Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF H. AGAINST BELGIUM

Doc ref: 8950/80 • ECHR ID: 001-55559

Document date: May 18, 1993

Inbound citations: 2
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF H. AGAINST BELGIUM

Doc ref: 8950/80 • ECHR ID: 001-55559

Document date: May 18, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the

Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the case of H. against Belgium delivered on

30 November 1987 and transmitted the same day to the Committee

of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application against

Belgium lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on

20 March 1980 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by

Mr. H., a Belgian national, who complained that the procedure

followed by the Council of the Ordre des Avocats of Antwerp when

considering his applications for restoration to the roll had

infringed Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 28 January 1986;

Whereas in its judgment of 30 November 1987 the Court:

- held by twelve votes to six that Article 6,

paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), applied in the instant case;

- held by twelve votes to six that Article 6,

paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated;

- held by sixteen votes to two that Belgium was to pay

the applicant the sum of 250 000 Belgian francs in respect of

non-pecuniary damage;

- held unanimously that Belgium was to reimburse the

applicant 100 000 Belgian francs in respect of costs and

expenses;

- rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for

just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of

the Convention;

Having invited the Government of Belgium to inform it of the

measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of

30 November 1987, having regard to its obligation under

Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee

of Ministers, the Government of Belgium gave the Committee

information about the measures taken in consequence of the

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution;

Having satisfied itself that the Government of Belgium has

paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment,

Declares, after having taken note of the information

supplied by the Government of Belgium, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this

case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (93)19

Information provided by the Government of Belgium

during the examination of the H. case

by the Committee of Ministers

An act of 19 November 1992, published on 18 December 1992,

amended sections 432, 433, 459, 465, 471 and 476 of the Judicial

Code and inserted a section 469 bis in the said Code.

It appears from section 6 of this act, amending section 471

of the Judicial Code, that henceforth the refusal to restore a

disbarred avocat to the roll will have to be reasoned. The new

section 469 bis of the Judicial Code provides that appeal shall

lie against the decisions of the Conseil de l'Ordre concerning,

inter alia, refusal to restoration to the roll after disbarment.

Finally, section 4 of the act, which completes section 465

of the Judicial Code, provides that the Conseil de l'Ordre,

sitting in disciplinary or as in disciplinary matters, will deal

with the case at a public hearing, unless the accused avocat or

the person requesting admission or restoration to the roll asks

for the hearing to be held in camera. Under section 7 of the

act, section 476 of the Judicial Code is replaced by a provision

according to which oral hearings before the Disciplinary Appeal

Board will take place under the same conditions as before the

Conseil de l'Ordre.

The sum of 350 000 Belgian francs awarded by the Court in

respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses was paid

on 11 April 1988.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant