Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19841210-1025983
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 02:24:46+00:00

Document:
S.p.r.l. ANCA et autres c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche S.p.r.l. ANCA et autres c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10259/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-12-10;10259.83 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : S.p.r.l. ANCA et autresDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10259/83 S .p .r .l . ANCA and others vBELGIU M S .p .r .l . ANCA et autres cBELGIQU E DECISION of 10 December 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 10 dÃ©cembre 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 6, paragraph I of the Convention : A judgment declaring bankruptcy affects civil rights and obligations as it deprives a person of the right to manage his property. Article25 of the Convention : In a case where a commercial company was declared bankrupt, the company itself, its managing director and main shareholder and a person acting as surety for the other two, all regarded as "victini.s" by the Commission . Where national authorities have found a violation of the Convention and their decision constitutes appropriate and sufficient redress thereof, the panies involved cannot claim to be victims . Article 26 of the Conven tion : Remedies available in Belgium against the acts o f an official receiver in bankruptcy . Competence ratione personae : In Belgium, the State is responsible under the Convention for the acts of an official receiver in bankruptcy (company) . Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : Un jugement dÃ©claratifde faillite porte sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil car il prive une personne du droit d'administrer ses biens la Convention : Dans la faillite d'une sociÃ©tÃ© commerciale, la sociÃ©t Ã© .ArNcle25d elle-mÃªme, son gÃ©rant et principal actionnaire ainsi qu'une personne s'Ã©tant portÃ©e caution solidaire des deux premiers, considÃ©rÃ©s tous trois comme Â« viaimesâ¢ . - 170 -
Ne peuvent se prÃ©tendre victimes d'une violation les personnes qui ont obtenu d'une autoritÃ© nationale la constatation de la violation de la Convention et une dÃ©cision constituant un redressement appropriÃ© et suffisant de celle-ci . ArYicle 26 de la Convention : Indication des recours Ã exercer, en Belgique, contre les actes du curateur d'une faillite . CompÃ©tence ratione peraonae : S'agissant de la Belgique, lEtar rÃ©pond aux rennes de la Convention des actes d'un curateur de faillite .
(English : see p. 175)
La premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante . ANCA (Anderlecht CafÃ©) est une sociÃ©tÃ© Ã responsabilitÃ© limitÃ©e ayant son siÃ¨ge Ã Uccle. Le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant, Daniel De Keyser, possÃ¨de 91 % des parts de la sociÃ© tÃ© et en est le gÃ©rant. La troisiÃ¨me requÃ©rante, Marguerite Stourme, est l'Ã©pouse du deusiÃ©me (1) . En 1978, les trois requÃ©rants ont contractÃ© conjointement un etnprunt r :e 2 miilions de FB . En 1980, la sociÃ©tÃ© a achetÃ© des biens pour une valeur de 515 .000 FB et les deux autres requÃ©rants se sont portÃ©s cautions solidaires du paiement du prix . Le 1"fÃ©vrfer 1982, la chambre du conseil du tr(bunal de commerce de Bruxelles, aprÃ¨s avoir entendu Ã huis clos l'associÃ© du deusiÃ©me requÃ©rant, puis le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant lui-mÃªme, prononÃ§a la faillite d'offrce de la sociÃ©tÃ© . La premiÃ¨re requÃ©rame fit opposition mais celle-ci fw rejetÃ©e le 5 mai 1982 . Sur appel de la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante, la cour d'appel, statuant le 16 dÃ©cembre 1982, dÃ©clara l'opposition fondÃ©e et rÃ©tracta la faillite . Elle constata notammenl une violation de l'ariicle 828 du code judiciaire et de l'anicle 6 de la Convention en ce que IÂ°) la rÃ¨gle de la publicitÃ© n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© observÃ©e par le tribunal ayant prononcÃ© la faillite et 2Â°) le juge ayant instruit l'affaire lors de la dÃ©claration de faillite d'office n'aurait pas dÃ» siÃ©ger dans la faillite elle-m@me . Entre-temps, le curateur de la faillite avait vendu le fonds de commerce de la sociÃ©tÃ© pour 2.250. 000 FB. Il fournit un dÃ©compte selon lequel 1 .498.313 FB revenaient Ã celle-ci, alors que le passif se montait Ã environ S millions de FB, dont 1 .848.603 FB pour les dettes engageant la responsabilitÃ© solidaire des trois requÃ©rants. Devant la Commission, les trois requÃ©ranls allÃ¨guent notamment qu'en violation de l'article 6 de la Convention, ce sont les mPmes magistrats qui ont instruit et jugÃ© l'affaire en premilre instance et que l'associÃ© du deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©ran7 a Ã©tÃ© entendu en l'absence de la sociÃ©tÃ©. (I) Ls trois requÃ©ranls Naient reprlsenlls devens la Commission par Me Jacques de Sumy, avoeal i Bn4eIIC5 .
Ils se plaignent Ã©galement que, suite Ã la faillite d'office, les biens de la sociÃ©tÃ© ont Ã©tÃ© vendus Ã vil prix et que celle-ci est dÃ©s lors incapable de reprendre son activitÃ© en vue d'apurer son passif.
EN DROIT (Extrait) I . A titre prÃ©liminaire, la Commission a examinÃ© la question de savoir si les trois requÃ©rants avaient qualilÃ© pour Ãªtre parties devant la Commission . Cene question doit Ãªtre examinÃ©e eu Ã©gard Ã l'article 25, par . 1, de la Convention, dont le passage pertinent est ainsi libellÃ© : . La Commission peut Ãªtre saisie d'une requÃªte adressÃ©e au SecrÃ©taire GÃ©nÃ©ral du Conseil de l'Europe par toute personne physique, toute organisation non gouvernementale ou tout groupe de particuliers, qui se prÃ©tend victime d'une violation par l'une des Hautes Parties Contractantes des droits reconnus dans la prÃ©sente Convention, ( . . .) . . Pour satisfaire aux prescriptions de l'article 25, par . 1Â°' de la Convention, deux conditions doivent Ã¨tre remplies : le demandeur doit entrer dans l'une des catÃ©gories de requÃ©rants mentionnÃ©s Ã l'article 25 et il doit, selon un premier examen, pouvoir se prÃ©tendre victime d'une violation . Pour ce qui concerne la prentiÃ©re requÃ©rante, il est clair que les deux conditions sont remplies . ANCA est une personne morale en droit belge, une sociÃ©tÃ© de personnes Ã responsabilitÃ© limitÃ©e, dotÃ©e de la capacitÃ© juridique et constituÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã la loi . En cette qualitÃ©, il est clair qu'elle entre dans la catÃ©gorie des â¢organisations non gouvernementales* mentionnÃ©e Ã l'article 25 . De surcroit, ANCA Ã©tait partie dans la procÃ©dure nationale incriminÃ©e et les dÃ©cisions des juridictions internes la visent expressÃ©ment . Il s'ensuit que la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante a sans aucun doute qualitÃ© pour agir devant la Commission . Le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant entre en tant que personne physique dans l'une des catÃ©gories visÃ©es par l'article 25 prÃ©citÃ© . Devant la Commission, il agit en tant que gÃ©rant et en sa qualitÃ© personnelle . A cet Ã©gard, il est prÃ©cisÃ© que le requÃ©rant a contractÃ© conjointement avec la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante certaines obligations - Ã savoir empruntÃ© 2 millions de francs et achetÃ© Ã crÃ©dit des biens pour un montant de 515 .040 de francs - et s'est portÃ© caution solidaire . Le solde de ces dettes Ã©tant devenu exigible du fait de la faillite, il a Ã©tÃ© fait appel Ã son cautionnement . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã sa jurisprudence (No 1706/62, dÃ©c . 4 .10 .66, Recueil 21 p . 34 et No 7598/76, Kaplan c/R .U ., Rapport Comm . 17 .7 .80, D .R . 21 p . 5), la Commission considÃ¨re que le deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant, vu sa participation majoritaire dans la sociÃ©tÃ© et sa position de gÃ©rant, peut se prÃ©tendre victime d'une dÃ©cision affectant les droits de la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante . Elle estime qu'il peut Ã©galement, en tant que caution solidaire de la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante, agir en son nom personnel, ses propres droits Ã©tant affectÃ©s .
La troisiÃ¨me requÃ©rante entre dans la catÃ©gorie des personnes physiques . Elle a introduit sa requÃ©te en sa qualitÃ© personnelle du fait que s'Ã©tant, Ã l'instar du deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rant, portÃ©e caution solidaire pour la premiÃ©re requÃ©rante, il a Ã©tÃ© fait appel Ã son cautionnement suite Ã la dÃ©claration d'office de faillite . Ses droits propres ayant donc Ã©tÃ© affectÃ©s du fait de la faillite, la Commission estime que la troisiÃ¨me requÃ©rante a qualitÃ© pour agir devant elle . 2 . la Commission a ensuite examinÃ© le grief dÃ©duit de la violation de l'article 6 de la Convention . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent que les m@mes magistrats ont instruit etjugÃ© la cause et que la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante n'a pu assister Ã l'audition de W ., qui a prÃ©cÃ©dÃ© la dÃ©claration d'office de faillite . Ils invoquent l'article 6 de la Convention qui dispose notamment : -Toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablement, publiquement . . . par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera soit des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil, soit du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en toatiÃ©re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre elle . . . La dÃ©claration d'office de faillite ayant eu pour effet direct de priver la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante du droit de pratiquer des opÃ©rations de commerce et d'administrer en personne ses biens jusqu'Ã la rÃ©traction de la faillite, la Commission estime que des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil, au sens de l'article 6, par . 1, ont ainsi Ã©tÃ© temporairement Ã©tÃ© affectÃ©s par le jugement dÃ©claratif de faillite . La Commission constate que la procÃ©dure dont se plaignent les requÃ©rants a abouti le 16 dÃ©cembre 1982 Ã un arr@t par lequel la cour d'appel de Braxelles, aprÃ¨s avoir constatÃ© une violation de l'anicle 6 de la Convention du fait des griefs que les requÃ©rants formulent devant la Commission, a rapportÃ© la faillite . La question se pose dÃ¨s lors de savoir si les requÃ©rants peuvent encore se prÃ©tendre victimes d'une violation de certaines garanties de procÃ©dure prÃ©vues Ã l'article 6 de la Convention . Cette question doit Ãªtre rÃ©solue eu Ã©gard au but de la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes qui .est de mettre l'Etat intÃ©ressÃ© en mesure de redresser par ses propres moyens les violations de la Convention qui ont pu avoir lieu . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission considÃ¨re que le fait que, suite au constat par la cour d'appel de Bruxelles de la violation de l'article 6, la faillite ait Ã©tÃ© rapportÃ©e constitue pour les requÃ©rants un redressement appropriÃ© et suffisant des violations de l'article 6 qui auraient Ã©tÃ© commises au cours de la procÃ©dure de dÃ©claration d'office de la faillite . Dans ces circonstances, les requÃ©rants ne peuvent plus devant la Commissio n se prÃ©tendre victimes d'une violation de l'article 6 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que le grief est manifestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . - 173 -
3 . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent que, suite Ã la dÃ©claration fautive de failiite d'office, la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©possÃ©dÃ©e de ses biens, en particulier de son fonds de commerce . RÃ©tablie thÃ©oriquement dans ses droits, la premiÃ re requÃ©rante, n'est plus en Ã©tat de reprendre son activitÃ© . En outre, elle conserve un passif important, gonflÃ© du fait de la dÃ©claration de faillite, alors que son actif a Ã©tÃ© rÃ©alisÃ© Ã vil prix . Les requÃ©rants invoquent l'article 1Â° du Protocole additionnel ainsi conÃ§u : Â« Toute personne physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa propriÃ©tÃ© que pour cause d'utilitÃ© publique et dans les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi et les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit intemational . Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©dentes ne portent pas a tt einte au droit que possÃ¨de les Etats de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral ou pour assurer le paiement des impÃ´ts ou d'autres contributions ou des amendes . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les plaintes des requÃ©rants concement en fait les agissements du curateur de faillite, il y a tout d'abord lieu de dÃ©tertniner si les mesures qu'il a prises dans le cadre de l'administration et liquidation de la faillite peuvent engager la responsabilitÃ© du Gouvernement belge aux termes de la Convention . AprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© au regard du droit belge le mode de dÃ©signation du curateur, les pouvoirs qu'il exerce et la maniÃ¨re dont il les exerce, Ã savoir sous la surveillance du juge-commissaire et parfois moyennant habilitation de celui-ci ou du tribunal de commerce, la Commission estime qu'aux fins d'application de la Convention, le Gouvemement belge doit Ã¨tre tenu pour responsable des actions du curateur (voir, dans le mÃªme sens, No 1706/62, dÃ©c . 4 .10 .66, Recueil 21 p . 21) . Toutefois, dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, la Commission n'est pas appelÃ©e Ã se prononcer sur l'apparence de violation de l'article 1Â°1 du Protocole . En effet, aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention, . la Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours intemes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnusâ¢ . Or, la Commission observe qu'il ne ressort pas des faits tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s que les requÃ©rants aient fait usage des moyens de recours dont ils disposaient en droit belge pour Ã©viter les dommages dont ils se plaignent ou pour en demander rÃ©paration . Ainsi, il ne semble pas qu'ils se soient plaints de la gestion du curateur auprÃ¨s du juge-commissaire ni n'ont prÃ©sentÃ© au tribunal de commerce Ã»ne requÃ¨te critiquant cette gestion . Il n'apparait pas non plus, qu'ils aient introduit, confortnÃ©ment Ã l'article 462 de la loi sur les faillites, une demande de rÃ©vocation du curateur ou qu'ils aient, suite au rappon de la faillite, intentÃ© contre le curateur une action en responsabilitÃ© en faisant valoir qu'il avait rÃ©alisÃ© les biens Ã vil prix, en particulier le fonds de commerce . - 174 -
Compte tenu de ces condidÃ©rations, la Commission estime que, quant Ã la violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 1Â°' du Protocole additionnel, les requÃ©rants n'ont pas satisfait Ã la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, prÃ©vue Ã l'anicle 26 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que ce tt e panie de la requÃªte doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e en application de l'article 27, par . 3, de la Convention .
Summary of the relevant facts 7he first applicant, ANCA (Anderlecht Cafe), isa limited liability company with its registered office in Uccle . 7he second applicant, Daniel De Keyser, holds 91 % of the company's shares and is its managing director . 7he third applicant, Marguerite Stourme, is the spouse of the latter (1) . In 1978 the three applicants jointly took out a loan of 2 million BF. In 1980 the company purchased goods to the value of 515,000 BF and the two other applicanis undertook to act as sureties for the payment of this sum. On I February 1982 the Commercial Cou rt in Brussels, having heard in chambers the panner of the second applicant, then the second applicant himrelf, adjudged the company bankrupt (compulsorly liquidated) . 7he first applicant lodged an objection but this was rejected on 5 May 1982 . On an appeal by the first applicant, the Court of Appeal on 16 September 1982 upheld the objection and revoked the bankruptcy order . It foiuld, in particular, that there had been a violation of Article 828 of the Judicial Code and of Anicle 6 of the Convention in that ftrst, the rule goveming the pronouncing of judgment publicly had not been observed by the courJ when adjudging bankruptry and secondly, the judge who had investigated the cnse when bankruptcy was adjudged should not have sat during the bankruptcy proceedings thernrelves . In the meantime, rhe official receiver had realized the business of the company for 2,250,000 BF. According to the accounts produced by him, the company still had assets of 1,498,313 BF, while liabilities amaunted to some 5 million BF, 1,848,603 BF of which represented debts for which the three applicants had stood surety. Before the Commission, the three applicants allege in panicular that, in violation of Article 6 of the Convention, the same judges had both investigated and pronounced judgment on the case in the Court of ftrst instance, and that the partner of the second applicant had been heard in the absence of the company. (1) 7Te appliants wen npnsented before the Conunission by Mr . )acques de Suny, a lawyer pmctising in Brussels .
7hey also complain that, following the ajudication of bankruptcy, the company's assets had been realized at a totally inadequate price and that the company is now incapable of resuming activities with a view to clearing its debts .
(TRANSLATION) THE LAW (Extract) I . The Commission has made a preliminary examination to determine whether the three applicants satisfied the conditions governing the introduction of applications with the Commission . This question must be examined in the light of Article 25 para . I of the Convention, the relevant passage of which reads as follows : "The Commission may receive petitions addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe from any person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in this Convention . . . " To satisfy the requirements of Article 25 para . 1 of the Convention, two conditions must be met : the applicant must fall into one of the categories of applicants mentioned in Article 25 and must, upon a preliminary examination, be able to claim to be the victim of a violation . With respect to the first applicant, it is clear that the two conditions are satisfied : ANCA is a legal entity in Belgian law, a limited liability partnership with legal personality and established in accordance with the law . As such, it is clear that it falls into the category of "non-governmental organisations" referred to in Article 25 . Furthertnore, ANCA was party to the national proceedings appealed against and the decisions of the national courts apply to it expressly . It follows that the first applicant is, without any doubt, entitled to apply to the Commission . The second applicant, as a natural person, falls into one of the categories referred to in the Article 25 . He is bringing his case before the Commission as a managing director and in his personal capacity . In this connection, it is pointed out that this applicant entered into certain obligations jointly with the first applicant, viz he borrowed 2 million francs and bought on credit assets to the value of 515,040 francs for which he stood surety . The balance of these debts having becom e - 176 -
due on account of bankruptcy, a call was made under the surety contracts . The Commission considers that the second applicant, given his majority shareholding in the company and his position as managing director, can claim to be victim of a decision affecting the rights of the first applicant (see, for example, No . 1706/62, Dec . 4 .10 .66, Collection 21 p . 26, 34, Kaplan v . U .K . ; Comm . Repon 17 .7 .80, D .R . 21 p . 5) . It considers that he may also, as surety for Lhe first applicant, claim in his personal name, his own rights having been affected . The third applicant falls into the category of natural persons . She has introduced her application in her personal capacity because, having, like the second applicant, stood surety for the first applicant, a call was made under the surety contract following the declaration of bankruptcy . The Commission considers that, her own rights having been affected on account of the bankruptcy, the third applicant is entitled to make an application . 2 . The Commission has next examined the complaint in which it is alleged that Article 6 of Lhe Convention has been violated . The applicants complain that the same judges both investigated and decided on the case and that the first applicant was unable to be present during the hea ri ng of W ., which preceded the declaration of bankruptcy . They invoke Article 6 of the Convention, according to which : "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing . . . by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law . . . " The declaration of bankruptcy having had the direct effect of depriving the first applicant of Lhe right to continue trading and to manage the business in person until the annulment of the bankruptcy, the Commission considers that civil rights and obligations, within the meaning of Article 6 para . I, were thus temporarily affected by the adjudication of bankruptcy . The Commission finds that the proceedings about which the applicants complain resulted on 16 December 1982 in a decision whereby the Court of Appeal in Brussels, having found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the complaints now made by Lhe applicants before the Commission, annulled the bankruptcy order . The question thus arises as to whether the applicants can still claim to be the victims of a violation of the rules goveming court proceedings as set out in Article 6 of Lhe Convention . The question must be resolved in the light of the mle on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the aim of which is to enable the State concemed to redress by its own means any violation of the Convention that might have occurred .
- I77 -
In the present case, the Commission considers that the fact that the Court of Appeal in Brussels, once it had found a violation of Article 6, annulled the bankmptcy order, constitutes for the applicants appropriate and sufficient redress for the violations of Article 6 which were allegedly committed during the bankruptcy proceedings . Under these circumstances, the applicants may no longer claim to be victims of a violation of Article 6 of the Convention before the Commission . It follows that the complaint is minifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 3 . The applicants complain that, following the erroneous declaration of bankruptcy, the first applicant was dispossessed of its assets, in particular its business . Although its rights have now theoretically been restored, the first applicant is no longer in a position to resume its activities . Furthermore, it still has considerable liabilities inflated by the declaration of bankruptcy, while its assets were realised at a totally inadequate price . The applicants invoke Article I of Protocol No . I which reads as follows : "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . No one shall be deprived of his possessions, except in the public interest andsubject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law . The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties . " Insofxr as the applicants' complaints concern the action taken by the official receiver, it is necessary, in the first place, to determine whether the measures taken by him in administrating and terminating the bankruptcy engage the responsibility of the Belgian State under the terms of the Convention . Having examined the provisions of Belgian law goveming the appointment of receivers, their powers and the manner in which these are exercised, that is, under the supervision of the bankruptcy judge and, occasionally, on the authority of the latter or of a commercial court, the Commission considers that, for the purposes of giving proper effect to the Convention, the Belgian Government must be considered responsible for the actions of the official receiver (see alsti No . 1706/62, Dec . 4 .10 .66, Collection 21 p . 26) . However, in the present case, the Commission is not called upon to comment on the violation or otherwise of Article 1 of Protocol No . I . Indeed, under the terrns of Article 26 of the Convention, "the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law" .
,. .'â¢ ; ~â¢Â«, ~ :... . t .
.. . â¢Iri .;~,~ .
r . ..'ii . .rv~~t~ .~ .Vv .
Ytâ¢â¢FtfFy}~',
1NN.u-K+a:
CMfn P . :r ~ .~4~ ~â¢Ay'
_â¢ _ .
The Commission observes that it does not appear from the facts as they have been presented that the applicants availed themselves of the remedies open to them under Belgian law with a view to avoiding the damage of which they complain or to claiming compensation . In particular, it does not appear that they lodged their objection concerning the official receiver's management with the bankruptcy judge, or that they submitted a petition criticizing such management, to the Commercial Court . Nor does it appear that they applied, in accordance with Section 462 of the Bankruptcy Act, for the dismissal of the receiver or that, following the declaration of bankruptcy, they brought an action against the receiver on the grounds that he realized their asseLs and, in particular, the business, at a totally inadequate price .
.1 :r4
~lvh:
. ' ' .Y 1 .4~v1/I!
~ 'â¢~`~~~,,'1\~~ft.
In view of these considerations, the Commission considers that, as to the alleged violation of Article I of Protocol No . I, the applicants have not satisfied the condition relating to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as prescribed by Anicle 26 of the Convention . It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance wit h Article 27 para . 3 of the Convention .
=yâ¢ 1'J ; ~
.â¢~ .~e~r~~
a._ â¢ .
.1rt+ .2a~Y{ ~i lp~i
4 .l a 1r^r ~ V :â¢ J ~ .YI I .
t r~ ~ ~,.1,â¢, i
F .'t:~ 1'~-riil . ?â¢ M
_ ~~' ~`râ¢~.P Nkâ¢. H
~ : .~ :'.= :vs}âº l
. ~'~,~~~â¢r~ ~ ,(-
~W t1L
. : :Y fâ¢`t! ZYt,`Ã¿
, ..D~.
. .r'. ` . r. ~ . _ {t ~â¢.'~. ~~:n ? i .r J ..Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 10/12/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 25
 l'article 25
 l'article 25
 l'article 25
 l'article 25
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27
 l'article 1
 l'article 1
 l'article 26
 l'article 462
 l'article 1
 l'article 27