Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770310-723875-687875
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 11:39:48+00:00
Document Index: 143591250

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 11", "l'article 17", "l'article 11", "l'article 11", '§ 2', "l'article 11", '§ 2', "l'article 11", '§ 1', "l'article 17", "l'article 2", "l'article 11", '§ 1', "l'article 1", "l'article 11", '§ 2', "l'article 11", "l'article 17", "l'article 10", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 2', "l'article 10", "l'article 10", "l'article 17", "l'article 11", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 10", "l'article 17", "l'article 11", "l'article 11", "l'article 10", '§ 1', "l'article 17", "l'article 26", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 10", "l'article 11", "l'article 17", "l'article 11", "l'article 10", "l'article 10", "l'article 26", "l'article 10", "l'article 27", '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', "l'article 17", "l'article 17", "l'article 11", "l'article 11", "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 11", "l'article 17", '§ 1', "l'article 17", "l'article 11", '§ 1', "l'article 11", "l'article 17", "l'article 11", "l'article 11", "l'article 11", "l'article 11", "l'article 17", "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 6", '§ 1', '§ 94', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 27", '§ 2', "l'article 6", '§ 1', "l'article 29", "l'article 10"]

VAN LEUVEN et DE MEYER c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche VAN LEUVEN et DE MEYER c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6878/75Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7238/75;6878/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-03-10;7238.75 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : VAN LEUVEN et DE MEYERDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7238/7 5 Frans VAN LEUVEN and Marc DE MEYERE v/BELGIUM Frans VAN LEUVEN et Marc DE MEYERE c/BELGIQU E
DECISION of 10 March 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 10 mars 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te
Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention : Civil rights and obligations . a . This is an autonomous concept which should be interpreted independently of the domestic law of the High Contracting Parties even through the general principles of domestic law must necessarify be taken into consideration in any such interpretation. b
Does the decision of a body, acting in an official capacity, to suspend the right to practice medicine involve the determination of civil rights and obligations? IComplaint declared admissiblel .
Article 11 of the Convention : a . Is the Belgian medical association (Ordre des mÃ©decinsl an association within the meaning of Article 11 ?
b . Does Article 11 guarantee the right of non-association? (Complaint declared admissib/el . Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remedies . a . The applicant has not exhausted his domestic remedies if he has not raised, at least in substance, before the competent national authorities the complaint brought before the Commission . b . However the applicant who invokes Article 17 in conjunction with Article 11 of the Convention, before the Commission, has exhausted domestic remedies even though he only invoked Article 11 before the national authority . Rule 29 of the Rules of procedure of the Commission : Reasons justifying the joinder of two applications.
Article 6, paragrephe 1, de la Convention : Droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil . a . Il s'agit d'une notion autonome qu'il faut interprÃ©ter indÃ©pendamment du droit interne des Hautes Parties Contractantes, mÃ©me si les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit interne doivent nÃ©cessairement Ãªtre pris en considÃ©ration.
b . La dÃ©cision d'un organisme exerÃ§ant des fonctions officielles prononÃ§ant la suspension du droit de pratiquer la mÃ©decine porte-t-elle sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
Article 11 de la Convention : a . L'Ordre belge des mÃ©decins est-il une association au sens de l'article 11 ? b . L'erticle 11 garantit-il le libertÃ© de ne pas s Ã©ssocier ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 26 de la Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes. a . N'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours le requÃ©rent qui n Ã¢ pas soumis, au moins en substance, aux autoritÃ©s nationales le grief qu'il fait valoir devant la Commission . b . Toutefois le requÃ©rant qui, devant la Commission, invoque l'article 17 combinÃ© ave c l'article 11 de la Convention a Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes mÃªme s'il n Ã© invoquÃ© que l'article 11 devant les autoritÃ©s nationales . Article 29 du RÃ©g/ement intÃ©rieur de la Commission : Motifs justifiant la jonction de deux requÃ©tes .
(English : seep . 151 )
Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant Frans Van Leuven est nÃ© le 26 octobre 1931 Ã Malines . Le requÃ©rant Marc De Meyere est nÃ© le 12 aoÃ»t 1940 Ã Eeklo. Les deux requÃ©rants sont domiciliÃ©s Ã Merelbeke (Belgique) et exercent la profession de mÃ©decin . Ils sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s devant la Commission par Maitre John Bultinck, avocat prÃ¨s la cour d'appel de Gand, en vertu d'une procuration dÃ©livrÃ©e le 21 octobre 1975 .
Le 20 janvier 1973 ils firent l'objet d'une plainte dÃ©posÃ©e par treize mÃ©decins, Ã©tablis Ã Merelbeke et environs, qui leur reprochaient des manquements Ã leurs obligations dÃ©ontologiques, et notamment d'avoir systÃ©matiquement limitÃ© leurs honoraires aux montants remboursÃ©s par la SÃ©curitÃ© sociale (mÃªme lorsqu'ils assuraient le service de garde), et d'avoir gratuitement fait distribuer Ã domicile une revue bimensuelle intitulÃ©e a Gezond n dans laquelle les omnipraticiens auraient Ã©tÃ© ridiculisÃ©s . Le 14 mars 1973 les requÃ©rants furent entendus par le bureau du Conseil provincial de l'Ordre des Midecins . Ils niÃ©rent avoir limitÃ© leurs honoraires aux montants remboursÃ©s par la SÃ©curitÃ© sociale au cours des services de garde mais avouÃ©rent l'avoir fait systÃ©matiquement en ce qui concernait leur propre pratique . Ils signalÃ©rent au bureau du conseil que la revue a Gezond n n'Ã©tait pas Ã©ditÃ©e par eux et niÃ©rent avoir ridiculisÃ© leurs confrÃ©res dans celle-ci . Le 19 mars 1973 un autre mÃ©decin dÃ©posa une nouvelle plainte Ã charge des requÃ©rants, dans laquelle il leur fut reprochÃ© d'avoir, deux jours aprÃ¨s leur comparution devant le bureau du conseil, affichÃ© un avis dans les salles d'attente de la maison mÃ©dicale Ã Merelbeke, par lequel ils portaient Ã la connaissance du public qu'ils avaient fait l'objet d'une plainte dÃ©posÃ©e par leurs confrÃ©res et exposaient les motifs de cette plainte .
Les requÃ©rants furent entendus au sujet de cette seconde plainte, le 23 mai 1973, par le bureau du Conseil . Ils dÃ©clarÃ©rent avoir le droit d'informer le public de la situation, d'autant plus que celui-ci Ã©tait dÃ©jÃ au courant .
Les requÃ©rants furent convoquÃ©s devant le Conseil provincial de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins de la province de Flandre Orientale, siÃ©geant Ã Gand, pour y rÃ©pondre des prÃ©ventions suivantes :
a . Avoir travaillÃ© aux tarifs de remboursement de la SÃ©curitÃ© social e b . Avoir collaborÃ© et fait de la publicitÃ© dans la revue Â« Gezond e estimÃ©e offensante Ã l'Ã©gard de leurs confrÃ©res ; c . Avoir affichÃ© Ã la maison mÃ©dicale un avis contraire Ã la dÃ©ontologie, et relatif Ã leur comparution devant le bureau du Conseil de l'Ordre ; d . A la charge du D l Van Leuven seulement : son attitude lors de sa comparution le 14 mars 1973 devant le bureau du Conseil provincial de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins . Le Conseil provincial rendit sa dÃ©cision le 24 octobre 1973 . Il dÃ©clara les prÃ©ventions sous a) et b) Ã© tablies Ã charge des deux requÃ©rants et prononÃ§a Ã leur encontre une mesure de suspension du droit d'exercer l'a rt mÃ©dical d'une durÃ©e d'un mois . Le Conseil estima que la prÃ©vention sous cl ne mÃ©ritait pas de sanction mais dÃ©clara la prÃ©vention sous d) Ã©tablie Ã charge du D , Van Leuven, auquel il infligea une rÃ©primande .
Les diverses mesures et sanctions citÃ©es ci-dessus furent infligÃ©es en application des articles 6 4 2 et 16 de l'arrÃ©tÃ© royal NÂ° 79 du 10 novembre 1967 relatif Ã l'Ordre des MÃ©decins . ' Les requÃ©rants interjetÃ©rent appel de ce tte dÃ©cision auprÃ©s du Conseil d'Appel de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins siÃ©geant Ã Bruxelles . Par arrÃ¨t du 24 juin 1974, celui-ci dÃ©clara l'appel recevable mais confirma la dÃ©cision a quo en tant qu'elle avait dÃ©clarÃ© les prÃ©ventions sous a) et b) (voir ci dessus ) Ã©tablies Ã l'Ã©gard des deux requÃ©rants .
Pour le surplus, le Conseil d'appel annula la dÃ©cision attaquÃ©e et prononÃ§a pour les prÃ©ventions sous a), b) et cl, aprÃ©s les avoir confondues, une mesure de suspension du droit d'exercer l'a rt mÃ©dical, d'une durÃ©e de quinze jou rs , Ã l'encontre des deux requÃ©rants, mais estima la prÃ©vention sous d) non Ã© tablie Ã l'Ã©gard du D , Van Leuven . Les requÃ©rants se pourvurent en cassation .
â¢ Article 6 v Les attrlbutions des conseils provinciaux sont : . . . . . 2Â° veiller au respect des rÃ©9les de la dÃ©ontoloVie mÃ©dicale et au maintien de l'honneur . de la discrÃ©tion, de la probitÃ© et de la dipnnÃ© des membres de l'Ordre . Ils sont chargÃ©s i cette fin de rÃ©primer disciplinairement les fautes des membres inscrins Ã leur lableau, commises dans l'esercice ou Ã l'occasion de l'exercice de la profession ainsi que les fautes praves commises en dehors de l'activnÃ© professionnelle, lorsque ces fautes sont de nature Ã entacher l'honneur ou la dienitÃ© de la prolession . Â» Article 16 : Â« Les sanctions dont dispose le conseil provincial sont : l'avertissement, la censure, la rÃ©primande, la suspension du droit d'exercer l'art mÃ©dical pendant un terme oui ne oeut excÃ©der deux annÃ©es et la radiation du tableau de l'Ordre . Les mÃ©decins frappÃ©s par une dÃ©cision qui n'est olus susceptible de recours, de la suspension du droit d'exercer l'an mÃ©dical, sont privÃ©s dÃ©tinitivement du drort d'Ã©liVibilitÃ© et pendant le dÃ©lai de la suspension, du droit de orendre pan aux Ã©lections du conseil provincial . n
Devant la Cour de cassation les requÃ©rants soulevÃ¨rent notamment les moyens suivants :
- Violation des articles 20 et 107 ' de la Constitution belge et 11 de la Convention par le fail que dans son arrÃªt le Conseil d'appel s'Ã©tait dÃ©clarÃ© compÃ©tent pour connaitre des poursuites disciplinaires et avait infligÃ© une mesure disciplinaire aux requÃ©rants en dÃ©clarant que l'affiliation obligatoire Ã l'Ordre des MÃ©decins n'excÃ©dait pas les limites des restrictions autorisÃ©es par le Â§ 2 de l'article 11 de la Convention . - Violation de la loi et de la Constitution belge en tant que les requÃ©rants avaient fait l'objet d'une mesure disciplinaire pour avoir limitÃ© leurs honoraires aux tarifs de la sÃ©curitÃ© sociale alors que cela ne constituait ni un dÃ©lit ni une faute dÃ©ontologique . Par arrÃ©t du 25 avril 1975 la Cour de cassation dÃ©bouta les requÃ©rant s Elle rejeta notamment le moyen tirÃ© de la violation de l'a rt icle 11 de la Convention en statuant que l'inscription obligatoire au tableau d'un ordre qui, comme l'Ordre des MÃ©decins est une institution de droit public, ayant pour mission de veiller au respect des rÃ©gles de la dÃ©ontologie et au maintien de l'honneur, de la probitÃ© et de la dignitÃ© de ses membres, ne peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme inconciliable avec la libe rtÃ© d'association, puisque cett e mission a trait Ã la protection de la santÃ© publique et que par consÃ©quent l'inscription obligatoire au tableau de l'Ordre n Ã©xcÃ©dait pas les limites des restrictions autorisÃ©es par le Â§ 2 de l'a rt icle 11 dans l'intÃ©rÃ©t de la protection de la santÃ© publique . D'autre pa rt , la Cour de cassation dÃ©clara irrecevable le moyen dans lequel les requÃ©rants affirmaient que limiter ses honoraires aux tarifs de remboursement de la sÃ©curitÃ© sociale ne constituait ni un dÃ©lit ni une faute dÃ©ontologique . La Cour estima en effet que, puisque . la mesure de suspension, infligÃ©e par le Conseil d'Appel, ne visait pas seulement cette prÃ©vention, mais avait Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©e pour d'autres infractions disciplinaires Ã© galement, le moyen Ã© tait irrecevable pour dÃ©faut d'intÃ©rÃ©t . "
GRIEFS 1 . Les requÃ©rants allÃ©guent des violations de l'article 11 (4Â§ 1 et 2), tant pris isolÃ©ment que combinÃ© avec l'article 17 de la Convention . Leur argumentation peut se rÃ©sumer comme suit : a . Les dÃ©cisions des conseils provinciaux et d'appel de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins ont Ã©tÃ© rendues par des organes instituÃ©s par l'ArrÃªtÃ© Royal NÂ° 79 du 10 novembre 1967 . aucune mesure ' Article 20 : Â« Les Belges ont le droil de s'associer ; ce droit ne peut 9tre soumis Ã preventive . n provincieux et Article 107 : u Les cours et tribunaua n'appliqueront les arrÃ©tÃ©s et rÃ©0lements pÃ©nÃ©raux, locaux, qu'autant qu'ils seront conlormes aux lois . Â» " II v a lieu de noter que la cause des requÃ©rants Ã©teit iointe Ã© la cause d'un troisiÃ©me mÃ©decin Iqui n'a pas introduit de requÃ©te auprÃ©s de la Commissionl, condamnÃ© par le Conseil d'eppel uniquement pour avoir limitÃ© ses honoraires de le mÃªme facon que les requÃ©rants . La Cour de cassetion cassa cette condamnation au motif que faire usage d'un droit, c'est-Ã©-dire limiter ses honoraires aux tarifs de remboursement de le sÃ©cureÃ© sociale ne devient pas une faute par le fah auil est feil svstÃ©matiquement usepe de ce droit, dÃ©s lors qu'il n'est constatÃ© aucun abus de ce droit .
Les requÃ©rants sont soumis Ã leur juridiction en vertu de l'article 2, alinÃ©a 2 du mÃªme ArrÃ©tÃ© Royal qui dispose : Â« Pour pouvoir pratiquer l'art mÃ©dical en Belgique tout mÃ©decin doit Ã©tre inscrit au tableau de l'Ordre . Â» L'Ordre des mÃ©decins est une association au sens de l'article 11, Â§ 1 de la Convention . L'Ordre rÃ©unit en effet des citoyens qui souhaitent exercer la profession de mÃ©decin .
La profession mÃ©dicale est, en Belgique, une profession libÃ©rale . Cela n'est d'ailleurs pas contredit par l'article 1, alinÃ©a 3 de l'ArrÃ©tÃ© royal NÂ° 79 prÃ©citÃ©, qui dispose que l'Ordre Â« jouit de la personnalitÃ© civile de droit public n . Les requÃ©ranTs estiment que l'affiliation obligatoire Ã l'Ordre des MÃ©decins constitue une entrave Ã la libertÃ© d'association qui implique la libertÃ© de ne pas s'associer . b . En outre ils affirment que cette affiliation obligatoire, imposÃ©e par ArrÃ©tÃ© royal donc par acte du pouvoir exÃ©cutif, excÃ©de les limites des restrictions autorisÃ©es par le paragraphe 2 de l'article 11 de la Convention, vu que ni cette obligation de s'affilier, ni l'association des mÃ©decins dans un Ordre, ni leur assujettissement Ã ses organes disciplinaires ne constituent des mesures nÃ©cessaires Ã la protection de la santÃ© dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique .
De telles mesures existent par ailleurs dans la lÃ©gislation belge, par exemple dans les prescriptions de l'ArrÃ©tÃ© royal NÂ° 78 du 10 novembre 1967 Â« relatif Ã l'art de guÃ©rir, Ã l'exercice des professions qui s'y rattachent et aux commissions mÃ©dicales tr . Selon les requÃ©rants la crÃ©ation de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins et plus spÃ©cialement l'obligation d'y adhÃ©rer n'ajoute rien Ã la protection de la santÃ© publique et ne vise que l'Ã©tablissement d'une association corporative, qui dÃ©fend ses propres intÃ©rÃ©ts (esse ntielmntdecar tÃ©ematÃ©riel)ansiquec xdes mebrsetdonlef ctionement est contraire Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral d'une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, ce qui aurait Ã©tÃ© suffisamment prouvÃ© par l'Ordre dans le passÃ©, notamment lors des grÃ©ves des mÃ©decins . c . Les requÃ©rants estiment non seulement que les ArrÃ©tÃ©s Royaux NÂ° 78 et NÂ° 79 prÃ©citÃ©s et les dÃ©cisions rendues par les organes instituÃ©s par ceux-ci, violent la libertÃ© d'association mais ils affirment Ã©galement que la crÃ©ation mÃªme de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins constitue un acte des pouvoirs lÃ©gislatif et exÃ©cutif belges qui n'a pas seulement pour but d'apporter des restrictions Ã la libertÃ© d'association, comme l'y autorise le Â§ 2 de l'article 11 de la Convention mais qui vise l'abolition pure et simple de cette libertÃ© .
La crÃ©ation de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins tend donc Ã la destruction d'une des libertÃ©s reconnues par la Convention ou au moins Ã une limitation de celle-ci qui est plus ample que celles prÃ©vues 8 la Convention et constituerait donc Ã©galement une violation de l'article 17 . 2 Les requÃ©rants allÃ©guent Ã©galement une violation de l'article 10 de la Convention qui garantit la libertÃ© d'expression, de donner et de recevoir des informations . Ils estiment que les diverses dÃ©cisions incriminÃ©es prises Ã leur Ã©gard par les organes de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins ont violÃ© cette disposition puisqu'elles ont tentÃ© de les empÃ©cher de rÃ©pandre d'une part, leurs idÃ©es concernant la profession mÃ©dicale et les soins de santÃ©, d'autre part, les informations concernant les procÃ©dures dont ils faisaient l'objet .
_1qq_
3 . Enfin, les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent une violation de l'article 6, Â§ 1 de la Convention par le fait que les conseils provinciaux et d'appel de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins seraient, tant en ce qui concerne leur institution que leur composition ou leurs rÃ¨gles de procÃ©dure, contraires aux mesures Ã©dictÃ©es par cette disposition . Ils affirment que contrairement Ã ce que soutient la jurisprudence belge les organes de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins ne sont pas uniquement des collÃ©ges disciplinaires mais de vÃ©ritables tribunaux, en tant qu'ils connaissent de droits et d'obligations de caractÃ¨re civil tels que la libertÃ© d'expression et le droit d'exercer la profession de mÃ©decin . Les conseils de l'Ordre dÃ©cident donc du droit de leurs justiciables au travail et des rapports de caractÃ¨re civil existant entre lesdits justiciables et leurs patients . Les requÃ©rants se rÃ©fÃ©rent Ã cet Ã©gard Ã la jurisprudence de la Commission IdÃ©cision Commission RequÃªte NÂ° 6232/73, KSnig c/RÃ©p . FÃ©d . d'Allemagnel', selon laquelle a . . .la notion de droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil est une notion autonome qu'il faut interprÃ©ter indÃ©pendamment des droits internes des Hautes Parties Contractantes . . . Â» et Â« l'article 6 Â§ 1 s'applique mÃªme aux procÃ©dures administratives lorsque ces procÃ©dures sont dÃ©terminantes pour des rapports de caractÃ¨re civil entre le requÃ©rant . . . et des tiers Â» . Les dispositions de l'article 6 doivent par consÃ©quent s'appliquer aux juridictions de l'Ordre des MÃ©decins . Or, les requÃ©rants font observe r e . que celles-ci ne sont pas Ã©tablies par la loi mais par l'ArrÃ©tÃ© Royal NÂ° 79 du 10 novembre 1967 (acte de l'exÃ©cutif) alors que le Â§ 1 de l'article 6 exige un tribunal Ã©tabli par la loi . b . - que d'autre part les conseils provinciaux de l'Ordre sont composÃ©s de mÃ©decins originaires de la mÃªme province que le requÃ©rant, confrÃ¨res de celui-ci, qui se considÃ©rent comme partie lÃ©sÃ©e par les dÃ©clarations des requÃ©rants, par consÃ©quent comme adversaires du justiciable . La prÃ©vention de publicitÃ© illicite ne peut Ãªtre comprise que comme tentative des conseils de l'Ordre pour atteindre un confrÃ©re concurrent indÃ©sirable . - Ouant aux conseils d'appel de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins, ils ont une composition paritaire Ã©tant composÃ©s pour la moitiÃ© de mÃ©decins et pour la moitiÃ© de magistrats de carriÃ¨re (articles 7 et 12 de l'ArrÃ©tÃ© royal du 6 fÃ©vrier 1970) . Cette composition paritaire n'offre cependant aucune garantie d'impartialitÃ© puisque la moitiÃ© des membres du conseil - les mÃ©decins confrÃ¨res et concurrents des requÃ©rants - serait partiale . Les requÃ©rants estiment d'ailleurs que la prÃ©sence au sein d'un tel conseil d'un seul membre dont les intÃ©rÃ©ts pourraient Ãªtre contraires Ã ceux des justiciables serait inconciliable avec une justice impartiale . D'autre part, il n'existerait dans ces conseils aucune sÃ©paration entre les personnes qui assument la fonction d'accusateur public et celles qui assument les fonctions d'organe d'instruction et de juge du fond . Toutes ces qualitÃ©s sont confondues dans le chef des mÃªmes personnes . cf . D .R . 2/77 .
Les requÃ©rants estiment que ces faits constituent des violations du Â§ 1 de l'article 6 de la Convention qui garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã© un procÃ©s Ã©quitable par un tribunal indÃ©pendant et impartial .
c . que les conseils de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins siÃ©gent Ã© huis clos larticle 19 de l'ArritÃ© royal du 6 fÃ©vrier 1970) ce qui serait contraire Ã la rÃ©gle de la publicitÃ© des procÃ©dures, instaurÃ©e par le Â§ 1 de l'article 6 prÃ©citÃ© . Les requÃ©rants rÃ©clament des dommages et intÃ©rPts Ã©valuÃ©s Ã titre provisionnel Ã 1 franc belge .
PROCÃDUR E Le 2 octobre 1976, la Commission dÃ©cide larticle 42, Â§ 2 b) de son RÃ©glement intÃ©rieurl de porter la requÃªte Ã© la connaissance du Gouvernement belge et d'inviter celui-ci Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© Ã l'exception du grief des requÃ©rants portant sur la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention . En ce faisant, la Commission estime que la requÃ©te pose des problÃ¨mes semblables Ã ceux soulevÃ©s dans la requÃªte NÂ° 6878/75, Le Compte c/Belgique dÃ©clarÃ©e partiellement recevable les 2 et 6 octobre 1976 . La Commission avait, en effet, dÃ©clarÃ© : - irrecevables les griefs sous l'angle de l'article 10 pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes ; - recevables les griefs sous l'angle des articles 6, 11 pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ©s avec l'article 17 . Le 11 dÃ©cembre 1976, le Gouvernement fait parvenir au SecrÃ©taire de la Commission ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© qui sont aussit0t communiquÃ©es Ã la partie requÃ©rante . Le conseil des requÃ©rants, M^ Bultinck, devait rÃ©pondre Ã ces observations dans un dÃ©lai Ã©chÃ©ant le 20 janvier 1977 lequel a Ã©tÃ©, 8 sa demande et sur instructions du PrÃ©sident de la Commission, prorogÃ© au 11 fÃ©vrier 1977 . Le 4 fÃ©vrier 1977 le conseil des requÃ©rants adresse au SecrÃ©taire de la Commission la rÃ©ponse aux observations du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte . ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S A . Quant Ã l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes (article 26 de la Convention ) Article 11 de la Convention Le Gouvernement dÃ©/endeur reconnait que les requÃ©rants ont, en ce qui concerne les sanctions disciplinaires qui font l'objet de la requÃªte, Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes et saisi la Commission dans le dÃ©lai de six mois 8 partir de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive ICour de cassation 25 avril 19751 . Quant aux arrÃ©tÃ©s royaux NÂ° 78 et 79 du 10 novembre 1967 et l'arrÃ©tÃ© royal du 6 fÃ©vrier 1970, les requÃ©rants ont nÃ©gligÃ© d'introduire le recours en annulation que leur ouvrait la Loi organique du Conseil d'Etat, mais ils ont contestÃ© la lÃ©galitÃ© de ces arrÃ©tÃ©s lors de la procÃ©dure disciplinaire . Le conseil des requÃ©rants, faisant rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te Le Compte, considÃ¨re que la prÃ©sente requÃªte est manifestement recevable au regard de l'article 11 de la Convention . -146_
2 . Artic%s 6, 10 et 17 de la Conventio n Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que les voies de recours internes n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© Ã©puisÃ©es . Les requÃ©rants n'ont pas soulevÃ© la violation de ces dispositions devant la Cour de cassation de mÃªme qu'ils n'ont pas, au prÃ©alable, tentÃ© d'obtenir l'annulation par le Conseil d'Etat pour incompatibilitÃ© avec ces dispositions, des arrÃªtÃ©s royaux NÂ° 78 et NÂ° 79 du 10 novembre 1967 et de celui du 6 fÃ©vrier 1970 . Le conseil des requÃ©rants fait observer que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur se borne Ã affirmer que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas invoquÃ© devant la Cour de cassation les moyens tirÃ©s des articles 6, 10 et 17 . La partie requÃ©rante estime que le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur confond, d'une part, l'obligation d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes, d'autre part, l'obligation de soulever devant les juridictions internes les moyens tirÃ©s de la violation des dispositions de la Convention, celle-ci n'impliquant pas que ces moyens doivent Ãªtre invoquÃ©s Ã chaque instance de la procÃ©dure interne . La violation de l'article 6 a Ã©tÃ© invoquÃ©e explicitement dans la procÃ©dure devant les organes de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins . Reprendre devant la Cour de cassation ce moyen eut Ã©tÃ© inutile car la Cour de cassation l'avait Ã diffÃ©rentes occasions rejetÃ© considÃ©rant que les dÃ©cisions des organes de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins ne relÃ¨vent que du droit disciplinaire auquel l'article 6 ne serait pas applicable; Quant Ã l'article 10, la violation a Ã©tÃ© invoquÃ©e implicitement devant les organes de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins . Enfin, quant Ã l'article 17, la partie requÃ©rante fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã la dÃ©cision de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte Le Compte' oÃ¹ il est prÃ©cisÃ© que peu importe que ce moyen n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© invoquÃ© devant la Cour de cassation puisqu'il est invoquÃ© devant la Commission en liaison avec l'article 11 lequel a Ã©tÃ© invoquÃ© devant les instances nationales . B . Quant Ã la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ© (article 27 de la Convention ) Le Gouvernement dÃ©/endeur prend acte de la dÃ©cision de la Commission du mois d'octobre 1976 dÃ©clarant partiellement recevable la requÃªte Le Compte c/Belgique et n'estime pas nÃ©cessaire de rÃ©itÃ©rer les observations qu'il a formulÃ©es le 15 dÃ©cembre 1975 sur la recevabilitÃ© de ladite requÃªte . Il est d'avis qu'il serait opportun de joindre, en l'espÃ©ce, l'examen du seul grief dont l'irrecevabilitÃ© ne rÃ©sulte pas du non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, Ã savoir celui de la prÃ©tendue violation de l'article 11, Ã l'examen de celui soulevÃ© par repport Ã ce mÃªme article dans la requÃªte Le Compte INÂ° 6878/75) . Le conseil des requÃ©rants confirme que les griefs quant aux articles 6, 11 et 17 de la Convention sont analogues Ã ceux soulevÃ©s dans l'affaire Le Compte . Il estime, par ailleurs, que l'examen devrait Ã©tre Ã©tendu Ã l'article 10, moyen rejetÃ© dans Le Compte . pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . NÂ° 6878/75, ct . D .R . 6/79 .
EN DROI T Les requÃ©rants prÃ©tendent que les dÃ©cisions des organes de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins et les procÃ©dures affÃ©rentes Ã ces dÃ©cisions auraient violÃ© les articles 6Â§ 1, 10 et 11, ce dernier tant pris isolÃ©ment que combinÃ© avec l'article 17 de la Convention .
Il se pose Ã© la Commission la question prÃ©alable de savoir si les conditions Ã©noncÃ©es Ã l'article 26 de la Convention sont rÃ©unies . A . Quant Ã l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours interne s
Les requÃ©rants se plaignent de la dÃ©cision rendue Ã leur encontre par le Conseil provincial de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins de la Flandre orientale le 24 octobre 1973 et allÃ©guent que l'institution, la composition et la procÃ©dure de ce conseil sont contraires aux prescriptions de l'article 6Â§ 1, de la Convention, que la dÃ©cision incriminÃ©e a pour but de les empÃ©cher de rÃ©pandre des idÃ©es et des informations contrairement Ã© l'article 10 de la Convention, qu'elle consacre une violation de leur droit Ã la libertÃ© d'association garanti par l'article 11 de la Convention, enfin que la crÃ©ation de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins tend Ã© la destruction de la libertÃ© d'association, en contravention Ã l'article 17 combinÃ© avec l'article 11 de la Convention . 1 . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ les requÃ©rants allÃ©guent la violation de l'article 10 de la Convention en ce que la dÃ©cision du 24 octobre 1973 aurait pour but de les empÃ©cher de rÃ©pandre, d'une part, leurs idÃ©es concernant la profession mÃ©dicale et les soins de santÃ© Ã prodiguer, d'autre part, les informations concernant les procÃ©dures dont ils faisaient l'objet, il y a lieu de relever que l'article 10 reconnait, certes, Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© d'expression .
Toutefois, la Commission ne s'estime pas appelÃ©e Ã se prononcer sur le point de savoir si a dÃ©cision incriminÃ©e comporte l'apparence d'une violation de cette disposition . En effet, aux termes de l'article 26 de la Convention Â« la Commission ne peut Ã©tre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus et dans le dÃ©lai de six mois Ã partir de la date de la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive x . La Commission relÃ©ve, Ã cet Ã©gard, que les requÃ©rants ont omis de soulever le grief ayant trait Ã l'article 10, mÃªme en substance, devant les instances qui ont eu Ã connaPtre de leurs recours contre la dÃ©cision incriminÃ©e . La Commission estime donc que les requÃ©rants ne peuvent dÃ©s lors Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme ayant Ã©puisÃ© sur ce point les voies de recours internes dont ils disposaient en droit belge . De plus, l'examen de l'affaire n'a permis de dÃ©celer aucune circonstance particuliÃ¨re qui aurait pu dispenser les requÃ©rants, selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus en la matiÃ©re, d'Ã©puiser les voies de recours internes . Il s'ensuit que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas satisfait Ã la condition relative Ã l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes et que leur requÃ¨te doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e, Ã cet Ã©gard, en application de l'article 27, Â§ 3, de la Convention . 2 . Les requÃ©rants allÃ©guent, en outre, la violation des articles 6 Â§ 1, 11 et 17 de la Convention, en ce qui a trait Ã la dÃ©cision du 24 octobre 1973 . En l'espÃ©ce, il n'est pas contestÃ© que les requÃ©rants ont soulevÃ© formellement et cela jusqu'en cassation, les griefs ayant trait Ã des violations des articles 6, Â§ 1 et 11 de la Convention . Il importe peu qu'ils n'aient pas invoquÃ© devant la Cour de cassation l'article 17, comme le fait observer le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . En effet, les requÃ©rants invoquent devant la Commission l'article 17 combinÃ© avec l'article 11 et il suffit Ã ce t
_14g_
Ã©gard que les requÃ©rants aient invoquÃ© devant les instances nationales une violation du droit garanti par l'article 11 .
La Commission est donc d'avis qu'Ã© cet Ã©gard les requÃ©rants ont valablement Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes . B . Quant Ã l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6Â§ 1 et de l'article 11 pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ© avec l'article 17 de la Conventio n La Commission relÃ¨ve dÃ©s l'abord que les points en litige tirÃ©s des articles 6 Â§ 1 , 11 pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ© avec l'article 17 de la Convention sont de mÃªme nature que ceux que prÃ©sente la requÃªte Le Compte c/Belgique (NÂ° 6878/75) dÃ©clarÃ©e partiellement recevable par dÃ©cision des 2 et 6 octobre 1976 . Ces points sont les suivants : 1 . Les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent que l'affiliation obligatoire Ã l'Ordre des mÃ©decins constitue une entrave Ã la libertÃ© d'association Ã©noncÃ©e Ã l'article 11 Â§ 1, laquelle implique, selon eux, la libertÃ© de ne pas s'associer . Ils affirment par ailleurs que la crÃ©ation de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins constitue un acte des pouvoirs lÃ©gislatif et exÃ©cutif belges qui n'a pas seulement pour but d'apporter des restrictions Ã la libertÃ© d'association, comme l'y autorise le paragraphe 2 de l'article 11, mais qui vise Ã l'abolition de cette libertÃ©, en violation de l'article 17 de la Convention . La Commission est d'avis que ce grief pose des problÃ©mes complexes d'interprÃ©tation, parmi lesquels, notamment, les suivants : Un premier problÃ©me est soulevÃ© par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur lorsqu'il estime que l'Ordre des mÃ©decins, Ã©tant une Â« institution de droit public ayant pour mission de veiller au respect de la dÃ©ontologie mÃ©dicale et au maintien de l'honneur, de la discrÃ©tion, de la probitÃ© et de la dignitÃ© de ses membres Â» n'est pas une association et qu'il conclut que l'article 11 n'est pas d'application . Un second problÃ©me pourrait Ãªtre celui de savoir, dans l'hypothÃ¨se oÃ¹ l'on considÃ¨re que l'article 11 est applicable, si celui-ci garantit la libertÃ© de ne pas s'associer, ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©cidÃ©, dans une seule dÃ©cision antÃ©rieure (requÃªte NÂ° 4072/69 c/Belgique, Rec . 32, p . 80 I86), Ann . 13, p . 708) . Enfin, dans la mesure oÃ¹ l'article 11 serait applicable en l'espÃ¨ce et selon la portÃ©e qu'on lui attribue, il y aurait lieu de vÃ©rifier si les restrictions apportÃ©es par la loi et la rÃ©glementation belges au droit de ne pas s'associer peuvent se justifier eu Ã©gard au paragraphe 2 de l'article 11 et de l'article 17 . La Commission est d'avis que ces questions se rÃ©vÃ©lent suffisamment complexes et importantes pour que leur solution doivent relever de l'examen du fond de l'affaire et qu'Ã© cet Ã©gard la requÃªte ne peut Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable ni comme incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention ni comme Ã©tant manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . 2 . Les requÃ©rants affirment que les conseils provinciaux et d'appel de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins seraient, tant en ce qui concerne leur institution que leur composition et leurs rÃ©gles de procÃ©dure, contraires Ã l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention, aux termes duquel r toute personne a droit Ã ce que sa sause soit entendue 1 . . .1 dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable, par un tribunal ( . . .) qui dÃ©cidera, soit des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil, soit du bien-fondÃ© de toute accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre elle . . . Â» .
La Commission est d'avis que ces conseils n'ont pas eu Ã dÃ©cider du bien-fondÃ© d'une accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale dirigÃ©e contre les requÃ©rants . Elle estime, par contre, que la question se pose de savoir si les organes de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins sont ou non appelÃ©s Ã dÃ©cider de contestations portant sur des droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil comme aussi celle de savoir si la libertÃ© d'expression et le droit d'exercer la profession de mÃ©decin doivent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme ayant ce caractÃ©re, au sens de l'article 6, Â§ 1, de la Convention .
La Commission rappelle que, de jurisprudence constante, elle a jugÃ© que la notion de Â« droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil tt est une notion autonome Â« qu'il faut interprÃ©ter indÃ©pendamment des droits internes des Hautes Parties contractantes, mÃªme si les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit interne . . . doivent nÃ©cessairement Ãªtre pris en considÃ©ration lors d'une telle intirprÃ©tation (requÃ©te NÂ° 1931/63, Annuaire 7, p . 213, Rec . 15, p . 811311 . Ce principe a Ã©tÃ© maintenu dans de nombreuses dÃ©cisions, notamment dans celle du 19 juillet 1968 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 3435 Ã© 3438/67 (Rec . 28, p . 109 (128), Annuaire 11 ( 1), pp . 601 Ã 607), de mÃªme que devant la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'Affaire Neumeister IPubl . Cour eur . D .H ., SÃ©rie A, p . 29) . La Commission fait Ã©galement rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã sa dÃ©cision rendue le 27 mai 1975 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte NÂ° 6232/73, KBnig c/RÃ©p . FÃ©d . d'Allemagne, D .R . 1, p . 77 (811 oÃ¹ les problÃ©mes quant Ã l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6Â§ 1, sont analogues Ã ceux soulevÃ©s dans la prÃ©sente requÃ©te . La Commission estime, Ã la lumiÃ¨re d'un examen prÃ©liminaire de l'argumentation des parties, de la jurisprudence de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme (cf . Cour Eur . D .H ., arrÃ©t Ringeisen, SÃ©rie A, Â§ 94), ainsi que de sa propre jurisprudence, notamment de sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© dans l'affaire KÃ´nig c/RÃ©p . FÃ©d . d'Allemagne, que les griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant soulÃ©vent des questions difficiles Ã propos de l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 6 Â§ 1â¢ 1 de la Convention, en particulier quant Ã la notion de Â« droits et obligations de caractÃ©re civil Â» . Elle est d'avis que les problÃ©mes posÃ©s par lesdits griefs sont d'une telle complexitÃ© qu'il ne saurait Ãªtre statuÃ© Ã leur sujet qu'aprÃ©s un examen au fond . Ces griefs ne peuvent donc pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme incompatibles ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2 . Ces griefs ne peuvent pas non plus Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©s manifestement mal fondÃ©s au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention, en ce qui concerne les procÃ©dures devant les Conseils de l'Ordre incriminÃ©es sous l'angle de l'article 6, Â§ 1Â°' de la Convention . La Commission considÃ¨re que les motifs qui l'ont conduite Ã dÃ©clarer recevable la requÃªte NÂ° 6878/75 valent pour la rÃ©sente requÃªte et que celle-ci doit donc Ã©galement Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . Elle note, en outre, que l'une et l'autre de ces requÃ©tes sont dirigÃ©es contre la Belgique dont le Gouvernement a d'ailleurs en l'espÃ©ce dÃ©clarÃ© se rÃ©fÃ©rer aux observations qu'il avait formulÃ©es sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te NÂ° 6878/75 et a suggÃ©rÃ© la jonction des deux requÃªtes . Compte tenu de l'ensemble des similitudes que prÃ©sentent les deux requÃ©tes, il convient que leur examen se poursuive conjointement . Cellesci seront donc jointes, en application de l'article 29 du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE IRRECEVABLE le grief des requÃ©rants selon lequel la dÃ©cision rendue Ã leur encontre par le Conseil provincial de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins de la Flandre orien-
tale le 24 octobre 1973 aurait pour but de les empÃªcher de rÃ©pandre des idÃ©es et des informations contrairement aux droits que leur reconnaPt l'article 10 de la Convention . - Pour le surplus, DECLARE la requÃªte RECEVABLE, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ© . - PRONONCE LA JONCTION de la prÃ©sente requÃªte Ã la requÃªte NÂ° 6878/75, Le Compte contre Belgique .
(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : The applicant Frans Van Leuven was born on 26 October 1931 at Malines . The applicant Marc De Meyer was born on 12 August 1940 at Eeklo . The two applicants reside at Merelbeke (Belgium) and are medical practitioners . They are represented before the Commission by Mr John Bultinck, a barrister practising before the Court of Appeal in Ghent, under a power of attorney dated 21 October 1975 . On 20 January 1973 a complaint was lodged against them by 13 doctors practising in Merelbeke and the surrounding area alleging that they had committed breaches of professional ethics and in particular had systematically limited their fees to the amounts repaid by the Social Security (even when on emergency service) and had distributed from house to house a two-monthly review called "Gezond" in which general practitioners were held up to ridicule . On 14 March 1973 the applicants were heard by the Bureau of the Provincial Council of the Medical Association . They denied having limited their fees to the amount reimbursed by Social Security when on emergency service but admitted doing so systematically in their own practice . They pointed out to the Bureau of the Council that the review "Gezond" was not edited by them and denied that they had rendered their colleagues ridiculous in it . On 19 March 1973 another doctor lodged a new complaint against the applicant s in which he alleged that 2 days after appearing before the Bureau of the Council they had put up a notice in the waiting-rooms of the Medical Consultation Centre in Merelbeke informing the public that a complaint had been laid against them by their colleagues and setting out the reasons for this complaint . The applicants were heard on the question of this second complaint by the Bureau of the Council on 23 May 1973 . They stated that they had the right to inform the public of the situation particularly as it was already aware of what was happening .
The applicants were summoned to appear before the Provincial Council of the Medical Association of East Flanders whose headquarters are in Ghent to answer the following charges :
a . that they had restricted their fee to the amount reimbursed by Social Security ; b . that they had contributed to and advertised in the review "Gezond", which was considered to have insulted their colleagues ; c. that they had put up a notice in the consulting centre contrary to professional ethics relating to their having appeared before the Bureau of the Council of the Medical Association ; d. with regard to Dr Van Leuven only : his attitude when appearing before the Bureau of the Provincial Council of the Medical Association on 14 March 1973 .
The Provincial Council gave its decision on 24 October 1973 . It declared charges (a) and (b) proved against the two applicants and suspended them from practising medicine for a month . It decided that no punishment should be imposed on charge (c) but declared charge Idl proved against Dr Van Leuven, who was reprimanded . The various measures and sanctions mentioned above were imposed under sections 6 121 and 16 of the Medical Association Royal Decree No . 79 of 10 November1967 ' The applicants appealed against this decision to the Appeal Council of the Medical Association whose headquarters are in Brussels . By a judgment of 24 June 1974 the latter declared the appeal admissible but confirmed the decision appealed against in so far as they found that charges lal and Ibl Isee above) had been proved against the two applicants . The Appeal Council accordingly set aside the decision appealed against and imposed on charges lal, ( b) and (c) which were joined a suspension of the right to practise medicine for 15 days againt the two applicants but held that charge (d) was not proved against Dr Van Leuven . The applicants appealed to the Court of Cassation . ' Section 6 :"The functions of ihe Provincial Councils are : . . . . 2 To Ensure the observance of the rules of professional ethics and the maintenance of the honour, discretion . honesty and dipnrty of the members of the Association . For this purpose, they are reouired io impose disciplinary sanctions on faults committed by members entered on their roll committed in or on the occasion of the exercise of their profession as well as serious faults commhted outside their professional activities when such fauhs are of a nature adversely to affect the honour or dignity of the profession ." Section 16 The sanctions which may be imposed by the Provincial Council are : vuarninp, criticism . reurimand, suspension of the right to practise medicine for a period not exceedinp 2 years and ntrikinp otf the roll of the Association . Doctors affected by a final decision of suspension for the right of practising medicine are permanently ineligible for election to the Provincial Council and may not take part in such elections for the period of their suspension ."
Before the Court of Cassation the applicants raised (inter alia) the following grounds : - Violation of Articles 20 and 107â¢ of the Constitution and Article 11 of the Convention in that in its judgment the Appeal Council declared that it had jurisdiction to hear disciplinary matters and had imposed a disciplinary sanction on the applicants stating that compulsory membership of the Medical Association did not exceed the limits of the restrictions authorised by Article 11 (2) of the Convention . - Violation of the law and the Belgian Constitution in so far as the applicants had been subjected to a disciplinary sanction for having restricted their fees to the Social Security scale, which was neither a criminal offence nor a breach of the rules of professional ethics . By its judgment of 25 April 1975 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants' appeal .
It rejected, inter alia, the argument based on the violation of Article 11 of the Convention finding that obligatory entry on the roll of an association which like the Medical Association is a public law institution whose object is to ensure the observance of the rules of professional ethics and the maintenance of the honour, honesty, and dignity of its members cannot be considered incompatible with the freedom of association since this object concerned the protection of public health : it thus followed that compulsory entry on the roll of the Association did not exceed the limits of the restrictions authorised by Article 11 (2) in the interest of protecting public health . The Court of Cassation further declared inadmissible the argument by which the applicants maintained that to restrict their fees to the Social Security repayment scale was neither a criminal offence nor a breach of professional ethics .
The court considered that as the measure of suspension imposed by the Appeal Council related not only to this charge but also to other disciplinary offences this ground of appeal was inadmissible as being void of interest . "
Complaint s 1 . The applicants allege violations of Article 11 (1) and (2) both taken in isolation and combined with Article 17 of the Convention . Their argument may be summarised as follows : a . The decisions of the Provincial and Appeal Councils of the Medical Association were given by organs set up by Royal Decree No . 79 of 10 November 1967 . ' Anicle 20 :"Belpian citizens have the npht of association ; this right may not be subjected to any preventive measure . " Article 107 :"The couns shall not apply general provincial or local orders and repulations except in so far as they are in accordance with Acts of Padiament . " " It should be noted that the applicant's casa was joined with that of a third doctor twho has not lodged an application with the Commissionl convicted by the Appeal Council only of having limited his fees in the seme way as the applicants . The Court of Cassation set aside this conviction on the umund that to us9 a right i .e . to limil his fees to the Social Security repayment 9cale did not become a fauh b y
the fact that it wea used systematically provided that there was no evidence of an abuse of the right .
The applicants were subject to their jurisdiction under Section 2 (2) of the same Royal Decree which provides :
"In order to practise medicine in Belgium every doctor must be entered on the rolls of the Association . " The Medical Association was an association within the meaning of Article 11 111 of the Convention . The Association consisted of those citizens who desired to practise the medical profession . In Belgium the medical profession was a liberal profession and this was not contradicted by Section 1 (3) of Royal Decree No . 79 cited above which provided that the Association "is a public law corporation" .
The applicants consider that compulsory membership of the Medical Associalion is a restriction on the freedom of association which implies freedom not to associate . b. They further maintain that this compulsory membership imposed by Roya l Decree i .e . by an act of the Executive exceeds the limits of the restrictions authorised by Article 11 (2) of the Convention given that neither this obligation to join the Association nor the existence of an association comprising all doctors nor their being subject to its disciplinary organs were necessary measures for the protection of health in a democratic society .
Similar measures existed elsewhere in Belgian legislation e .g . the provisions of Royal Decree No 78 of 10 November 1967 "relating to the practice of medicine II'art de guÃ©rir) and the exercise of the professions connected therewith and the medical commissions" . According to the applicants the creation of the Medical Association, and more especially compulsory membership, contributes nothing to the protection of public health, its sole object being the establishment of a corporative association defending its own interests (essentially those of a material nature) and those of its members the operation of which is contrary to the general interest of a democratic society . This had been sufficiently proved by the Medical Association in the past particularly in doctors' strikes .
c . The applicants consider not only that the Royal Decrees No . 78 and No . 79 cited above, and decisions given by the organs set up tnereby violate freedom of association bur they also allege that the creation of the Medical Association itself constitutes an act of the Belgian legislature and executive whose object was not only to impose restrictions on the lreedom of association as authorised by Article 11 121 of the Convention bul also purely and simply to abolish this freedom . The creation of the Medical Association thus tended to bring about the destruction of one of the freedoms recognised by the Convention or, at least, a restriction of that freedom more extensive than those provided for in the Convenlion, and thus also constituted a violation of Article 17 . 2 . The applicants also allege violation of Article 10 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of expression and the right to receive and impan information . They consider that the various decisions complained of taken against them b y the organs of the Medical Association violated this provision since they were designed firstly to prevent them from spreading their ideas on the medical profession and health care and secondly from giving information on the proceedinas to which they were subjected .
3 . Finally the applicants allege a violation of Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention because the Provincial and Appeal Councils of the Medical Association were contrary to the principles laid down by this provision as regards both tneir creation and their composition and rules of procedure . They maintain that contrary to the position adopted by the Belgian courts the organs of the Medical Association are not mere disciplinary committees but real tribunals to the extent that they hear and determine civil rights and obligations, such as freedom of expression and the right to exercise the medical profession . The Council of the Association thus decide on the right of those subject to their jurisdiction to work and on the civil law relationships existing between them and their patients . The applicants refer in this connection to the Commission's previous decisions (Application No . 6232/73, KÃ´nig v . Federal Republic of Germany)' according to which the concept of civil rights and obligations is an autonomous concept which must be interpreted independently of the domestic law of the High Contracting Parties and Article 6 (1) applies even to administrative proceedings when they are decisive with respect to civil law relationships between the applicant and third parties . The provisions of Article 6 must therefore apply to the Medical Association's tribunals . But the applicants point ou t a . that these are not established by Act of Parliament but by the Royal Decree No . 79 of 10 November 1967 (an act of the Executive) whereas Article 6(1) requires a tribunal established by law .
b. Moreover the Provincial Councils of the Medical Association are made up of doctors from the same province as the applicant, i .e . his colleagues who consider themselves injured by the applicants' declarations and consequently as his adversaries . The impediment of illegal publicity can only be understood as an attempt by the Council of the Association to injure a colleague considered to be an undesirable competitor .
The Medical Association's Appeal Councils are of mixed composition haff doctors and half professional judges (sections 7 and 12 of the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970) . This mixed composition however oHered no guarantee of impartiality because half the members of the Council were doctors who were colleagues and competitors of the applicants and thus biased . The applicants consider moreover that the presence in such a council of a single member whose interest might be contrary to those of the persons appearing before it was irreconcilable with impartial justice . Moreover in these councils there was no separation between the persons performing the functions of the prosecution and those responsible for the investigation and deciding on the merits . All these functions were exercised by the same persons . See D .R .2/77 .
The applicants consider that these facts amount to violations of Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention which guarantees everyone the right to a fair trail by an independent and impartial tribunal . c . The councils of the Medical Association sit in camera (section 19 of the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970) which was contrary to the rule of a public hearing required by Article 6 111 .
The applicants are claiming damages estimated provisionally at 1 Belgian Franc . Proceeding s On 2 October 1975 the Commission decided (Rule 42 (2) of its Rules of Procedure) to bring the application to the knowledge of the Belgian Government and request the latter to present its written observations on admissibility except as regards the applicants' complaint relating to the violation of Article 10 of the Convention .
In doing so the Commission considers that the application raises problems similar to those raised by Applications No . 6878/75 . Le Compte v . Belgium' declared partially admissible on 2 and 6 October 1976 . The Commission had in fact declared : - inadmissible : the complaints under Article 10 for non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies ; - admissible : the complaints under Articles 6 and 11 taken alone or combined with Article 17 . On 11 December 1976 the Government lodged with the Secretary of the Commission its observations on admissibility which were at once sent to the applicants . The applicants' Counsel, Mr Bultinck, was given until 20 January 1977 to reply to these observations and this period was extended at his request and by an order of the President of the Commission until 11 February 1977 . On 4 February 1977 the applicants' Counsel sent his reply to the respondent Government's observations on the admissibility of the application to the Secretary of the Commission . SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S A . Exhaustion of the domestic remedies IArticle 26 of the Convention ) Article 11 of the Conventio n The respondent Government concedes that the applicants have exhausted the domestic remedies as regards the disciplinary sanctions forming the subject matter of the application and brought the matter before the Commission within a period of 6 months from the final domestic decision (Court of Cassation, 27 April 1975) . As regards the Royal Decrees No . 78 and No . 79 of 10 November 1967 and the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970 the applicants had failed to introduce an application for them to be set aside under the Institutional Act governing the Conseil d'Etat but they had disputed the legality of these orders in the disciplinary proceedings . No . 6878/75, see D .R . 6/79 .
The applicants' Counsel, referring to the Commission's decision on the admissibility of application Le Compte, considers that the present application is clearly admissible as regards Article 11 of the Convention . 2 . Articles 6, 10 and 17 of the Convention The respondent Government maintains that the domestic remedies have not been exhausted . The applicants did not raise the violation of these provisions before the Court of Cassation just as they had not earlier applied to the Conseil d'Etat to set the Royal Decrees No . 78 and No . 79 of 10 November 1967 and that of 6 February 1970 aside for incompatibility with these provisions .
The applicants' Counsel points out that the respondent Government merely states that the applicants did not rely before the Court of Cassation on Articles 6, 10 and 17 . The applicants consider that the respondent Government is confusing the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies with the obligation to raise before the domestic court the grounds based on the violation of the provisions of the Convention although the latter did not imply that these grounds must be raised at each stage of the domestic proceedings . The violation of Article 6 was expressly relied on in the proceedings before the organs of the Medical Association . To have raised this argument before the Court of Cassation would have been useless since that court had on several occasions already rejected it taking the view that the decisions of organs of the Medical Association related only to disciplinary law to which Article 6 did not apply .
The violation of Article 10 was implicitly raised before the organs of the Medical Association . Finally as regards Article 17 the applicants refer to the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the Le Compte application where it is stated that it is irrelevant that this argument was not raised before the Commission in connection with Article 11 which had itself been raised before the national authorities . B . Admissibility - without prejudice to the merits IArticle 27 of the Convention) The respondent Government notes the Commission's decision of October 1976 declaring Le Compte v . Belgium partially admissible and considers that it is not necessary to repeat the observations it made on 15 December 1975 on the admissibility of that application . It considers that it would be desirable in the present case to join the examination of the only complaint whose admissibility was not excluded by the failure to exhaust the domestic remedies, i .e . that relating to the alleged violation of Article 11, to the examination of the complaint raised in connection with the same article in the Le Compte application (No . 6878/75) . The applicants' Counsel confirms that the complaints with regard to Articles 6, 11 and 17 of the Convention are similar to those raised in the Le Compte application . Moreover he considers that the examination should be extended to Article 10, which was rejected in the Le Compte decision for failure to exhaust the domestic remedies .
THE LAW The applicants claim that the decisions of the organs of the Medical Association and the proceedings relating to these decisions violated Articles 6 111, 10 and 11, taking the latter both alone and combined with Article 17 of the Convention . The Commission is faced with the prliminary question whether the conditions set out in Article 26 of the Convention are satisfied . A . Exhaustion of domestic remedie s The applicants complain of the decision given against them by the Provincial Council of the Medical Association of East Flanders on 24 October 1973 and allege that the institution, composition and procedure of this council are contrary to the provisions ot Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention, that the decision complained of was intended to prevent them from spreading ideas and information contrary to Article 10 ot the convention and also that it amounts to a violation of their right to freedom of association guaranteed by Article 11 of the Convention .
Finally the creation of the Medical Association tended to destroy freedom of association contrary to Article 17 combined with Article 11 of the Convention . 1 . As regards the applicants' allegation of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, in that the decision of 24 October 1973 was intended to prevent them spreading ideas concerning the medical profession and medical care and also information relating to the proceedings taken against them it is true that Article 10 guarantees the right of freedom of expression to everyone . However the Commission does not consider that it is required to express an opinion whether the decision complained of discloses any appearance of a violation of this provision . For under 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, and within a period of 6 months from the date on which the final decision was taken" .
The Commission notes in this connection that the applicants failed to raise the complaint relating to Article 10, even in substance, before the authorities dealing with their appeals against the decision complained of . It therefore considers that the applicants cannot be held to have exhausted the domestic remedies available to them under Belgian law on this point . Moreover, an examination of the case has not revealed any particular circumstance absolving the applicants according to the generally recognised principles of international law on this subject from exhausting the domestic remedies . It follows that the applicants have not satisfied the condition relating to the exhaustion of the domestic remedies and that this part of their application must be rejected under Article 27 (3) of the Convention . 2 . The applicants further allege the violation of Articles 6 (1), 11 and 17 of the Convention, with respect to the decision of 24 October 1973 . In the instant case it is not disputed that the applicants have formally raised, as far as the Court of Cassation, the complaints relating to violations of Articles 6(1 ) and 11 of the Convention . It is of little importance that they did not rely on Article 17 before the Court of Cassation, as the respondent Government has pointed out . For the applicants raised Article 17 before the Commission in combination with Article 11 an d
;ri6 -
in this respect it is sufficient that they invoked a violation of rights guaranteed by Article 11 before the national authorities . The Commission is therefore of the opinion that the applicants have validly exhausted the domestic remedies in this respect . B . Applicability of Article 6 (1) and A rt icle 11 taken alone or in conjunction with Article 17 of the Conventio n The Commission notes firstly that the issues based on Article 6 (1) and 11 taken alone or combined with Article 17 of the Convention are of the same nature as those raised by the application Le Compte v . Belgium (No . 6878/75) which was declared partially admissible by the decision of 2 and 6 October 1976 . These issues are as follows : 1 . The applicants allege that compulsory membership of the Medical Association is an obstacle to the freedom of association provided for in Article 11 (1) which implies, according to them, the freedom not to associate . They further maintain that the creation of the Medical Association is an act of the Belgian legislature and executive designed not only to impose restrictions on freedom of association but also to abolish this freedom, thus amounting to a violation of Article 17 of the Convention . The Commission is of the opinion that this complaint raised complex problems of interpretation including (inter alia) the following : The first problem is raised by the respondent Government's opinion that the Medical Association being a "public law institution with the object of ensuring respect for professional ethics and the maintenance of the honour, discretion, honesty and disgnity of its members" is not an association and that therefore Article 11 does not apply .
A second problem is whether, assuming that Article 11 is applicable, this article guarantees the freedom not to associate as the Commission has decided though only in one previous decision (Application No . 4072/69 v . Belgium, Collection 32, page 80 ( 86), Yearbook 13, p . 7 08) . Finally, in so far as Article 11 is applicable in the instant case and depending on the scope attributed to it, it is necessary to decide whether the restrictions imposed by Belgian Statutes and Regulations on the right not to associate may be justified having regard to Article 11 12) and Article 17 . The Commission considers that these questions are sufficiently complex and important for their solution to require an examination of the merits of the case and that this part of the application cannot be declared inadmissible either as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention nor as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 2 . The applicants allege that the Provincial and Appeal Councils of the Medical Association are as regards both their institution and their composition and rules of procedure incompatible with Article 6 (1) of the Convention under which, "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a . . . hearing within a reasonable time by a . . tribunal . . . . . ." . The Commission ie of the opinion that these councils were not required to determine a criminal charge against the applicants .
15o -
On the other hand it considers that the question must be decided whether the organs of the Medical Association are or are not required to determine civil rights and obligations and also whether freedom of expression and the right to practise medicine should be considered as such rights within the meaning of Article 6 111 of the Convention . The Commission recalls that it has always held that the concept of "civil rights and obligations" is an autonomous concept "which must be interpreted independently of the rights existing in the law of the High Contracting Parties, even though the general principles of domestic law . . . must necessarily be taken into consideration in such interpretation" (Application No . 1931/63, Yearbook 7, p . 213 . Collection 15, p . 8 113)) . This principle has been upheld in numerous decisions in particular that of 19 July 1968 on the admissibility of Applications Nos . 3435 to 3438/67, Collection 28, p . 109 (128), Yearbook 11 (1), pp . 601 to 6071 and also before the European Court of Human Rights in the Neumeister case (see Publ . of the Eur . Court of H .R ., Series A, p . 29 ) .
The Commission also refers to its decision of 27 May 1975 on the admissibility of Application No . 6232/73 Kiinig v . Federal Republic of Germany, D .R . 2, p . 77 181) in which the problems relating to the applicability of Article 6 ( 1) are similar lo those raised in the present application . After a preliminary examination of the parties' submissions, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights Icf . European Court of Human Rights, Ringeisen judgment, Series A, para . 941 and its own decisions, in particular that on admissibility in KBnig v . Federal Republic of Germany, the Commission considers that the applicants' complaints raise difficult questions in connection with the applicability of Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention especially as regards the concept of "civil rights and obligations" . The problems raised by these complaints are so complex that they can only be decided after an examination of the merits . They cannot therefore be considered incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 (2) . Nor can they be declared manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention as regards the proceedings before the Councils of the Medical Association complained of from the point of view of Article 6 ( 1) of the Convention . The Commission considers that the reasons which led it to declare Application No . 6878/75 applicable apply equally to the instant application and this application too must be declared admissible . It notes also that both applications are against Belgium whose Government has declared in the present case that it refers to the observations it put forward on the admissibility of Application No . 6878/75 and suggested the joinder of the two applications . In view of all the similarities between the two applications it is desirable that they should be examined together . They are therefore joined by virtue of Rule 29 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure . Now, therefore, the Commission - DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the applicant's complaint that the decision given against them by the East Flanders Provincial Council of the Medical Association on 24 October 1973 was intended to prevent their spreading ideas and information contrary to the rights confered on them by Article 10 of the Convention . - For the rest DECLARES the application ADMISSIBLE without prejuding the merits . - ORDERS THE JOINDER of the present application and Application No . 6878/75, Le Compte v . Belgium .
- 160 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 10/03/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page