SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BERNHARDT

If the applicant had - or could plausibly claim - a (civil) right to be readmitted to the Bar under Belgian law (which I have denied in the joint dissenting opinion), I would have had little doubt that no tribunal had determined that right and that Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention had been violated.

In my view, the Council of the Ordre cannot be described as a tribunal in the sense of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. At least when taken together, the following points show that the Council neither is designed to act as a tribunal nor in fact does so act.

(1) The Council has mainly administrative functions. There must be convincing reasons - for instance clear statutory provisions - for considering the same board for certain purposes as a tribunal.

(2) The Council is composed exclusively of practising lawyers and not of professional or ordinary lay judges. The lawyers decide on the capacity of (present or former) colleagues. Such a structure is hardly compatible with the requirements of an impartial tribunal.

(3) The procedure of the Council is left entirely to be determined by the Council itself. Can a tribunal, as required by the Convention, be left without any procedural rules and safeguards?

(4) No publicity is prescribed for the hearings or for the final decisions. Can a body acting exclusively in camera really be described as a tribunal?

(5) The Council need not, and does not, give reasons for its "judgment". Can a board, deciding at first and last instance, be described as a tribunal if its decisions lack any legal reasoning?

At least in their aggregate, these deficiencies amount to cogent reasons for not regarding the Council as a tribunal.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GERSING

In a joint dissenting opinion I have, with other colleagues, found Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1) not to be applicable. Had I shared the view of the majority as to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 (art. 6-1), I would have voted for a violation thereof, mainly for the following reasons.

The Council of the Antwerp Ordre could not be considered to be an impartial tribunal. Its sixteen members were all avocats , the chairman being the leader of the Bar. Furthermore, the Council did not have any internal rules of procedure or any provision conferring on the applicant a right of challenge.