Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF ULENS v. BELGIUM

Doc ref: 22113/93 • ECHR ID: 001-119

Document date: May 16, 1997

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF ULENS v. BELGIUM

Doc ref: 22113/93 • ECHR ID: 001-119

Document date: May 16, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Ulens 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 161/1996/780/981. 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 20 March and 22 April 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 5 December 1996 by a Belgian national,

Mr Guido Ulens, 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 16 October 1996 on

the application (no. 22113/93) lodged with the Commission by Mr Ulens

on 11 June 1993;

Whereas the applicant complained of proceedings in the

Belgian civil courts, to which he was a party, and alleged the

infringement of his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), in particular on account of what

he submitted was an incorrect interpretation of domestic law by the

Court of Cassation and the alleged failure to hold an adversarial

hearing in that court;

Whereas by decisions of 31 August 1994 and 28 June 1995 the

Commission declared admissible only the complaint relating to a failure

to provide the applicant with a copy of the advocate-general's

submissions to the Court of Cassation and to the advocate-general's

participation in the Court of Cassation's deliberations;

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

requested the Court to hold that there had been breaches of Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) on account of the procedure

followed in the Court of Cassation and the fact that the

Court of Cassation had not correctly applied domestic law;

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 of Article 6 para. 1 of

the Convention (art. 6-1) 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 them inadmissible; 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 applicant 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

16 May 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Carlo RUSSO

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant