Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19801013-854379-867479-867579-
Timestamp: 2017-04-26 06:07:52+00:00

Document:
VAN MARLE, VAN ZOMEREN, FLANTUA, DE BRUIJN c. PAYS-BAS
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche VAN MARLE, VAN ZOMEREN, FLANTUA, DE BRUIJN c. PAYS-BAS
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; Partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8543/79;8674/79;8675/79;...Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1980-10-13;8543.79 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNES, (Art. 35-3) RATIONE TEMPORIS, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : VAN MARLE, VAN ZOMEREN, FLANTUA, DE BRUIJNDéfendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATIONS/REQU)i9'ES NÂ° 8543/79, 8674/79, 8675/79 & 8685/79 Qoined ) G . VAN MARLE (1 ) I .P . VAN ZOMEREN ( I1) ) v/the NETHERLANDS 1 . FLANTUA ( 111) ) c/PAYS-BA S ) R .H . DE BRUIIN (IV) DECISION of 13 October 1980 on the admissibility of the application s DÃCISION du 13 octobre 1980 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªte s
Article 6, paragraph l, of the Convention : Entry into force of new legislation on the uccouutancy profession . previous(v unregulated. Do the boards who veriJi' dre professional qualifications . and whose decision determines whether or nnt rhe tide of "acrountunt"rnav be used and fidl exercise of the profession . deriJe riril rights and obligatiorrs? (Complaint declared admissible) . Article I of the First Protocol : Entry into force of new legislation limiting the activities of accountants who are not officially recognised . Does the loss of incotne and "goodwill sustained by tlrose who previoustv freely exerrised their profession, but have not obtabted the offtcial recognition . amouut to an e.tprupriation (Cotnpluint declared admissible) .
Arllcle 6, paragraphe 1, de la Conrentlon : EntrÃ©e en vigueur d'une nouvell e lÃ©gislation rÃ©glementant la profession de comptable , auparavant libre . Les ronunissioru de vÃ©rification des capacitÃ©s professionnelles, dont dÃ©penderit dorÃ©navant le port du titre de "contptable" et le plein exercice de la profession, dÃ©eâ¢idenredlrs d'une contestation sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re rhd(? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable). Article I du Protocole additionnel : En trÃ©e en vigueur d'une normelle lÃ©gislatian limitant l'activitÃ© de comptables non offtciellentertt reconnus . La dintinrr tion de revenu et de "goodwill" subie par ceux qui, bien qu'ayant auparavant exercÃ© librernern leur profession, n'ont pas obtenu la recontmissa ptce offtcielle Ã©quivaut - elle Ã une expropriation ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
(francais : roir p . /90)
The applicants are Dutch citizens . Applicant I was born in 1938 and lives in Rotterdani . Applicant 11 was born in 1928 and lives in Utrecht . Applicant ill was born in 1915 and also lives in Utrecht . Applicant IV was born in 1929 and lives in Amsterdam . They are represented before the Contntission by Mr H .C .J .L . Polak, lawyer,practising in Rotterdam . The applications to the Contmission concern the manner in which the Dutch authorities determined that the applicants lacked sufficient professional compelence to be certified accountant (Accountants-administratieconsulent) and therefore did not grant them the right to practise under the title after I March 1979 . Relevant domestic la w Under Dutch law, before 1962 anyone, regardless of his professional skill, could call himself an "accountant" and practice under that name . This situation which was considered unsatisfactory, led to the adoption of two separate laws . Firstly, in the Act on Chartered Accountants (Wet op de Registeraccountants) which entered into force on 28 June 1962, rules were laid down regarding those accountants who could claim to possess sufficient knowledge to exercise fully the profession of accountant and who were in particular required to grant certificates as to the accuracy and completeness of company accounts . Secondly, in the Certified Accountants Act (Wet op de Accountantsadministratieconsulenten) of 13 Decentber 1972, which entered into force in 1974 . rules were laid down for those who rendered services in the field of accountancy and related areas, in particular those dealing with medium and small-sized contpanies .
Five years after the entry into force of the above Act, i .e . after I March 1979, the name "accountant" was only lawful for the persons authorised to carry the title of either chartered accountant or certified accountant (cf . Art . 85, para . 2, in conjunc(ion with Art . 28, para . 2, and Article 29) . In the 1972 Act, transitional arrangentents were made for those who, on the date of its entry into force, already exercised their profession under the name "accountant" . In particular . Article 65 stipulated that the following persons qualify for regis ( ration : a) either the persons who have carried out professionally during 15 years preceding the entry into force of the present legislation, over a mininium period of ten years, the activities set out in paragraph 3 of Article 65- in a - 181 -
manner and to an extent that warrant sufficient professional competence for the exercise of the profession of certified accountant : b) or . the persons who are in the possession of diplomas or certificates set out in paragraph 1(b) of Article 65 and have, at the moment of the entry into force of the present legislation, carried out during a minimum period of three years professionally the activities as set out in paragraph 3 to an extent and in a manner that warrant sufficient professional competence for the exercise of the profession of certified accountant .
The activities referred to and set out in paragraph 3 of Article 65 are the following : a) the set(ing up of efficient administration, the evaluation of the manner in which administrations are managed as well as the establishing of annual reports : b) the analysis or interpretation of data derived from administrations in explanatory reports and the giving of advice, orally or in writing, on the basis of these data . In order to determine whether the above conditions were met, a Board of Admission was created (Art . 68) ("Commissie voor de Toelating") . A decision to reject the registration by the Board of Admission could be challenged by an appeal to the Board of Appeal (Art . 71) ("Commissie van Beroep") . This Board was composed of five members and five substitute members . Three of the members and three of the substitute members were designated amongst persons who were eligible as a judge and were or had been entrusted with jurisdiction, but who did not exercise or had not exercised the profession of chartered or certified accountant (Art . 18) . The remaining two members and substitute members were experts in the field of accountancy . Particulan of the Individual appllcatlon a Applicant / has carried out the activities corresponding to the denomination of accountant and set out in Section 65, paragraph 3, of the Certified Accountants Act 1972 since 1947 . In 1969 he joined the NÃ¢tional Association of Accountants (Nationale Associatie van Accountants) . On 22 March 1974 he presented a request to be registered as certified accountant . On 17 January 1977 he was asked by the Board of Admission to attend an interview on 17 February 1977 . He submitted in advance five annual reports drawn up under his authority although the Board did not require the reports to be submitted in advance .
The interview lasted approximately 15 minutes : the reports were returned iu hint at the end of the interview . On I8 March 1977 the Board rejected Applicant l's request and a copy of that decision was delivered to him on 20 June 1977 . Applicant I appealed against that decision to the Board of Appeal . On 10 May 1978 hc was called for the examination of his appeal on 23 May 1978 . At the Board's session he handed out, as requested in the letter of convocation, a number of other reports drawn up by him . The Board put a few qucstions to him in relation to some of these reports . The interview lasted approximaiely IS ntinutes .
The reports were returned to him at the end of the meeting . On 14 July 1978 the Board of Appeal declared Applicant l's appeal unfounded as . sumnting up . - ihe written material subntiued b_v him fell short on some essential issues
- ihe answers to questions put to him during the interview demonstrated thai he did possess the required professional competence . Applirav /J has carried out the activities corresponding to the denomination of accountant and set out in Seclion 65, paragraph 3, of the Certified Accountants Act 1972 since 1950 . On 9 July 1953 he passed the examination organised by the Association of Tax Advisers (Broederschap van Belastingconsulenten) . In 1966 he joined the Dutch Order of Accountants .
On 4 April 1974 he presented a request to be registered as certified accnuntant . On 20 June 1977 he was asked by the Board of Admission to atlend an interview on 18 July 1977 . He submitted in advance five annual reports drawn up under his authority . The interview with the Board lasted approximately twenty minutes ; the reports were returned to hint at the end of the interview . On 5 August 1977 the Board rejected Applicant 11's request and a copy of that decision was delivered to hint on 3 Noventber 1977 . Applicant 11 appealed against that decision to the Board of Appeal . On 3 Noventber 1978 he was convened for the examination of his appeal on 21 November 1978 . At the Board's session he handed out, as requested in the Ictter of convocation, a few other reports, drawn up by him .
.Theintrvwlasdpoximtey20nus
The reports were returned to hint at the end of the nieeting .
On 9 Januarv 1979 the Board of Appeal declared the applicant's appeal unfounded as, suntnting u p - Ihe written material subntitted by him fell short on some essential issues - the answer to questions put to hint during the interview denion .strated that he did not possess the required professional competence . Applicaru 111 has carried out the activities corresponding to the denomination of accountant and set out in Section 65, paragraph 3, of the Certified Accountants Act 1972 since 1950 . On 9 lulv 1953 he passed the examination organised by the Association of Tax Advisers . In 1966 he joined the Dutch Order of Accountants (Nederlandse Orde van Accountan(s) . On 4 April 1974 he presented a request to be regisiered as certified accountant . On 20 June 1977 he was asked by the Board of Admission to attend an interview on 18 July 1977 . He submitted in advance five annual reports drawn up tinder his authority . The interview with the Board lasted approximately 20 minutes . The reports wrre returned to him at the end of the interview . On 5 August 1977 Ihe Board rejected Applicant 111's request and a copy of that decision was detivered on 3 Noventber 1977 . Applicant Ill appealed against that decision to the Board of Appeal . On 3 November 1978 he was convened for the examination of his appeal on 21 November . At the Board's session he handed out, as requested in the letter of cortvocation, a few other reports drawn up by him . The interview lasted approximately 20 minutes . The reports were returned to him at the end of Ihe nteeting . On 9 January 1979 the Board of Appeal declared the applicant's appeal unfounded as, summing u p - the written material submitted by him fell short on some essential Isslles
- the answers given by him during the interview demonstrated that he did not possess ihe required professional capability . App(icanr IV has carried out the activities corresponding to the appellation "accountant" and set out in Section 65, paragraph 3, of the Certified Accountants Act 1972 since 1947 . In addition to that he is in the possession of a certain nuntber of diplonias . ("Praktijkdiploma Boekhouden", "Diploma Moderne Bedrijfsadministratie" and "Staatspraktijkdiploma I") . - 184 -
On 29 May 1974 applicant IV presented a request to be registered as a certified accoumanl . On 17 May 1977 he was asked by the Board of Adinission to attend an interview on 16 June 1977 . Having enquired about this beforehand, he subntitted at the interview 5 annual reports drawn up under his authority . The interview lasted approximately 15 minutes . The reports were returned to hini at the end of the interview . On IS July the Board rejected the applicant's request . Applicant IV appealed . He was called by the Board of Appeal for an examination of' his appeal on 17 November 1978 . At Ihe opening of this interview the President of the Board infornted the applicant that one of the ntembers was prevented front attending, due to illness . and thal therefore the conditions set out in Article 18 of the Act on Certified Accountants could not be met, nantely that the Board be composed of 5 members . The President asked the applicant whether he objected to the interviewâ¢ and the further examination of his appeal being carried out by the 4 members present . The applicant replied that he did not object as, he submits, otherwise he would have had to travel a second time wth his counsel to The Hague . On 19 January 1979 Applicant IV's appeal was declared unfounded on the grounds that he had not exercised in the relevant period the profession of accountant and in any case not fully . The decision is signed by the 5 members .
None of the four applicants appealed to the Council of State on the basis of the Administrative Appeals Act, as such remedy was likely to be itteffective . In support of this arguntent, the applicants submit a decision of th e Council of State dated 4 September 1977 where such appeal introduced by someone in identical circumstances had been declared inadmissible on the grounds that it was directed against a decision of a body (Board of Appeal) entrusted with jurisdiction, which cannot be considered as an adntinistrative body .
COMPLAINTS In their applications to the Commission, the applicants allege a violation of Article 6(I) of the Conven(ion . a) In respect of the applicabiliq of Article 6 to their case, the applicants claim that these proceedings concerned the determination of civil rights within the nieaning of Anicle 6 of the Convention and more particularlv that they lost an acquired right as . froni I March 1979, by virtue of Section 85, paragraph 2, of the 1972 Act, they were no longer able to call themselve s
"accountanl" . nor could they enter into contracts with natural or legal persons in Ihat capacity although prior to that date they had been able to do so . b) As lo the question whether the Board of Appeal can be considered as a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants have pointed out that clearly two conflicting points of view have expressed by the authorities in the Netherlands . On the one hand, they refer to the above . ntentioned decision of the Council of State of 4 September 1977 according to which Ihe said Board was considered to be a tribunal . On the other hand, they point out that the Board of Appeals itself, until the above-mentioned decision of the Council of State, stated in the letters containing notiflcation of their decisions that these could be challenged on the basis of the Administrative Appeal .Act . They also submit a letter by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs dated 23 March 1979 addressed to the Governing Board of the Dutch Association of Accountants, in which he expressed the view that the Board of Admission was not a judicial body but an administrative body created by law . In the applicant's view, it would be inconceivable to attribute to the Board of Admission a different character from that accorded to the Board of Appeal .
If the European Commission of Human Rights were to consider, as did the Council of State, that the Board of Appeal was dealing with a request for certification in last instance, it would have to conclude that a more thorough examination of the applicants' request would have been appropriate . If. on the contrary, the Commission wereto adopt the point of view expressed by Ihe Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, it would have to come to the conclusion that the applicants' civil rights have not been determined in accordance with the requirentents-of Article 6 of the Convention . The applicants draw the Commission's attention to the fact that, under Dutch law, members of judicial bodies are normally nontinated by the Crown . However . the ntentbers of the Board of Appeal are designated by the Minister of Econontic Affairs . This would seem to indicate that the view by the Secre(ary of State of Economic Affairs is the correct one . c) The applicants are also of the opinion that neither the Board of Adniission nor the Board of Appeal is independent . In this respect they submit that the 1972 Act does not contain any provision which prevents the designating Minister froni dismissing the members of both Boards, and that moreover, the reimbursement of travel and subsistence allowances and indemnities are subject to conditions laid down by the designating Minister of Economic Affairs . According to the applicants there can only be a question of real independence it ntenibers of a tribunal cannot be removed under any circumstances and if the conditions of payntent are fixed by law and do not fall within the discrtion (i f ihe executive . d) The applicants also question the impartiality of both Boards . In this respect . theysubmit that among the approximately 6,000 persons exercisin g
the profe .ssion of accountanl . appro .cimately 700 were ntembers of Ihe Duleh Order of Accountants (NOVA) while the rentaining 5,300 accountants were either members of other professional organisations, or did not belong to any such organisation .
The applicants have observed that both Boards are composed alniosl entirely of niembers of NOVA . Moreover, amongst candidates requesting certification . 90% of NOVA members have been accepted . whilst only 20% of non-associated or otherwise associated candidates have been accepted . ' rhere was no proof that NOVA required from its members greater professional skill than other associations did . Neither did NOVA mentbers in facl pussess greater professional skill . Consequently, in the applicants' view, the strong influence of NOVA members on the Board had given other NOVA members an unjus ( ified advantage when they sought ce rt ification . e) The applicants state that they have not been given a fair hearing complying with the requirements Ã´f Article 6, in that, in their view, it is impossible, within such short lapse of time, to form a well-founded opinion about a person's professional abilities . In particular, they complain of the summary exaniination of their applications by the Board of Appeal . especially in view of the fact that the writlen reports which were brought before the Board during the meeiing, together with the replies to the questions put to them during the intervâ¢iew . would form the basis of the decision of the Board . Where, in the submission of the applicants, that Board found that the candidates who, for up io 25 or 30 years . had acted professionally to the satisfaction of their everincreasing clientele, and who had all set up an office where seven to twelve assistants worked, did not meet the requirements of professional competence laid down b_v the law, and where it could foresee the far-reaching consequences that such a decision would have for the candidates, the Board ought to have carried out a longer and more thorough enquiry .
The fourth applicant criticises, moreover, that the decision of the Board Appeal is signed by 5 members, wfiile the hearing took place before 4 members only . Since the legislator considers the hearing of the applicant to be of such intportance that the Board ntay not decide, in accordance with Article 20, without having heard the appellant or at least without having called the appellant for interview, it is not conceivable that a member, who has not attended the hearing and who has therefore not been able to form an opinion hintself on the person of the appellant and his qualities, could be co-responsible for Ihe decision . The fourth applicant draws the attention of the Comniission in particular Io the fact ihat he has learned (he does not specify how) that the 4 mentbers of Ihe Board were equally divided in Iheir opinion . The absent mentber would therefore have had a decisive vote . - 187 -
f) The applicants fear that they will suffer considerable loss of income as a resuli of ihe above legislation as it was applied to them . It is clear in their ntinds that a .s from I March 1979 the Netherlands' authorities faced, for exantple . wiih requests for governmental subsidies or in relation to fiscal nialters, will give credit only to declarations or statements delivered by chartered or certified accountants . This means that their present clientele with regard to particular questions ntay have to abandon them in order to obtain services froni Ihese accountants or mav even wish to transfer Iheir entire accounts to them . The applicants consider that this in fact amounts to expropriation .
THE LA W 1. The applicants complain that the procedures under the Dutch legislation on accâ¢ountants to determine their status as certified accountants were in breach of Article 6 of the Convention . Article 6 of the Convention provides that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations . . . everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable tinte by an independent and impartial tribunal established bv law . . ." . The ipplicants subntitted that this provision is applicable on the ground ihat the decision of the Board of Appeal is decisive for "civil rights and ohligaiinns" and that it has been violated . Ttie Governnient submit, in substance, that no "rights" are affected, but nierely a factual freedom, that any rights and obligations which are affected are not "civil" in character and that in any event there is no "determination" nf rights and obligations . Therefore Article 6 of the Convention is not applicable in the present case, and, in any event, this provision has not been violated . Having ntade a prelintinary examination of the parties' submissions on this point, in particular in the light of the judgments of the European Court of Huntan Rights in the Ringeisen and the K O nig cases, the Commission concludes that the case in point raises intpo rt ant and complex issues concerning the interpretation and application of Article 6(I) of the Convention whoce determination requires an examination of the merits of the applications . 2 . The applicants further complain that the decisions of the Board of Appeal aniount to a deprivation of possessions contrary to Article I of the First Protocol . Article I of ihe First Protocol provides as follows : "I . Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in th e
public inlerest and subject to the conditions provided for bv law and by the general principles of international law . 2 . 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 tise of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure Ihe payntent of taxes or other contributions or penalties . " Fhe applicants allege in particular that as a result of the decisions and in
view of Ihe fact that subsequent legislation lintits certain accountancy
activities to legally recognised accountants, they suffer loss of income . Aloreover the "goodwill" attached to their present otÃ¯ices has been severely daniaged . These Iwo clainis, in their view, amount to expropriation, and would entille Ihent to compensation, according to the generally recognised principles of international law .
The Governntenl argue, in substance, that Ihe applicants have not been deprived of anv righl . either to a title or the carrying out of accounting activities . However, even assunting this were the case . these rights cannot be construed as properly rights within the meaning of Article I of the First Protncol . Finally, even assunting that the concept of property rights can be extended so as to include the above rights, the interference wilh Ihem was in the ptiblic interest . Again the Commission has nrade a prelintinary examination ol Ihe parties' subrnissinns on this point . It considers that this pari of the case raises intportant and coniplex issues of interpretation and application of Article I of Protocol No . I which . ntoreover, are based on the same facts as Ihose giving rise to the issues under Article 6 of the Convention .
II tfollows that none of the grounds set oul in Article 27 of the Convemion which require the Contmission to declare the applications inadmissible has been established and Ihat they must therefore be declared adnrissible . For ihese reasons, the Comntissio n DECLARES THESE APPLICATIONS ADMISSIBLE .
- t 89 -
( TH.4 /) UCTIO M EN FAI T Les requÃ©rants soni ressortissants nÃ©erlandais . Le requÃ©rant I esl nÃ© en 19 3 8 et rÃ©side Ã Rofterdani . Le requÃ©ranY Il esi nÃ© en 1928 et rÃ©side Ã Utrechl . Le requÃ©rant III est nÃ© en 1915 el rÃ©side lui aussi Ã Utrecht . Le requÃ©rant IV est nÃ© en 1929 et rÃ©side Ã Amsterdam . Ils sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s devant la Coinmission par Me H .C .J .L . Polak . avocat Ã Rotterdant . Les requ@les Ã la Commission conc'ernent la maniÃ¨re dont les aulorilÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises onl dÃ©cidÃ© que les reqllerallls n'avaient pas la capacitÃ© professionnelle leur permettant d'Ãªtre coniptables agrÃ©Ã©s (Accountantsadntinistratieconsulenl) et ne leur ont donc pas reconnu le droit de pratiquer en portam ce litre . au-delÃ du 1 1 ' niars 1979 . La lÃ©gislation interne pertinent e En droit nÃ©erlandais avant 1962 . loule personne sans Ã©gard Ã sa capacitÃ© professionnelle pouvait s'intiluler .~ comptable - el exercer sous ce titre . Cetle siluation . jugÃ©e non salisfaisante . a conduit Ã adopter deux lois distinctes . Premicrenienl . la loi sur les experls-complables (Wet op de Regis(erac . countmus) . entrÃ©e en vigueur le 28 juin 1962 . Ã©dicle des rÃ¨gles qui concernent les comptables pouvant prÃ©tendre avoir les connaissances suffisantes pour exercer pleinenient la profession de comptable et qui sont en particulier appelÃ©s Ã dÃ©livrer des certificats atiestant que la coniptabilitÃ© des sociÃ©tÃ©s est exacte et coniplÃ¨te . DeuxiÃ¨ntentenl . la loi sur les coniptables agrÃ©Ã©s (Wet op de Accountantsadntinistraliecon .sulenten) du 13 dÃ©cembre 1972 . entrÃ©e en vigueur en 1974 . Ã©dicte des rÃ¨gles concernant les personnes qui exercent une activitÃ© dans le doniaine contptable ou les dontaines voisins . en particulier ceuz qui s'occupent de petites el nmyennes sociÃ©tÃ©s . Cinq ans aprÃ¨s l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de celle derniÃ¨re loi . c'est-Ã -dire aprÃ¨s le 111 niars 1979 . ne potivaient s-intituler lÃ©galemenl Â« contptable - que les personnes autorisÃ©cs Ã porter le litre soit d-expert-comptable soit de comptable agrÃ©Ã© (ef . l'ar(icle 85 . paragraphe 2 conibinÃ© avec l'article 28 . paragraphe 2 et l'article 29) . La loi de 1972 contenait des dispositions transitoires pour ceux qui . Ã la date de son enlrÃ©e en ~igueur . exerÃ§aient dÃ©jÃ leur profession sous le litre de â¢ comptable â¢â¢ . En parliculier . l'article 65 stipulait que les persmmes suivantes avaient Ics cipacilÃ© .s requises potir @Ire immatriculÃ©es : a . soit les personnes qui ont exercÃ© Ã titre professionnel . dans les 15 ans avant l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la prÃ©sente loi et pendant une pÃ©riod e -190-
minimale de IO ans, les activitÃ©s visÃ©es au paragraphe 3 de l'article 65, d'une maniÃ¨re et dans une niesure qui garantissent une contpÃ©tence professionnelle suffisante pour l'exercice de la profession de contptable agrÃ©Ã© : h . soit les personnes titulaires des diplÃ´mes ou certificats indiquÃ©s au paragraphe I h) de l'article 65 et qui . au nioment dc l'en tr Ã©e en vigueur de la prÃ©sente lÃ©gislation, ont exercÃ© pendant une durÃ©e minimale de (rois ans Ã titre professionnel les activitÃ©s visÃ©es au paragraphe 3 . d'une nianiÃ¨re et dans une mesure qui garanlissent tine compÃ©tence professionnelle suffisante pour l'exercice de la profession contptable agrÃ©Ã© . Les activitÃ©s en question, indiquÃ©es au paragraphe 3 de l'article 65, sont les suivantes : a . l'organisation d'une administration efficace, l'apprÃ©ciation de la maniÃ¨re dont les administralions sont gÃ©rÃ©es ainsi que l'Ã©lablissement de rapports annuels : h . l'analyse ou l'interprÃ©tation de donnÃ©es fournies des administrations dans des rapports explicatifs et la prestation de conseils, oralement ou par Ã©crit, Ã partir de ces donnÃ©es . Une commission d'admission (article 68 . â¢ Conimissie voor de Toelating â¢) chargÃ©c de dÃ©cider si les conditions ci-dessu .c sont reniplies . avait Ã©tÃ© crÃ©Ã©e . Une dÃ©cision refusant l'imntatriculation prise par la comntissio n
d'admission pouvait Ãªtre auaquÃ©e au moyen d'un recours auprÃ¨s de la commission d'appel (article 71 . â¢ Commissie van Beroep â¢) . Cette conimission Ã©tait composÃ©e de cinq niembres titulaires et de cinq ntembres supplÃ©ants . Trois des membres titulaires et trois des membres supplÃ©ants Ã©taient dÃ©signÃ©s parmi des personnes reniplissant les conditions pour Ãªtre nomniÃ©es juges et remplissaicnt ou avaient renipli les fonctions de juge niais n'exerÃ§aient ni n'avaient exercÃ© la profession d'expert-contptable ou de comptable agrÃ©Ã© (article I8) . Les deux autres niembres titulaires et membres supplÃ©ants Ã©taient des expcrts dans le domaine de la comptabilitÃ© . Circonstances relalives aux diffÃ©renles requÃ©le s Le rrqnrrmn 1 exerce depuis 1947 les activitÃ©s correspondant Ã la dÃ©nomination de contptable et dÃ©crites Ã l'article 65, paragraphe 3 de la loi de 1972 sur les comptables agrÃ©Ã©s . En 1960 . il s'affilia Ã l'Association nationale des coniptables (â¢ . Nationale Associatie van Accountants â¢) . Le 22 mars 1974 il introduisit une requÃªte en vue d'Ãªtre intmatriculÃ© conime comptable agrÃ©Ã© . Le 17 janvier 1977 la conimission d'admission l'invita Ã se prÃ©senter Ã une
entrevue le 17 fÃ©vrier 1977 . 11 prnduisit au prÃ©alable cinq rapports annuels rÃ©digÃ©s sous sa responsabilitÃ© . bien que la commission n'exigeÃ¢t pas que les rapports lui lussent sountis Ã l'avance . L'entrevue dura IS ntinules environ ; les rapporis furent reqttÃ©rant Ã la fin de l'entrevue .
Le 18 ntars 1977 la contniission rejeta la requÃ©te du requÃ©rant I et une copie de celle dÃ©cisiwi lui fut nolifiÃ©e le 20juin 1977 . Le requÃ©rant I recourut contre celle dÃ©cision devant la commission de recours . Le 10 mai 1978 il lui cunvoquÃ© pour l'exanten de son recours le 23 niai 1978 . A la sÃ©ance de la contmission il remit . comnie il y avait Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© par la lettre de convocalion . plusieurs aulres rapports rÃ©digÃ©s par lui . La contmission lui posa quelques questions Ã propos de certains de ces rapports . L'entrevue dura 15 minutes environ .
Les rapports [tirent rendus au requÃ©rant Ã la fin de la rÃ©union . Le 14 juillet 1978 . la comniission de recours dÃ©clara le recours du requÃ©rant 1 non fondÃ© parce que . en rÃ©sumÃ© : - Ies d .~cuments Ã©crits produils par lui Ã©taient insuffisanis sur des poinls essellllciti :
- les rÃ©ponses aux questions qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© posÃ©es pendant l'entrevue dÃ©ntontraient qu'iI ne possÃ©dait pas les capacitÃ©s professionnelles requises . Lr rrynrriuu Il exerce depuis 1950 les aclivitÃ©s correspondant Ã la dÃ©nonvinatinn de contptable et indiquÃ©es Ã l'article 65 . paragraphe 3 de la loi de 1972 sur les comptables agrÃ©Ã©s . Le 19 juillet 1953 il rÃ©ussit l'examen organisÃ© par l'Association des conseillers (iscaux (Broederschap van Belastingconsulenten) . En 1966 . il s'affilia Ã l'Ordre nÃ©erlandais des comptables . Le 4 avril 1974 il introduisit une requÃªte en vue d'Ãªtre intmatriculÃ© contme coniptable agrÃ©Ã© . Le 20 juin 1977 la commission d'adntission lui dentanda de se prÃ©senler Ã une entrevue le 18 juillet 1977 . Il communiqua au prÃ©alable cinq rapports annuels rÃ©digÃ©s sous sa responsabilitÃ© . L'entrevue avec la comniission dura 20 ntinutes environ : les rapports lurent reudus au requÃ©rant Ã la fin de l'entrevue . Le 5 aui~t 1977, la contntission rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant Il et une copie de cette dÃ©cision lui fut notifiÃ©e le 3 novembre 1977 . Le reqnÃ©rant II recâ¢ourut contre cette dÃ©cision devant la commission de recours . Le 3 novembre 1978 il fut convoquÃ© pour l'examen de son recours le 21 novembre 1978 . A la sÃ©ance de la commission il remil . comme il y avait Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© par la lettre de convocation . quelques autres rapports rÃ©digÃ©s par lui . - 192 -
L'entrevue dura 20 minutes environ . Les rapports furent rendus au requÃ©rant Ã la fin de la rÃ©union . Le 9 janvier 1979, la commission de recours dÃ©clara le recours du requÃ©rant non fondÃ©e parce que, en rÃ©sumÃ© , - les documents Ã©crits soumis par lui Ã©taient insuffisants sur des points essentiels ; - les rÃ©ponses aux questions qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© posÃ©es pendant l'entrevue dÃ©montraient qu'il ne possÃ©dait pas les capacitÃ©s professionnelles requises . Le requÃ©rant Nl exerce depuis 1950 les activitÃ©s correspondant Ã l a dÃ©nomination de comptable et indiquÃ©es Ã l'article 65, paragraphe 3 de la loi de 1972 sur les comptables agrÃ©Ã©s . Le 9 juillet 1953 il rÃ©ussit l'examen organisÃ© par l'Association des conseillers fiscaux . En 1966 il s'affilia Ã l'Ordre nÃ©erlandais des comptables (Nederlandse Orde van Accountants) . Le 4 avril 1974 il introduisit une requÃªte en vue d'@tre immatriculÃ© comme comptable agrÃ©Ã© . Le 20 juin 1977 la comntission d'admission l'invita Ã se prÃ©senler Ã une entrevue le 18juillet 1977 . 11 communiqua au prÃ©alable cinq rapports annuels rÃ©digÃ©s sous sa responsabilitÃ© . L'entrevue avec la commission dura 20 minutes environ . Les rapports furent rendus au requÃ©rant Ã la fin de l'entrevue . Le 5 aoÃ»t 1977, la conimission rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant 111 et une copie de cette dÃ©cision lui fut notifiÃ©e le 3 novembre 1977 . Le requÃ©rant 111 recourut contre cette dÃ©cision auprÃ¨s de la eontmission de recours .
Le 3 novembre 1978 il fut convoquÃ© pour l'examen de son appel le 21 noventbre . A la sÃ©ance de la commission il rentit, comme il y avait Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© dans la lettre de convocation, quelques autres rapports rÃ©digÃ©s par lui . L'entrevue dura 20 minutes environ . Les rapports furent rendus au requÃ©rant Ã la fin de la rÃ©union . Le 9 janvier 1979, la commission de recours dÃ©clara le recours du requÃ©rant non fondÃ© parce que . en rÃ©suntÃ© , - les documents Ã©crits fournis par lui Ã©taient insuffisants sur des points essentieis : - les rÃ©ponses qu'il avaient donnÃ©es au cours de l'entrevue dÃ©niontraient qu'il ne possÃ©dait pas les capacitÃ©s professionnelles requises . Le requÃ©rant IV exerce depuis 1947 les activitÃ©s correspondant Ã l'appellation de - contptable - et indiquÃ©es Ã l'article 65 . paragraphe 3 de la loi de 1972 sur les comptables agrÃ©Ã©s . Il possÃ¨de en outre plusieurs diplÃ´mes (Praktijkdiploma Boekhouden - . â¢ Diploma Moderne Bedrijfsadministratie- et - Staatspratijkdipioma I â¢) .
Le 29 niai 1974 le requÃ©rant IV demanda Ã Ãªtre immatriculÃ© coninie comptable agrÃ©Ã© . Le 17 mai 1977 la conimission d'adntission l'invita Ã se prÃ©senter Ã une entrevue le 16 juin 1977 . S'Ã©tant renseignÃ© au prÃ©alable, il prÃ©senta lors de l'entrevue cin q
rapports annuels rÃ©digÃ©s sous sa responsabilitÃ© . Les 'rappbrts furent rendus a u .L'entrvuda15miesnvro requÃ©rant Ã la fin de l'entrevue . Le 15 juillet, la commission rejeta la demande du requÃ©rant IV . Celui-ci forma recours . Il fut convoquÃ© par la commission de recour s pour l'examen de son recours le 17 novembre 1978 . -
Au dÃ©butde cette entrevue le prÃ©sident de -la commission informa le requÃ©rant que l'un des membrÃ©s Ã©tait empÃªchÃ©, pour cause de maladie .-et que les conditions Ã©noncÃ©es Ã l'article 18 de la loi sur les comptables agrÃ©Ã©s - Ã savoir celle que la commission fÃ»t composÃ©e de cinq membres = n'Ã©tait pas remplie . Le prÃ©sident demanda,au requÃ©rant s'il Ã©levait des objections Ã ce que l'entrevue et l'examen de son recours se dÃ©roulassent en prÃ©sence de quatre membres seulement . Le requÃ©rant ne fil pas objection parce que . explique-t-il, il e0t dÃ» faire le voyage une seconde fois avec son avocat jusqu'Ã La Haye . Le 19 janvier 1979 le recours du requÃ©rant IV fut dÃ©clarÃ© non fondÃ© au motif qu'il n'avait pas exercÃ© au cours de la pÃ©riode pertinente la profession de comptable ou .en tout cas pas de maniÃ¨re complÃ¨te . La dÃ©cision Ã©tait signÃ©e par cinq membres . Aucun des quatre requÃ©rants ne recourut au Conseil d'Etat en se prÃ©valant de la loi sur les recours adniinistratifs, pareil recours risquant d'Ãªtre inefficace . A l'appui de cet argument, les requÃ©rants produisent un arrÃªt dÃ» Consei l d'Etat datÃ© du 4 septembre 1977 dans lequel un recours de ce genreintroduit par une personne se trouvant dans des circonstances identiques avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© irrecevable . au motif qu'il Ã©tait dirigÃ© contre la dÃ©cision d'un organe (commission d'appel) de caractÃ¨re juridictionnel ne pouvant Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© contme un organe administratif . S
Dans leurs requÃªtes Ã la Commission, les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent une viola . tion de l'article 6 . paragraphe I de la Convention . a . Qttant Ã l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6 Ã leur affaire, les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que cette procÃ©dure impliquait une dÃ©cision d'une contestation sur leurs droits de caractÃ¨re civil au sens de l'article 6 de la Convention et plu s - 194 -
particuliÃ¨rement qu'ils ont perdu un drÃ©it acquis . puisqu'Ã compler du 1^ mars 1979 . en ve . rtu de l'article 85, paragraphe 2 de la loi de 1972, ils ne sont plus autorisÃ©s Ã s'intituler â¢ comptables - pas plus qu'ils ne peuvent accepter des mandats de personnes physiques ou morales en cette capacitÃ© . alors qu'avant cette date ils pouvaient le faire . h . Quant Ã la question de savoir si la commission de recours peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme un tribunal, au sens de l'article 6 de la Convention, les requÃ©rants soulignent que les autoritÃ©s des Pays-Bas ont manifestement exprimÃ© deux points de vue contradictoires . Ils se rÃ©fÃ¨rent, d'une part, Ã l'arrÃªt susmentionnÃ© du Conseil d'Etai du 4 septembre 1977, selon lequel ladite commission est considÃ©rÃ©e comme un tribunal . D'autre part . ils relÃ¨vent que la commission de recours elle-ntÃ©me, jusqu'Ã l'arrÃªt susmentionnÃ© du Conseil d'Etat, a dÃ©clarÃ© dans les lettres notifiant ses dÃ©cisions que celles-ci pouvaient Ãªtre contestÃ©es sur la base de la loi sur les recours administratifs . Ils produisent Ã©galement une lettre du SecrÃ©taire d'Etat aux affaires Ã©conomiques datÃ©e du 23 mars 1979 adressÃ©e au comitÃ© exÃ©cutif de l'Association nÃ©erlandaise des comptables, dans laquelle il exprime le point de vue que la commission d'admission n'est pas un organe judiciaire mais un organe administratif instituÃ© par la loi . De l'avis des requÃ©rants, il serait inconcevable d'attribuer Ã la commission d'admission une nature diffÃ©rente de celle reconnue Ã la commission de recours . Pour le cas od la Commission europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme devrait considÃ©rer, comme le Conseil d'Etat, que la commission de recours connaYt en derniÃ©re instance d'une demande d'immatriculation, elle devrait conclure que la demande des requÃ©rants devait alors @tre examinÃ©e de maniÃ¨re plus approfondie .
Si . au contraire . la Commission devait faire sien le point de vue exprimÃ© par le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat aux affaires Ã©conomiques, elle devrait arriver Ã la conclusion qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© statuÃ© conformÃ©ment aux exigences de l'article 6 de la Ãonvention sur les droits de caractÃ¨re civil des requÃ©rants . Les requÃ©rants appellent l'attention de la Commission sur le fait qu'en droit nÃ©erlandais les membres des organes judiciaires sont habituellement nommÃ©s par la Couronne . Toutefois, les membres de la commission de recours sont dÃ©signÃ©s par le ministre des affaires Ã©conomiques . cÃ© qui semblerait confirmer le point de vue adoptÃ© par le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat aux affaires Ã©conomiques . r . Les requÃ©rants estiment aussi que ni la commission d'admission ni la commission de recours ne sont indÃ©pendantes . A cet Ã©gard, ils font valoir que la loi de 1972 ne contient aucune disposition qui empÃªche le ministre qui dÃ©signe les membres des deux commissions de les rÃ©voquer et au'en outre le remboursement des frais de voYage et de sÃ©jour et les indemnitÃ©s sont soumis aux conditions fixÃ©es par le Mihistre des affaires Ã©conomiques . Selon le s
requÃ©rants on ne peut vraiment parler d'indÃ©pendance que si les membres d'un tribunal ne peuvent en aucun cas Ãªtre rÃ©voquÃ©s et que si les conditions de rÃ©tribution sont fixÃ©es par la loi et ne relÃ¨vent pas du pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire de l'exÃ©cutif . d . Les requÃ©rants contestent aussi l'irripartialitÃ© des deux commissions . A cet Ã©gard . ils soutiennent que parmi les quelques 6 .000 personnes exerÃ§ant la profession de comptable . environ 700 Ã©laient membres del'Ordre nÃ©erlandais des comptables (NOVA) tandis que les 5 .300 contptables restants soit Ã©taient membres d-auves organisations professionnelles, soit n'appartenaient Ã aucune organisation . Les requÃ©rants font observer que les deux commissions sont composÃ©es presqti'exclusivement de membres du NOVA . En outre .parmi les candidats qui ont demandÃ© Ã Ãªtre agrÃ©Ã©s, 90 % des membres du NOVA ont Ã©tÃ© admis alors que seulement 20 Â°5Ã®, des candidats non affiliÃ©s ou affiliÃ©s ailleurs ont Ã©tÃ© acceptÃ©s . Rienne prouve que le NOVA exige de ses membres de meilleurs capacitÃ©s professionnelles que les autres associations . Les membres du NOVA ne possÃ¨dent pas en fait de meilleures capacitÃ©s professionnelles . En consÃ©quence . de l'avis des requÃ©rants . la forte influence des membres du NOVA sur la commission donne aux autres membres du NOVA un avantage injustifiÃ© lorsqu'ils demandent Ã Ãªtre agrÃ©Ã©s . r . Las requÃ©rants dÃ©clarent que leur cause n'a pas Ã©tÃ© entendu Ã©quiâ¢ tablement, comme l'exige l'article 6, en ce que, selon eux, il est impossible en un moment aussi bref de se former une opinion fondÃ©e sur les aptitudes professionnelles de quelqu'un . En particulier, ils se plaignent de l'examen sommaire de leur requÃ©te par la commission de recours . notamment du fait que les rapports Ã©crits qui ont Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã la commission au cours de la rÃ©union . ainsi que les rÃ©ponses aux questions qui leur ont Ã©tÃ© posÃ©es au cours de l'entrevue, constituent la base de la dÃ©cision de la commission . Selon les requÃ©rants . lorsque cette commission a jugÃ© que des candidats qui, pendant 25 ou 30 ans, avaient praliquÃ© Ã la satisfactiond'une clientÃ¨le toujours croissante et qui avaient tous ouvert un cabinet oÃ¹ travaillaient de sept Ã douze assistants . ne remplissaient pas les exigences de capacitÃ© professionnelle prÃ©vues par la loi, et comme elle pouvaitprÃ©voir les consÃ©quences considÃ©rables que pareille dÃ©cision aurait pour les candidats, elle aurait dti procÃ©der Ã une enquÃ©te plus longue et plus approfondie . Le quatriÃ¨me requÃ©rant critique en outre le fait que la dÃ©cision de la commission de recours soit signÃ©e de cinq membres alors que l'audience a eu lieu devant quatre membres seulement . Puisque le lÃ©gislateur considÃ¨re que l'audition de l'intÃ©ressÃ© est d'une importance telle que . selon l'article 20, la commission ne peut statuer sans avoir entendu l'auteur du recours ou du moins sans l'avoir convoquÃ© Ã une entrevue, il n'est pas concevable qu'un membre qui n'a pas assistÃ© Ã celle-ci et qui n'a donc pu se former une opinion -f96-
personnelle sur la personne et les capacitÃ©s de l'auteur du recnurs puisse partager la responsabilitÃ© de la dÃ©cision . . . . Le quatrÃ¨me requÃ©rant appelle l'attention de la Commission en'particulier sur le fait qu'il a appris (il ne prÃ©cise pas comment) que les' quatre ntenibres de la commission de recours avaient une opinion partagÃ©e Ã©galement . La voix du membre absent aurait donc Ã©tÃ© dÃ©cisive . f. Les requÃ©rant iedoutent que leurs revenus accusent une baisse considÃ©rable par suite de la lÃ©gislation ci-dessus, telle qu'elle leur a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©e . Il est clair dans leur esprit qu'Ã contpter du lef mars 1979 les autoritÃ©s nÃ©erlandaises qui seront confrontÃ©es, par exemple . Ã des dentandes de subventions gouvernementales ou de caractÃ¨re fiscal n'accorderont foi qu'aux dÃ©clarations ou exposÃ©s Ã©manant d'experts comptables ou de contptables agrÃ©Ã©s . Autrement dit, la clientÃ¨le actuelle des requÃ©rants devra peut-Ãªtre les abandonner pour certaines affaires pour obtenir les services de ces convptables . auxquels d'ailleurs elles souhaiteront peut-Ãªtre niÃªme transfÃ©rer l'intÃ©gralitÃ© de leurs comptes . Les requÃ©rants estiment que cette situation revient en fait Ã une expropriation .
EN DROI T 1 . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent que la procÃ©dure prÃ©vue par la lÃ©gislation nÃ©erlandaise sur les comptables pour dÃ©terminer leur statut de comptable agrÃ©Ã© est contraire Ã l'article 6 de la Convention . L'article 6 de la Convention prÃ©voit que â¢ toute personne a droit Ã ce
que sa cause soit entendue Ã©quitablemenl . publiquentent et dans. nn dÃ©lai raisonnable . par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial, Ã©tabli par la loi, qui dÃ©cidera . . . des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil . . . . Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que cette disposition est applicable en l'espÃ¨ce . au motif que la dÃ©cision de la commission de recours est dÃ©cisive pour des - droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil â¢ . et qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© violÃ©e . Le Gouvernement soutient en substance qu'aucun - droit â¢ n'es1 affectÃ© mais seulement une libertÃ© de fait . que tous les droits et obligations Ã©venÃ¯Ã¹els qui sont touchÃ©s ne sont pas â¢ de caractÃ¨re civil . et que . quoi qu'il en soit, il n'y a pas de - dÃ©cision d'une contestation d sur des droits et obligations . L'article 6 de la Convention n'est donc pas applicable en l'espÃ¨ce et, en tout cas, celte disposition n'a pas Ã©tÃ© violÃ©e . AprÃ¨s un examen prÃ©liminaire de l'argumentation des parties sur ce point, en particulier Ã la lumiÃ¨re des arrÃªts de la Cour ruropÃ©enne des Droits de l'Hontme dans les Affaires Ringeisen et KÃ¼nig, la Comniission estime que l'affaire dont elle est saisie soulÃ¨ve des questions importantes et complese s
relatives Ã l'interprÃ©tation et application de l'article 6 . paragraphe I . de la Convention et dont la solution appelle un examen du bien-fondÃ© des requÃ©tes . 2 . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent en outre que les dÃ©cisions de la commission de recours conduisent Ã une privation de propriÃ©tÃ© contraire Ã l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel .Aux termes de cet article : â¢ 1 . 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 international . â¢ " 2 . Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©dentes ne portent pas atteinte aÃ» droit que possÃ¨dent les Etats de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glententer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral ou pour assurer le paiement des impÃ´ts ou d'autres contributions ou des . . amendes . ~ . ' Les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent en particulier que par suite de ces dÃ©cisions e t du fÃ it que la lÃ©gislation ultÃ©rieure rÃ©serve certaines activitÃ©s comptables'aux comptables lÃ©galement reconnus . il subissent une perte'de revenus . En outre . le - goodwill - de leurs cabinets actuels a Ã©tÃ© gravertient diminuÃ© . Ces deux Ã©lÃ©ments qu'ils incriminent constituent Ã leurs yeux une expropriation et leur donnerait droit Ã indemnisation, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . Le Gouvernemenl fait valoir en substance que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© privÃ©s d'aucun droit, que ce soit un droit Ã un titre ou un droit Ã l'exercice d'activitÃ©s contptables . Toutefois, Ã supposer mÃªme que tel soit le cas, pareils droits ne peuvent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme des droits de propriÃ©tÃ© . au sens . de l'article I du Protocole additionnel . Enfin, Ã supposer mÃªme que le concept de droit de propriÃ©tÃ© puisse Ã©tre Ã©tendu de faÃ§on Ã inclure les droits ci-dessus . l'ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice de ces droits Ã©tait d'intÃ©rÃªt public . La Conimission a procÃ©dÃ© ici encore Ã un examen prÃ©liminaire de l'arÂ¢untentation des parties . Elle estime que cette partie de l'affaire soulÃ¨ve des questions intportantes et complexes relatives Ã l'interprÃ©tation et Ã l'application de l'article I du Protocole additionnel qui, d'ailleurs, se rapportent aux m@ntes faits que ceux qui soulÃ¨vent des problÃ¨ntes stir le terrain de l'article 6 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit qu'aucun des ntotifs Ã©noncÃ©s Ã l'article 27 de la Convention . pour lesquels la Commission est tenue de dÃ©clarer les requÃªtes irrecevables . n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli, elle doit donc dÃ©clarer ces requÃ©les recevables . Par ces ntotifs . la Commissio n
DÃ.CLARE LES REpUÃTES RECEVABLES . - 198 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 13/10/1980Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 28
 l'article 29
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 65
 l'article 18
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 85
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 20
 l'article 6
 L'article 6
 L'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 1
 l'article 6
 l'article 27