On the other hand,
the Court must satisfy itself that before the Appeals Council or,
failing that, before the Court of Cassation Dr. Albert and
Dr. Le Compte had the benefit of the "right to a court" (see the
above-mentioned Golder judgment, Series A no. 18, p. 18, para. 36) and
of a determination by a tribunal of the matters in dispute (see the
above-mentioned König judgment, Series A no. 27, p. 34, para. 98 in
fine), both for questions of fact and for questions of law.
2. Existence of "criminal charges"
30. The main contention of Dr. Albert - but not of Dr. Le Compte -
was that the organs of the Ordre des médecins were required to
determine a "criminal charge". The government disputed this; they
asserted in particular that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), assuming it
to be applicable, could not come into operation at one and the same
under the head of "civil rights and obligations" and under the head of
"criminal charge".
When deciding on the admissibility of the applications, the
Commission did not rule out the criminal aspect of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1). The Commission then examined the nature of the acts of
misconduct of which the applicants had been accused - certain of these
acts could have given rise to criminal prosecution - and the severity
of the penalties imposed; it concluded in its report, however, that
neither Dr. Albert nor Dr. Le Compte had been subject to a "criminal
charge".
For its part, the Court does not believe that the two aspects, civil
and criminal, of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) are necessarily mutually
exclusive (see the above-mentioned Engel and others judgment, Series A
no. 22, pp. 36-37, para. 87; the above-mentioned König judgment,
Series A no. 27, pp. 32-33, para. 96; and the above-mentioned Le
Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, pp. 23-24,
paras. 52-53). Nonetheless, the Court does not consider it necessary to
decide whether, in the specific circumstances, there was a "criminal
charge". In point of fact, paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1),
violation of which was alleged by the two applicants, applies in civil
matters as well as in the criminal sphere (see the above-mentioned
Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, pp. 23-24,
para. 53). Dr. Albert relied in addition on paragraph 2 and on
sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) of paragraph 3 (art. 6-2, art. 6-3-a,
art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-d), but, in the opinion of the Court, the
principles enshrined therein are, for the present purposes, already
contained in the notion of a fair trial as embodied in paragraph 1
(art. 6-1); the Court will therefore take these principles into
account in the context of paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) (see paragraphs 38-42
below).
B. Compliance with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
31. In the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, the Court
investigated whether the Appeals Council and the Court of Cassation
in fact constituted "tribunals" that were "established by law",
"independent" and "impartial", and had afforded the applicants a
"public hearing". In the present case, the Court does not adjudge
it necessary to revert to the first three points; it had, as had the
Commission, come to the conclusion that no violation had occurred.
There thus remain the guarantees of impartiality and publicity.
1. Impartiality
32. No issue can be taken as to the impartiality of the Court of
Cassation (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and
De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 58).
With regard to the Appeals Council, the Commission no longer
maintained that the Council's medical members had to be considered
as unfavourable to the applicants since they had interests very
close to those of one of the parties to the proceedings (ibid.); the
Commission further noted that Dr. Le Compte - but not Dr. Albert -
had endeavoured to challenge the Council's medical members as a
whole, without however putting forward any specific complaint
against one or other of them (see paragraph 14 above). Whilst
stating reservations as to the impartiality of the instruction as
such, the Commission expressed the opinion that on this point, no
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) had occurred.
The Court concurs with this conclusion. In principle, the personal
impartiality of the members of a "tribunal" must be presumed until
there is proof to the contrary (see the above-mentioned Le Compte,
Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, ibid.); Dr. Le Compte did indeed
avail himself of his right of challenge, but he did so in such a
vague fashion that his objection could not be regarded as
well-founded (see paragraph 14 above). As for impartiality judged
from an objective and organisational point of view (see, mutatis
mutandis, the Piersack judgment of 1 October 1982, Series A no. 53,
pp. 14-15, para. 30), there is nothing in the material submitted to
prompt the Court to call the matter into question. In particular,
the manner of appointment of the medical practitioners sitting on
the Appeals Councils provides no cause for treating those
individuals as biased: although elected by the Provincial Councils
(see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere
judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 14, para. 26), they act not as
representatives of the Ordre des médecins but - like the legal
members nominated by the Crown - in a personal capacity.
2. Publicity
33. Under Belgian law, the professional jurisdictional organs and the
Court of Cassation are governed by different rules regarding
publicity.
(a) Before the Appeals Council
34. Under the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970, all publicity before
the Appeals Council is excluded, both for hearings and for
pronouncement of the decision. Unless remedied at a later stage of the
procedure, a prohibition of this kind may deprive the persons
concerned of one of the safeguards set forth in the first sentence of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. Subject to the
exceptions permitted by the second sentence, the defendant medical
practitioner is entitled to such publicity if, during the course of
disciplinary proceedings brought against him, there arises a
contestation (dispute) over civil rights and obligations (see the
above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and de Meyere judgment, Series A
no. 43, p. 25, para. 59).
The conditions upon which Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) makes the various
exceptions dependent were not met in respect of Dr. Le Compte. The
Court notes in particular that, as in the case of Le Compte, Van
Leuven and de Meyere (ibid.), the very nature of the misconduct
alleged against Dr. Le Compte and of his own complaints against the
Ordre (see paragraphs 13-14 above) was not concerned with the
medical treatment of his patients. There is nothing to suggest that
one of the grounds listed in the second sentence of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) could have justified sitting in camera.
In respect of Dr. Albert the matter is different, in that the offences
of which he was accused (see paragraph 9 above) related directly to
the exercise of the medical profession, which might conceivably raise
questions coming within the exceptions listed in Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1). However, the material submitted to the Court does
not suffice to show that the circumstances were such as to warrant the
absence of publicity.
35. The rule requiring a public hearing, as embodied in
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), may also yield in certain circumstances
to the will of the person concerned. Admittedly, the nature of some
of the rights safeguarded by the Convention is such as to exclude a
waiver of the entitlement to exercise them (see the De Wilde, Ooms and
Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, p. 36, para. 65), but
the same cannot be said of certain other rights. Thus, neither the
letter nor the spirit of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) would prevent a
medical practitioner from waiving, of his own free will and in an
unequivocal manner (see the Neumeister judgment of 7 May 1974,
Series A no. 17, p. 16, para. 36), the entitlement to have his case
heard in public; conducting disciplinary proceedings of this kind in
private does not contravene Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) if the
domestic law so permits and this is in accordance with the will of the
person concerned (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and de
Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 25, para. 59).
However, far from giving any agreement to this effect, Dr. Le Compte
had sought to have a public hearing (see paragraph 14 above).
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) did not provide any justification for
denying him such a hearing, as none of the circumstances of exception
set out in its second sentence existed (see paragraph 34 above).
Dr. Albert, for his part, had made no similar request, but the
evidence before the Court does not establish that he intended to waive
the publicity to which he was entitled under the Convention.
(b) Before the Court of Cassation
36. The public character of the cassation proceedings does not
suffice to remedy the defect found to exist at the stage of the
disciplinary proceedings. The Court of Cassation does not take
cognisance of the merits of the case, which means that many aspects
of "contestations" (disputes) concerning "civil rights and
obligations", including review of the facts and assessment of the
proportionality between the fault and the sanction, fall outside its
jurisdiction (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and
De Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 16, para. 33).
37. To sum up, the cases (in French: "causes") of Dr. Albert and
Dr. Le Compte were not heard publicly by a tribunal competent to
determine all the aspects of the matter and pronouncing judgment
publicly. In this respect, there was, in the particular
circumstances, a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
III. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 6 PARAS. 2 AND 3 (a), (b) AND (d)
(art. 6-2, art. 6-3-a, art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-d)
38. One of the two applicants, Dr. Albert, claimed that he had not
received the benefit of the guarantees set forth in paragraph 2 of
Article 6 (art. 6-2) and in three sub-paragraphs of paragraph 3
(art. 6-3-a, art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-d):
"2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed
innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following
minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and
in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
defence;
...
(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain
the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the
same conditions as witnesses against him;
..."
Having concluded that the applicants had not been subject to a
"criminal charge" (see paragraph 19 above), the Commission did not
express any opinion on these claims, which had been disputed by the
Government.
39. For its part, the Court considered it unnecessary to give a
ruling on the applicability of paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1)
under the criminal head, but decided to examine in the context of the
interpretation of the notion of "fair trial" in paragraph 1
(art. 6-1) the substance of the complaints made by the applicant under
paragraphs 2 and 3 (art. 6-2, art. 6-3) (see paragraph 30 above). In
the opinion of the Court, the principles set out in paragraph 2
(art. 6-2) and in the provisions of paragraph 3 invoked by
Dr. Albert (that is to say, only sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (d))
(art. 6-3-a, art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-d) are applicable, mutatis mutandis,
to disciplinary proceedings subject to paragraph 1 (art. 6-1) in the
same way as in the case of a person charged with a criminal offence.
40. As regards observance of the presumption of innocence,
Dr. Albert made three criticisms of the Brabant Provincial Council of
the Ordre des médecins: allowing itself to be influenced by his
previous criminal record, basing its decision on insufficient evidence
and having declined to hear evidence in rebuttal.
None of these claims stands up to examination. As the text of the
decision of 4 June 1974 clearly shows, the Provincial Council did
indeed take account of the applicant's previous record for the
purposes of fixing the sanction, but the principle enshrined in
Article 6 para. 2 (art. 6-2) does not preclude this (see the
above-mentioned Engel and others judgment, Series A no. 22, pp. 37-38,
para. 90). The Provincial Council grounded its opinion on a series of
concordant factors, including Dr. Albert's own statements. Finally, at
no stage did Dr. Albert offer evidence in rebuttal.
41. Under paragraph 3 of Article 6 (art. 6-3), the applicant asserted
that he had not been informed in detail of the accusations against
him, that he had not had adequate time for the preparation of his
defence and that he had not had the benefit of the right to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. These
allegations are unfounded. The letter written to Dr. Albert by the
President of the Provincial Council and inviting him to appear before
the Bureau of the Council specified the nature and cause of the
complaints made against him by the Ordre (see paragraph 9 above). In
addition, the applicant had more than fifteen days in which to prepare
his defence. A time-limit of this length, which is provided for under
section 25 of the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970, appears in itself
to be reasonable, especially in view of the lack of complexity of the
case. Finally, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that
Dr. Albert endeavoured to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf and was met with a refusal.
42. Accordingly, the Court considers that in this respect there was
no violation of Article 6 (art. 6).
IV. ALLEGED BREACH OF ARTICLE 11 (art. 11)
43. One of the two applicants, Dr. Le Compte, alleged a breach of
Article 11 (art. 11), which reads:
"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
freedom of association with others, including the right to form and
to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights
other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a
democratic society in the interests of national security or public
safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of
health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of
others. This Article (art. 11) shall not prevent the imposition of
lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the
armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State."
In the submission of Dr. Le Compte, the obligation to join the Ordre
des médecins (see the above-mentioned Le Compte, Van Leuven and De
Meyere judgment, Series A no. 43, p. 12, para. 21) inhibited freedom of
association - which implied freedom not to associate - and went beyond
the limits of the restrictions permitted under paragraph 2 of
Article 11 (art. 11-2); furthermore, so he contended, the very
existence of the Ordre had the effect of eliminating freedom of
association.
In view of its opinion of 14 December 1979 on applications nos.
6878/75 75 and 7238/75 of Doctors Le Compte, Van Leuven and de Meyere
(see the above-mentioned judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43,
p. 26, para. 63), the Commission considered it pointless in the instant
case to hear fresh argument on observance of Article 11 (art. 11). The
parties therefore referred back to their previous submissions before
the Commission and the Court. During the hearing held on
27 September 1982, those appearing before the Court - and notably
counsel for Dr. Le Compte - did not revert to the question.
44. The Court sees no cause to depart from the decision it gave on
this same issue in its judgment of 23 June 1981 (ibid., pp. 26-27,
paras. 64-66). It is sufficient to recall the following: that the Ordre
des médecins cannot be regarded as an association within the meaning
of Article 11 (art. 11); that the existence of the Ordre and the
resultant obligation on practitioners to be entered on its register
and to be subject to the authority of its organs clearly have neither
the object nor the effect of limiting, even less suppressing, the
right safeguarded by Article 11 para. 1 (art. 11-1); and that there is
thus no reason to examine the case under paragraph 2 of Article 11
(art. 11-2) or to determine whether the Convention recognises the
freedom not to associate.
V. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 50 (art. 50)
45. At the hearing, counsel for Dr. Le Compte asked the Court, in the
event of its finding a breach of the Convention, to afford his client
just satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50). However, he was of the
view that the question was not yet ready for decision.
The Commission's Delegates, for their part, requested the Court to
defer ruling on this point in the absence of any indication from
Dr. Albert or his counsel.
The Government made no submissions on the issue.
46. Accordingly, although it was raised under Rule 47 bis of the
Rules of Court, this question is not yet ready for decision and must
be reserved; in the circumstances of the case, the Court considers
that the question should be referred back to the Chamber under
Rule 50 para. 4 of the Rules of Court.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 3
(art. 3) of the Convention with respect to Dr. Le Compte;
2. Holds by sixteen votes to four that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)
was applicable to the hearing of the case (in French: "cause") of each
of the applicants;
3. Holds by sixteen votes to four that there has been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) in that the applicant's cases (in French:
"causes") were not heard publicly by the Appeals Council and that the
latter did not pronounce its judgment publicly;
4. Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 6
(art. 6) as regards the applicants' other complaints, and no breach
of Article 11 (art. 11) with respect to Dr. Le Compte;
5. Holds unanimously that the question of the application of
Article 50 (art. 50) is not yet ready for decision;
accordingly,
(a) reserves the whole of the said question;
(b) refers the said question back to the Chamber under
Rule 50 para. 4 of the Rules of Court.
Done in English and in French, the French text being authentic, at the
Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, this tenth day of February, one
thousand nine hundred and eighty-three.
Signed: Gérard Wiarda,
President
Signed: Marc-André Eissen,
Registrar
A declaration by Mr. Thór Vilhjálmsson and, in accordance with
Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the Convention and Rule 50 para. 2 of
the Rules of Court, the following separate opinions are annexed to the
present judgment:
- joint concurring opinion of Mr. Cremona and
Mrs. Bindschedler-Robert;
- dissenting opinion of Mr. Liesch;
- partly dissenting opinion of Mr. Matscher;
- partly dissenting opinion of Mr. Pinheiro Farinha;
- partly dissenting opinion of Sir Vincent Evans.
Initialled: G.W.
Initialled: M.-A.E.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON
My vote in this case reflects a change from my vote in the case
of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere. This change is
prompted by the majority decision in that case.
JOINT CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGES CREMONA
AND BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT
We agree with all the conclusions reached in the operative part
of the judgment.
Thus also in regard to Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention
we, like the majority of our colleagues, have come to the conclusion
that there is in this case in respect of both applicants a violation
of that provision. But with regard to the applicability of that
provision to the case we rely on grounds different from those relied
upon by the majority. In fact, in the circumstances of the case,
as in the analogous case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere
and for the reasons set out in our joint separate opinion annexed
to the Court's judgment in that case, we find that the proceedings
complained of by the applicants concerned not the determination
of civil rights or obligations but, as explained in that opinion,
the determination of a criminal charge, within the meaning of the
said Article 6 (art. 6).
Finally, in order to avoid repetition, we deem it sufficient for
the purposes of the present case to refer to that opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LIESCH
(Translation)
The Albert and Le Compte judgment confirms me in the dissenting
opinion I expressed in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and
De Meyere.
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable to
disciplinary matters.
The sole object of disciplinary proceedings is to determine whether
a rule of professional conduct may have been infringed. The dispute
(contestation), the argument, is not a priori concerned with the
right to continue the practice of medicine but only with the issue
whether the behaviour of the medical practitioner is such as to
entail a disciplinary sanction.
Within the framework of such a dispute there is no element of private
law.
The misconception results from too wide an interpretation of the
Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971.
The specific case is treated as a decision of principle and applied
to circumstances of a different kind.
In point of fact, in that judgment the Court stated that "the French
expression 'contestations sur (des) droits et obligations de caractère
civil' covers all proceedings the result of which is decisive for
private rights and obligations" and that "the English text,
'determination of ... civil rights and obligations', confirms this
interpretation" (Series A no. 13).
To appreciate the scope of this principle, it is essential to read
the above-quoted passage together with the final sub-paragraph
of paragraph 94 where the Court applies its postulate to the specific
facts of the case :
"Although it was applying rules of administrative law, the Regional
Commission's decision was to be decisive for the relations in civil
law ('de caractère civil') between Ringeisen and the Roth couple."
Whether the administrative decision was positive or negative
- approval or rejection of the contract of sale -, it was bound,
in either event, to have a direct, immediate effect on civil rights
and obligations; in either event, the outcome of a civil right
in issue depended upon the measure taken by the executive and
administrative bodies.
The inescapable result of the decision was thus to confirm, modify
or annul civil rights or obligations.
And the Court was able to state further that "the character of
the legislation which governs how the matter is to be determined
(civil, commercial, administrative law, etc.) and that of the
authority which is invested with jurisdiction in the matter (ordinary
court, administrative body, etc.) are therefore of little
consequence".
This is not the position, however, in the present case.
The Provincial Council's decision was capable of being decisive
for private-law relations, but it was not bound to be. The
disciplinary proceedings in the instant case, unlike the
administrative proceedings in the Ringeisen case, did not inevitably
affect civil rights and obligations.
Had the Provincial Council merely imposed, for example, a reprimand
in respect of the applicants, the outcome of the proceedings would
not have been decisive, in that the right to practise would not
have been directly in issue.
In my view, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is not applicable to the present
facts.
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MATSCHER
(Translation)
In my partly dissenting opinion in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven
and De Meyere (judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 34-38),
I amply expounded the reasons that, to my regret, have led me to
dissociate myself from the conclusions of the majority of my
colleagues as regards the applicability of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention to disciplinary cases in so far as
such cases might come within the notion of civil law matters for
the purposes of that Article (art. 6-1). The circumstances being
essentially the same in the present case, I cannot but re-affirm my
previous opinion, subject to recalling its basic features. Moreover,
the majority in the present case has in substance confined itself to
re-affirming the stance it adopted in the earlier case, without making
the slightest attempt to discuss or, even less, refute the contrary
arguments advanced against it.
I would observe in passing that with regard to the other issues
raised by the present case, consistently with the position I took
in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere, I fully concur
with the unanimous conclusions of the Court.
I likewise reiterate my regret that the Court has not judged it
necessary to examine the case from the standpoint of criminal law.
The basic features of my dissenting opinion in the case of Le Compte,
Van Leuven and De Meyere were the following:
1. The applicants' right to practise medicine was neither the
object nor one of the objects of the disciplinary proceedings
instituted against them before the jurisdictional organs of the
Ordre and continued before the Court of Cassation. The exclusive
object of those proceedings (as indeed of disciplinary proceedings
in general) was to ascertain whether the applicants had broken
the medical profession's rules of professional conduct and, if
so, to impose on them the appropriate sanction. It was that sanction
alone which, in the particular circumstances, affected their
professional situation and which thereby had an indirect effect
on the private-law relationships that the applicants might have
established with their patients. But such relationships were
not at all in issue in the relevant disciplinary proceedings.
Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention (under its "civil" head)
only covers proceedings having as their object "contestations"
(disputes) over "civil rights and obligations" ("all proceedings
the result of which is decisive for private rights and obligations",
to use the formula found in the Ringeisen judgment), whereas the
mere fact that the outcome of proceedings might have an indirect
effect on such a right does not suffice to bring those proceedings
within the category of those contemplated by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1).
2. Nor, in the instant case, was there a "contestation" (dispute)
over a civil right. The Court's judgment leaves out of account
the proceedings before the Provincial Council, which had imposed
a specific sanction on the applicants, and considers the contestation
(dispute) to have "arisen" as a result of the fact that the applicants
challenged the first-instance decision by appealing against it
(see paragraph 34, first sub-paragraph). Such reasoning is based
on a complete misconception of the purpose of appeal proceedings.
In point of fact, the object and nature of a case (or a
contestation/dispute) do not change with the various levels of
jurisdiction, independently of the arguments, grounds and claims
put forward on appeal: if the proceedings before the Provincial
Council did not have as their object the determination of a
contestation (dispute) over civil rights and obligations, it could
not be otherwise in regard to the proceedings before the Appeals
Council and the Court of Cassation. In other words, the "contestation"
(dispute) formed the object of those proceedings, or was irrelevant
thereto, from the very outset; it could not "arise" (see
paragraph 34, first sub-paragraph of the judgment) on appeal or
during the cassation proceedings.
3. The judgment, in an endeavour to limit its scope, confines
itself to holding that the right to exercise the medical profession
as a doctor in private practice comes within the ambit of the rights
protected by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). For my part, I do not see
any rational possibility for distinguishing, in this respect, between
the right to exercise the medical profession as a doctor in private
practice and the right to exercise the profession as a civil servant
in a public health service or as a salaried employee, and between
the right to practise medicine in general and the right to exercise
any other profession. If an assertion is true, it ought to be
capable of generalisation, or, to be more precise, if my conclusion
is correct, it ought to be valid not only for the particular case
but also for all situations where the same basic premises exist.
The conclusion to be drawn could only be the following: the right
to practise any profession whatsoever is included amongst the rights
protected by Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). Can the authors of the
Convention really have framed Article 6 (art. 6) in such a way?
I am inclined to believe that in making such an affirmation the
Court is going beyond the limits of an "evolutive" interpretation
of the Convention, which is especially appropriate when the Convention
employs general and undefined terms (for example, "necessary in
a democratic society") such as are capable of being interpreted
in line with the evolution of social conceptions in the member
countries.
Furthermore, the fact that the judgment holds back from clearly
stating this conclusion - the only conclusion that appears consistent
when reasoning from its basic premises - but prefers to leave the
matter vague leads to legal uncertainty, which is especially serious
in the face of situations and problems that are ever present in
all the member States.
4. Finally, the result of the judgment is to find a breach because
of the absence of publicity in the cases, cases where the
procedural-guarantee purpose that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) serves in
requiring public hearings and public pronouncement of judgment was in
no way at stake (hence a finding of breach for a purely formal
infringement of the provisions of Article 6 para. 1) (art. 6-1); this
constitutes for me a further reason for asserting that Article 6
(art. 6) of the Convention does not apply to the cases in question.
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF
JUDGE PINHEIRO FARINHA
(Translation)
To my great regret, I cannot share the opinion which my colleagues
forming the majority have expressed concerning Article 6 (art. 6)
of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In fact:
1. The private-law relations established by Dr. Albert and
Dr. Le Compte with their clients were not discussed before the
disciplinary organs of the Ordre.
2. The contestation (dispute) before the disciplinary organs
(Provincial and Appeals Councils) and then before the Court of
Cassation bore solely on questions of professional conduct, and
this is a matter that falls outside the ambit of civil law.
3. The applicants' case concerns exclusively the violation of
the rules of professional conduct and it follows, in my judgment,
that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is inapplicable (as I have already
stated in my separate opinion in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven
and De Meyere).
4. In conclusion, I consider that there has been no violation
of Articles 3, 6 or 11 (art. 3, art. 6, art. 11) of the Convention.
PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF
JUDGE SIR VINCENT EVANS
I agree with the judgment of the Court that there was no violation
of Article 3 (art. 3) or of Article 11 (art. 11) of the Convention.
I regret, however, that I disagree with the conclusion of the majority
of the Court that Article 6 (art. 6) was violated. For the reasons
already stated in my dissenting opinion in the case of Le Compte,
Van Leuven and De Meyere and which it is therefore unnecessary
to repeat, it is my view that Article 6 (art. 6) is not applicable
in the present case because the proceedings complained of by the
applicants were not concerned with the determination either of civil
rights or obligations or of a criminal charge within the meaning
of Article 6 (art. 6).