Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19851007-1074884
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 11:22:00+00:00
Document Index: 175422162

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 1", "l'article 68", "l'article 5", "l'article 1", "l'article 2"]

Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Radiation du rôle (règlement amiable)Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10748/84Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-10-07;10748.84 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL IMPARTIALParties : Demandeurs : M.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 10748/84 M . vhhe FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y M . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 7 October 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 7 octobre 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requ@te
Article l, paragraph I of the First Protocol : An authorisation to practice rnedecine wtder a hea(th in.curance scheme does not constitute a "possession". An authorisation to cmtduct a particu(ar economic activity, even for an indefinite perind, which may be withdrawn in circumstances defitied in adrance does rmt give rise to a right protected by Aniele I of Protocol No . 1 . Future irrcurne constitutes a"possession" onlr if the incorne has been eamed or where an rnforceable claim to it exists .
Article l, paragraphe l, du Protocole additionnel : Ne constitue pas un Â«bienâ¢ l'munrisatiun de pratiquer la mÃ©decine dans le cadre d'un rÃ©gime d'assurancemalndie . L'ataorisarion d'e.rercer une activitÃ© lucrative dÃ©terminÃ©e, mÃªme accordÃ©e pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e nrais susceptible de retrait darts des circonstances prÃ©vues d'avance, ne ronfÃ¨re pas un droit protÃ©gÃ© par l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel . Un gain fmutr ne constitue un Â« bien - que si le gain a Ã©tÃ© acquis ou fait l'objet d'une rrÃ©artce exigible .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 207)
The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows : The applicant, a German citizen born in 1909, is a general practitioner resident in Pirmasens . Before the Commission he is represented by Dr . Wenger, a lawyer practising in Frankfurt . In 1965 the applicant was authorised by the Ministry of the Interior of the Land Rheinland-Pfalz to practise medicine as a doctor . In the same year the applicant was authorised to dispense medical treatment under the social security health insurance scheme as a panel doctor (Zulassung zur kasseniirztlichen Versorgung) . On 23 November 1977 the competent Medical Association (kasseniirztliche Vereinigung) of the health insurance scheme withdrew the applicant's authorisation to practise as a panel doctor under the health insurance scheme as well as his participation in the supplementary health insurance scheme (Ersatzkassenpraxis) . The Association found in particular that the applicant's conduct was not in conformity with the requirements of an economic management of health insurance funds, inter olia, as he had systematically charged fees exceeding the average of the amounts generally reimbursed by the health insurance scheme . In the past, the applicant had already frequently been admonished in this respect, and in 1975/76 his fees had for this reason been curtailed by approximately 173,000 .- DM . l'he Association also found that the applicant had submitted statements for services rendered which had never occurred . The Association thereby relied on Section 68 (a)(6) of the Reich Insurance Act (Reichsversicherungsordnung) according to which a panel doctor's authorisation ntay be withdrawn if the conditions of the authorisation are no longer met or if the panel doctor has seriously breached his duties while dispensing medical treatment under the health insurance scheme . The Association also invoked Section 5 (5) of the Contract between panel doctors and the supplementary health insurance scheme (Arzt/Ersatzkassen-Venrag) according to which a panel doctor is regarded unsuitable, inter alia, if there are serious shortcomings in his person . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Appeal Commission for poctors of the Pfalz Medical Association and to the Appeal Commission for the Supplementary Health Insurance Scheme in respect of the withdrawal of the authorisation to practise as a panel docior . and to participate in the supplenientary health insurance scheme, respectively . The applicant subsequently lodged two parallel actions with the Mainz Socia l Court in which he requested the cancellation of the Appeal Commissions' decisions . During these proceedings the Social Court held a hearing and heard as witnesses two persons whose close relatives had been treated by the applicant as well as his medical assistant and the director of an old people's home where the applicant had treated patients .
On 15 November 1978 the Social Court dismissed the applicant's actions . The court also ordered the imntediate execution of the withdrawal of the authorisation . It was composed of one presiding judge and two honorary judges . The applicant then filed two appeals (Berufung) to the Regional Social Court (Landessozialgericht) . Following an oral hearing, the Regional Social Coun, on 16 February 1979 . rejected the appeals . The coun, which was composed of the presidingjudge, two professional judges and two honorary judges . found that the applicant's conduct had justified the withdrawal of his affiliation with the national health schente . However, in view of the small number of possible private patients and the fact that the applicant's age made it unlikely that he would find employment elsewhere, the measure in fact amounted to a complete prohibition of professional activity . For this reason, the court decided that the execution of the withdrawal of the authorisation could only occur when the decision concerning the withdrawal entered into legal force . The applicant's appeals on points of law were not allowed whereupon the applicant lodged two appeals (Nichtzulassungsbeschwerden) which were rejected by the Federal Social Court (Bundessozialgericht) on 8 July 1980 . In his constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court the applican t cotnplained both of the measures directed against him and of the law on which these measures had been based . On 5 September 1980 the Federal Constitutional Coun dismissed the applicant's constitutional complaint as not offering sufficient prospects of success . The court saw no constitutional issue in the previous instances' interpretation of Ihe relevant law insofar as those instances had found that the doctor was, on account of his breaches of conduct, not suitable to practise as a panel doctor, and if more lenient measures had not sufftced . The exclusion from the health insurance scheme did not interfere with a legal position which the practitioner had obtained due to his own credit . Rather, the panicipation in this scheme constituted a specific possibility of earning facilities within a system of social services created and financed by others . The function of this system lay within the general interest and required front all persons concerned a conduct in accordance with the established nonns .
THE LAW(Extract ) I . The applicant coniplains that the withdrawal of his authorisation to dispense medical treatnient under the health insurance scheme violated his right to a peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . In this respect he relies on Article I of Protocol No . I which states : "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the publi c
interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law . The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties . " The Commission is of the opinion that the authorisation to dispense medical treatment under the health insurance scheme cannot as such be regarded as a "possession" within the meaning of Article I of Protocol No . 1 .
The question arises, however, as to whether an authorisation to conduct certain economic activities could give the holder of the authorisation a right which is protected under Article I of Protocol No . 1 . The Commission considers that the answer will depend . inrer alia, on the question whether the authorisation can be considered to create for its holder a reasonable and legitimate expectation as to the lasting nature of the authorisation and as to the possibility to continue to draw benefit from the exercise of the authorised activity . The Commission notes however that an authorisation to conduct certain economic activities is frequently granted on cenain conditions, and may be withdrawn if such conditions are no longer fulfilled . In other cases, the law itself specifies certain situations in which the authorisation may be withdrawn . It follows, in the Commission's opinion, that the holder of an authorisation cannot be considered to have a reasonable and legitimate expectation to continue his activities, if the conditions attached to the authorisation are no longer fulfilled, or if the authorisation is withdrawn in accordance with the provisions of the law which was in force when the authorisation was issued . As regards expectations for future earnings, the Commission also recalls its previous case-law to the effect that future income can only be considered to constitute a"possession", if it has already been earned or where an enforceable claim existed to it (cf . No . 8410/78, Dec . 13 . 12 .79, D .R . 18 p . 216) . In the present case it is recalled that the applicant's authorisation to dispense medical treatment under the health insurance scheme, although apparently granted for an indefinite period, was subject to conditions allowing for its possible revocation in the future . In particular, the authorisation may be revoked if a doctor has seriously breached his duties while dispensing medical treatment as a panel doctor . This ground for the withdrawal of the authorisation was applied in the present case since it was considered that the applicant's conduct had not been in conformity with the requirement of an economic management of social security funds . In these circumstances the Commission considers that the withdrawal of the authorisation in accordance with the applicable legal provisions did not affect any propeny right protected under Article I of Protocol No . I .
Consequently, the applicant's complaint falls outside the scope of Article I of Protocol No . I and is, therefore, incompatible rmione mareriae with the provisions of the Convention within the nteaning of Article 27 para . 2 .
EN FAI T Les faits de la cause, tels que le requÃ©rant les a exposÃ©s, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit . Le requÃ©rant . ressonissant allemand nÃ© en 1929, est un mÃ©decin gÃ©nÃ©raliste domiciliÃ© Ã Pirmasens . Devant la Commission, il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par le Dr Wenger, avocat Ã Francfort . En 1965, le requÃ©rant reÃ§ut du tninistÃ¨re de l'IntÃ©rieur du Land de RhÃ©naniePalatinat l'autorisation de pratiquer la mÃ©decine . Cette mÃ©me annÃ©e, il fut Ã©galement autorisÃ© Ã prescrire des traitements comme mÃ©decin conventionnÃ© conformÃ©ment au rÃ©gime d'assurances sociales (Zulassung zur kassenifrztlichen Versorgung) . Le 23 novembre 1977, l'organisme ntÃ©dical compÃ©tent (kassen5atliche Vereinigung) de la caisse d'assurance-maladie retira au requÃ©rant l'autorisation de pratiquer comme mÃ©decin conventionnÃ© et lui retira aussi son affiliation au rÃ©gime d'assurance complÃ©mentaire (Ersatzkassenpraxis) . L'organisme estima notamment que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas un comportement conforme aux exigences d'une bonne gestion des fonds de l'assurance-maladie et que, notamment, il avait systÃ©matiquement demandÃ© des honoraires dÃ©passant la moyenne des montants gÃ©nÃ©ralement remboursÃ©s par la caisse . Dans le passÃ© dÃ©jil, le requÃ©rant avait souvent Ã©tÃ© admonestÃ© sur ce point et en 1975/76, ses honoraires avaient pour cette raison Ã©tÃ© dintinuÃ©s d'environ 173 .000 DM . L'organisme estima Ã©galement que le requÃ©rant avait soumi . sdeÃ©clar(ionpustemÃ©dicaxf L'organisme invoqua dÃ¨s lors l'article 68 a) (6) de la loi sur les assurances du Reich (Reichsversicherungsordnung) . selon lequel l'autorisation peut Ãªtre retirÃ©e Ã un mÃ©decin conventionnÃ© si les conditions ne sont plus remplies ou si ledit mÃ©decin a gravement mÃ©connu ses obligations en dispensant un traitement mÃ©dical dans l e 207
cadre du rÃ©gime d'assurance-ntaladie . L'organisme invoqua Ã©galement l'article 5 par . 5 du contrat signÃ©e entre les mÃ©decins conventionnÃ©s et la caisse d'assurance complÃ©mentaire (Arzt/Ersatzkassen-Vertrag), selon lequel un mÃ©decin conventionnÃ© est considÃ©rÃ© comme incompÃ©tent si . notamment, il fait preuve d'insuffisances graves . Le requÃ©rant se pourvut vainement devant la commission de recours de l'Ordre des mÃ©decins du Palatinat et devant celle de la caisse d'assurance complÃ©mentaire contre le retrait de son autorisation de pratiquer comme mÃ©decin conventionnÃ© et de son affiliation Ã la caisse d'assurance complÃ©mentaire . Le requÃ©rant engagea par la suite, aupr8s du tribunal social de Mayence, deux actions parallÃ¨les en annulation des dÃ©cisions des commissions de recours . A l'occasion de ces procÃ©dures, le tribunal social tint une audience et entendit deux tÃ©moins dont les proches parents avaient Ã©tÃ© soignÃ©s par le requÃ©rant, ainsi que l'assistant du mÃ©decin et le directeur d'un asile de vieillards oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant avait des patients . Le 15 novembre 1978- le tribunal social dÃ©bouta le requÃ©rant et ordonna l'exÃ©cution inimÃ©diate du retrait de l'autorisation . Il Ã©tait composÃ© d'un prÃ©sident et de deux magistrats honoraires . Le requÃ©rant interjeta alors deux appels (Berafung) devant le tribunal social rÃ©gional (Landessozialgericht) qui, aprÃ¨s une audience contradictoire, les rejeta le 16 fÃ©vrier 1979 . ComposÃ© du juge prÃ©sident, de deux magistrats professionnels et de deux magistrats honoraires, le tribunal estima que le comportement du requÃ©rant avait justifiÃ© le retrait de son affiliation Ã la caisse nationale d'assurance-maladie . Cependant . vu le petit nombre de ntalades privÃ©s possibles et le fait qu'en raison de son Ã¢ge . le requÃ©rant ne pourrait trÃ¨s probablement pas trouver d'emploi ailleurs, la mesure Ã©quivalait en pratique Ã lui interdire totalement toute activitÃ© professionnelle . Aussi le tribunal dÃ©cida-t-il de n'appliquer le retrait de l'autorisation qu'au moment oÃ¹ entrerait lÃ©galement en vigueur la dÃ©cision concernant le retrait . Le .requÃ©rant ne fut pas autorisÃ© Ã Ã se pourvoir en cassation et il introduisit deux recours (Nichtzulassungsbeschwerden) que le tribunal social fÃ©dÃ©ral (Bundessozialgericht) rejeta le 8 juillet 1980 . Dans son pourvoi devant la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale, le requÃ©rant se plaignit Ã la fois des mesures dirigÃ©es contre lui et de la lÃ©gislation sur laquelle ces mesures se fondaient . Le 5 septembre 1980, la Cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale rejeta le pourvoi du requÃ©rant comme dÃ©pourvu de chances de rÃ©ussir . Elle ne vit aucun point litigieux sur le plan constitutionnel dans l'interprÃ©tation donnÃ©e en premiÃ¨re instance de la lÃ©gislation applicable, dans la mesure oÃ¹ les organes en question avaient estimÃ© d'une pan que . vu ses agissements, le mÃ©decin n'Ã©tait pas qualifiÃ© pour le conventionnenient et que, d'autre pan, des mesures plus clÃ©mentes n'auraient pas suffi . L'exclusion du rÃ©gime de l'assurance-maladie n'affectait pas la situation juridique que le 208
mÃ©decin avait obtenue en raison de son crÃ©dit personnel . Au contraire, la participation Ã ce rÃ©gime lui donnait accÃ¨s Ã un systÃ¨me de services sociaux crÃ©Ã© et financÃ© par d'autres . Or, le fonctionnement de ce systÃ¨me repose sur l'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral et exige de chacun un comportement conforme aux normes Ã©tablies .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que le retrait de son autorisation de pratiquer la niÃ©decine dans le cadre du rÃ©gime d'assurance-maladie a violÃ© le droit au respect de ses biens . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article I du Protocole additionnel aux termes duquel : -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 . Les dispositions prÃ©cÃ©dentes ne portent pas atteinte au droit que poss8dent les Etats de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens conformÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral ou pour assurer le paiement des impÃ´ts ou d'autres contributions ou des amendes . La Contmission estinte que l'autorisation d'exercer la mÃ©decine dans le cadre du rÃ©gime d'assurance maladie ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme un - bien Â» au sens de l'article I du Protocole additionnel . La question se pose cependant de savoir si l'autorisation de mener certaines activitÃ©s Ã©conomiques peut confÃ©rer Ã son titulaire un droit protÃ©gÃ© par ce m@nte article I . La Commission estime que la rÃ©ponse Ã cette question dÃ©pend notamment du point de savoir si l'autorisation peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme suscitant chez le titulaire une espÃ©rance raisonnable et lÃ©gitime quant au caractÃ¨re durable de l'autorisation et quant Ã la possibilitÃ© de continuer Ã tirer profit de l'exercice de l'activitÃ© autorisÃ©e . La Commission relÃ¨ve cependant que l'autorisation de mener certaines activitÃ©s Ã©conontiques est souvent assortie de conditions et qu'elle peut Ã¨tre retirÃ©e si les conditions ne sont plus remplies . Il arrive que la loi elle-mÃ¨me prÃ©cise les cas oÃ¹ l'autorisation peut Ãªtre retirÃ©e . Il s'ensuit, aux yeux de la Commission, que le titulaire d'une autorisation ne saurait Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant une espÃ©rance raisonnable et lÃ©gitime de poursuivre ses activitÃ©s s'il ne remplit plus les conditions dont l'autorisation est assortie ou si celle-ci lui est retirÃ©e conformÃ©menl aux dispositions lÃ©gales en vigueur au nioment de son octroi . S'agissant des espÃ©rances de gains futurs, la Conimission rappelle Ã©galement sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure selon laquelle un revenu futur ne saurait Ã¨tre considÃ©rÃ© comme un .bien . que s'il a dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© gagnÃ© ou s'il existe une crÃ©ance exigible (cf. N" 8410/78, dÃ©c . 13 .12 .79, D .R . 18 p . 216) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Comniission rappelle que l'autorisation donnÃ©e au requÃ©rant de prescrire des traitentents mÃ©dicaux dans le cadre du rÃ©gime d'assurance-maladie .
certes apparemment accordÃ©e pour une pÃ©riode indÃ©finie, Ã©tait nÃ©anmoins soumise Ã des conditionsjustifiant son Ã©ventuel retrait . En paniculier, l'autorisation pouvait @tre rÃ©voquÃ©e si le mÃ©decin mÃ©connaissait gravement ses obligations de mÃ©decin conventionnÃ© . C'est prÃ©cisÃ©ment ce motif de retrait de l'autorisation qui a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ© en l'espÃ¨ce puisqu'on a considÃ©rÃ© que le comportement du requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© conforme aux exigences de bonne gestion des fonds de la sÃ©curitÃ© sociale . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime que le reirait de l'aworisation conformÃ©mcnt aux dispositions lÃ©gales en vigueur n'affecte aucun droit de propriÃ©tÃ© protÃ©gÃ© par l'article I du Protocole additionnel . En consÃ©quence, le grief du requÃ©rant Ã©chappe au champ d'application de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel et est dÃ¨s lors, incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de l'article 2 7 par . 2 .
210Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 07/10/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page