Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 91

November 2006

Bouilloc v. France (dec.) - 34489/03

Decision 28.11.2006 [Section II]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Proceedings seeking to have set aside a decision refusing inclusion in the register of the Medical Association: inadmissible

Having obtained the State degree of “doctor of medicine” and a qualification in “general medicine”, the applicant sought his registration with the Medical Association by applying to a département council of that body. On learning that he had been declared unfit for military service on psychiatric grounds, the département council called for an expert’s report as provided for in the Public Health Code. The experts then appointed found the applicant to be “unsuitable” for admission to the medical profession and the département council refused to register him with the Medical Association. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged that refusal before the disciplinary sections of the Medical Association’s regional and national councils, and ultimately appealed to the Conseil d’Etat seeking to have the decision set aside. The Conseil d’Etat allowed his appeal on the ground that the decision to refuse the applicant’s registration had been taken solely on the basis of the expert’s report, which had moreover been contradictory. The disciplinary section of the Medical Association’s national council subsequently decided to seek a second expert’s report on the applicant. The experts then appointed found that his state of health was incompatible with admission to the medical profession. As a result, the disciplinary section decided to dismiss his claim. The applicant’s appeal to the Conseil d’Etat to have that decision set aside was dismissed on the grounds that the refusal to register him had not been unlawful.

Inadmissible under Article 6(1): The Court considered in general that, where legislation laid down conditions for admission to a profession and a candidate satisfied those conditions, he or she had a right to be admitted to that profession. It had already had occasion to examine the question of the applicability of Article 6(1) to proceedings concerning a refusal of registration with the Medical Association, but it had confined its examination to the first two statutory conditions to be met for such registration, namely possession of a medical qualification and French nationality. But French law also laid down a third statutory condition for admission to the medical profession: inclusion in the Medical Association register. Whilst such inclusion was usually obtained where the first two conditions were met, this was not automatic. In the present case, the fulfilment of the first two conditions had not automatically led to inclusion in the Medical Association register, because the applicant’s state of health had been incompatible with the practice of medicine. Consequently, the applicant had failed to fulfil all the statutory conditions required, in the aggregate, for admission to the medical profession under domestic law. He could not therefore invoke any “right” to be admitted to that profession. Accordingly, the applicant’s action did not pertain to a “civil right”, or to a “criminal charge”, within the meaning of Article 6(1): incompatible ratione materiae .

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes