CASE OF S.P.R.L. ANCA AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM
Doc ref: 26363/95 • ECHR ID: 001-117
Document date: August 5, 1997
- Inbound citations: 3
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
In the case of S.P.R.L. Anca and Others v. Belgium (1),
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,
constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
1. The case is numbered 35/1997/819/1022. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission.
2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply
to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).
________________
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 25 June 1997, and composed
of the following judges:
Mr C. Russo, Chairman,
Mr A. Spielmann,
Mr J. De Meyer,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the
Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court on 28 February 1997 by
S.P.R.L. Anca, a company registered in that State, and by
two Belgian nationals, Mr Daniel de Keyser and his wife
Mrs Marguerite Stourme, within the three-month period laid down by
Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1,
art. 47);
Whereas Belgium has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified
Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends
Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person,
non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a
complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights
("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the
Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the
Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention
(art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d);
Having regard to the Commission's report of 15 January 1997
on the application (no. 26363/95) lodged with the Commission by the
applicants on 29 December 1994;
Whereas the applicants complained of two sets of proceedings
in the Belgian civil courts, to which they were parties, and alleged
(1) an infringement of their right to a fair hearing by a tribunal
(Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1)), (2) discrimination
contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (art. 14) and (3) an
infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their
possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1));
Whereas the applicants did not submit any complaint concerning
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Commission, which, by
decisions of 15 May and 16 October 1996, declared admissible only the
complaint based on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1)
relating to the presence of State Counsel at the deliberations of the
Court of Cassation;
Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,
requested the Court (1) to hold that there had been a breach of
Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6) firstly on account of a
Belgian practice -which they considered contrary to that provision
(art. 6) - whereby judges conducting bankruptcy proceedings examined
witnesses in camera without an adversarial procedure, and secondly on
account of State Counsel's presence at the deliberations of the
Court of Cassation, (2) to hold that there had been a breach of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on account of the fact that
S.P.R.L. Anca had been declared bankrupt unlawfully in their view and
(3) to award them compensation, with default interest, for the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained and
reimbursement of the costs and expenses they had incurred;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and
Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1. Finds that
(a) the case raises no serious question affecting the
interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court
has already established case-law on the requirements which
must be satisfied by the procedure in the Court of Cassation,
while consideration of the other complaints lies outside the
Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared
inadmissible the complaint relating to the right to a fair
hearing and the applicants relied on Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the first time in their application
to the Court; and
(b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant
consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that
there has been a breach of the Convention, the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the
applicants just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals
made by the Commission;
2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be
considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on
5 August 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Carlo RUSSO
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar