In the case of Van Orshoven v. Belgium (1),
 
        The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with
Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the
relevant provisions of Rules of Court A (2), as a Chamber composed of
the following judges:
 
        Mr  R. Bernhardt, President,
        Mr  L.-E. Pettiti,
        Mr  R. Macdonald,
        Mr  J.M. Morenilla,
        Sir John Freeland,
        Mr  A.B. Baka,
        Mr  G. Mifsud Bonnici,
        Mr  E. Levits,
        Mr  M. Storme, ad hoc judge,
 
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar, and Mr P.J. Mahoney, Deputy
Registrar,
 
        Having deliberated in private on 25 January and 30 May 1997,
 
        Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
_______________
Notes by the Registrar
 
1. The case is numbered 95/1995/601/689. The first number is the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the
relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the
case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its
creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications
to the Commission. 2. Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry
into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only
to cases concerning States not bound by that Protocol (P9). They
correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as
amended several times subsequently.
_______________
 
PROCEDURE
 
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission
of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 25 October 1995, within the
three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of
the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47). It originated in an application
(no. 20122/92) against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the
Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Belgian national,
Mr Yvo Van Orshoven, on 13 March 1992. The Commission's request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Belgium recognised
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The
object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts
of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its
obligations under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1). 2. In response to the enquiry made in accordance with
Rule 33 para. 3 (d) of Rules of Court A, the applicant stated that he
wished to take part in the proceedings and designated the lawyers who
would represent him (Rule 30). Initially referred to as I.V.O., he
subsequently consented to the disclosure of his identity. 3. The Chamber to be constituted included ex officio
Mr J. De Meyer, the elected judge of Belgian nationality (Article 43
of the Convention) (art. 43), and Mr R. Bernhardt, the Vice-President
of the Court (Rule 21 para. 4 (b)). On 3 November 1995, in the
presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court, Mr R. Ryssdal,
drew by lot the names of the other seven members, namely
Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr R. Macdonald, Mr J.M. Morenilla,
Sir John Freeland, Mr A.B. Baka, Mr G. Mifsud Bonnici and Mr E. Levits
(Article 43 in fine of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 5) (art. 43). On 20 November 1995 Mr De Meyer stated that he wished to
withdraw from the case pursuant to Rule 24 para. 2, because it raised
issues similar to those which had arisen in the cases of
Delcourt v. Belgium - in which he had acted as Agent and Counsel for
the Government (judgment of 17 January 1970, Series A no. 11, p. 5,
para. 7) - and Borgers v. Belgium and Vermeulen v. Belgium, from which
he had withdrawn (judgments of 30 October 1991, Series A no. 214-B,
p. 25, para. 3, and 20 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1996-I, p. 227, para. 3). On 22 December 1995 the Agent of
the Belgian Government ("the Government") informed the Registrar that
Mr M. Storme, Professor of Law at Ghent University, had been appointed
to sit as ad hoc judge (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 23)
(art. 43). 4. As President of the Chamber (Rule 21 para. 6), Mr Bernhardt,
acting through the Registrar, consulted the Agent of the Government,
the applicant's lawyers and the Delegate of the Commission on the
organisation of the proceedings (Rules 37 para. 1 and 38). Pursuant
to the order made in consequence, the Registrar received the
Government's and the applicant's memorials on 31 May 1996. On
2 July 1996 the Secretary to the Commission indicated that the Delegate
did not wish to reply in writing. On 23 August he supplied various
documents, as requested by the Registrar on the instructions of the
President. 5. In accordance with the President's decision, the hearing took
place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on
23 January 1997. The Court had held a preparatory meeting beforehand. There appeared before the Court:
 
(a) for the Government
 
    Mr J. Lathouwers, Deputy Legal Adviser,
       Head of Division, Ministry of Justice,                  Agent,
    Mr E. Jakhian, of the Brussels Bar,                      Counsel;
 
(b) for the Commission
 
    Mr L. Loucaides,                                        Delegate;
 
(c) for the applicant
 
    Mr J. Coch, of the Hasselt Bar,
    Mr P. Thiery, of the Hasselt Bar,                        Counsel. The Court heard addresses by Mr Loucaides, Mr Coch, Mr Thiery
and Mr Jakhian. AS TO THE FACTS
 
I. Particular circumstances of the case
 
6. Mr Yvo Van Orshoven, a Belgian citizen born in 1940, lives at
Neerglabbeek (province of Limburg), where he has a private practice as
a doctor. 7. At the beginning of 1987 he was the subject of an
administrative inquiry by the National Institute for Sickness and
Disability Insurance (Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité
("INAMI")) following a complaint by a mutual insurance company, which
accused him of supplying treatment without a prescription and claiming
payment for treatment that had not been given or in respect of which
the conditions laid down by law had not been satisfied. 8. On 19 August 1987 the INAMI sent the file to the
Limburg Provincial Council of the Ordre des médecins
(Medical Association), annexing complaints by three of the applicant's
patients who accused him of professional misconduct towards them. 9. After interviewing the applicant on 2 February 1988, the
Executive Committee of the Provincial Council decided to look into the
matter. On 24 March 1988 the Provincial Council held a hearing, which
Mr Van Orshoven did not attend despite being summoned to do so. The
council joined the INAMI case and the patients' complaints and on
28 April 1988, in the applicant's absence, ordered that he should be
struck off the register of the Ordre. 10. On 11 May 1989, on an application by the applicant to have that
decision set aside, the Provincial Council substituted a penalty of
suspension from practising medicine for 18 days in respect of the
administrative matter and 129 days in respect of the complaints. 11. The applicant appealed against that decision to the
Dutch-language Appeals Board of the Ordre, which on 25 June 1990
ordered that he be struck off the register. 12. Mr Van Orshoven then lodged an appeal on points of law with the
Court of Cassation. On 13 September 1991 a hearing was held at which
the court heard in turn the reporting judge (Mr Verougstraete), counsel
for the applicant, counsel for the other side (the Ordre des médecins)
and the avocat général (Mr du Jardin), who after making his submissions
- the content of which has not been communicated to the Court - took
part in the court of Cassation's deliberations. On the same day the
court dismissed the appeal. II. Relevant domestic law
 
    A. Disciplinary rules
 
13. The Ordre des médecins and its councils are governed by
Royal Decree no. 79 of 10 November 1967 on the Ordre des médecins and
the Royal Decree of 6 February 1970 on the organisation and functioning
of the councils of the Ordre. 14. At first instance disciplinary action is taken by the
provincial councils of the Ordre, which are required to "ensure that
the rules of professional conduct are complied with and that the
reputation, discretion, probity and dignity of ... medical
practitioners ... are upheld. To this end, they shall be responsible
for imposing disciplinary penalties for misconduct by ... medical
practitioners in the performance of their professional duties, as well
as serious misconduct unconnected with their professional duties where
such misconduct is likely to damage the reputation or dignity of the
profession" (Article 6, second sub-paragraph, of Royal Decree no. 79). 15. The members of the provincial councils are elected by the
medical practitioners registered with the Ordre who are not suspended
from practising. They are assisted in their task by an assessor who
sits in an advisory capacity only. Assessors are appointed by the
Crown from among the judges of the tribunaux de première instance
(regional courts of first instance), excluding the investigating judges
and members of the prosecution (Article 7). 16. The provincial councils may institute proceedings either of
their own motion or at the request of the National Council, the
Minister responsible for public health, the procureurs du Roi or the
provincial medical boards, or on a complaint from a doctor or other
person. The executive committee of the provincial council starts an
investigation into the matter and appoints a reporting member. At the
end of the investigative stage, either the committee or the reporting
member reports to the council (Article 20 para. 1), which may decide
to discontinue the proceedings, to order further inquiries into the
facts or to summon the doctor under investigation to appear in person
at an adversarial hearing (Articles 24 and 26 of the Royal Decree of
6 February 1970). 17. The council may impose the following penalties: a warning, a
censure, a reprimand, suspension of the right to practise medicine for
up to two years and striking off the register (Article 16,
first paragraph, of Royal Decree no. 79). 18. Appeals against such decisions of provincial councils lie to
appeals boards and may be brought by the doctor on whom the
disciplinary penalty has been imposed or the
provincial council assessor or by the Chairman of the National Council
of the Ordre des médecins acting jointly with one of the vice-chairmen
(Article 21 of Royal Decree no. 79). The appeals boards are composed
of equal numbers of doctors elected by the provincial councils and
judges of the courts of appeal appointed by the King (Article 12). The
procedure is adversarial and the doctor, who is entitled to be assisted
by his counsel, has the right to address the board. Appeals boards can
only impose a penalty where none has been imposed by the
provincial council, or impose a heavier penalty than that imposed by
the council, by a two-thirds majority (Article 25 para. 4,
second sub-paragraph). 19. An appeal lies from the appeals boards to the
Court of Cassation and may be brought by the doctor on whom the
disciplinary penalty has been imposed or the Minister responsible for
public health or by the Chairman of the National Council of the Ordre
acting jointly with one of the vice-chairmen (Article 23,
first paragraph). Proceedings in the Court of Cassation are governed
by the rules of civil procedure, save in three respects relating to the
time-limit for appeals, the form in which they must be lodged and
service of the Court of Cassation's judgment (Article 26). B. The Judicial Code
 
20. Article 138 of the Judicial Code provides:
 
        "Subject to the provisions of Article 141, the department of
        the procureur du Roi shall act as prosecuting authority in the
        manner laid down by law. In civil matters it shall intervene by way of legal
        proceedings, applications or opinions. It shall act of its own
        motion in the instances prescribed by law and also on each
        occasion that public policy requires its intervention."
 
21. By Article 141 of the Judicial Code,
 
        "The procureur général at the Court of Cassation shall not act
        as prosecuting authority except where he has instituted
        proceedings in which the decision on the merits falls to the
        Court of Cassation."
 
        Examples of the - relatively rare - cases in which the
Court of Cassation acts as a tribunal of fact include: trials of
Ministers (Article 90 of the Constitution), actions against judges for
misuse of authority (Articles 613 (2) and 1140 to 1147 of the
Judicial Code) and disciplinary proceedings against certain
judicial officers. In all other cases, the procureur général's department acts,
with complete independence, as an adviser to the court. 22. As to the disciplinary hierarchy of the ministère public, the
following provisions of the Judicial Code should be mentioned:
 
                              Article 400
 
        "The Minister of Justice shall exercise supervisory authority
        over all the officials of the ministère public; the
        procureur général at the Court of Cassation likewise over his
        counterparts at the courts of appeal; and the latter over the
        members of their own departments and of those of the
        auditeurs généraux at the Industrial Appeals Tribunals and over
        the procureurs du Roi attached to the lower courts, the
        auditeurs attached to the industrial tribunals and their
        deputies."
 
                              Article 414
 
        "The procureur général at the Court of Appeal may impose on the
        officials of the ministère public subordinate to him the
        penalties of a warning, a reprimand or a reprimand with
        suspension of salary. The procureur général at the Court of Cassation shall have the
        same powers in regard to the avocats généraux at that court and
        the procureurs généraux at the courts of appeal. The Minister of Justice may likewise warn and reprimand any
        official of the ministère public or recommend to the King his
        suspension or dismissal."
 
23. With regard to the procedure before the Court of Cassation in
both civil and criminal matters the Judicial Code provides:
 
                             Article 1107
 
        "After the report has been read out, submissions are heard from
        counsel present at the hearing. Their addresses shall relate
        exclusively to the issues of law raised in the grounds for
        appeal or to objections to the admissibility of the appeal. The procureur général's department shall then make its
        submissions, after which no further documents shall be
        accepted."
 
                             Article 1109
 
        "The procureur général or a member of his department shall be
        entitled to attend the deliberations unless the appeal on
        points of law has been lodged by the procureur général's
        department itself; he shall not be entitled to vote in the
        deliberations."
 
        The procureur général's department may itself lodge appeals on
points of law either "in the interests of the law" (Articles 1089
and 1090 of the Judicial Code and Article 442 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure) or following a complaint by the
Minister of Justice (Article 1088 of the Judicial Code and Article 441
of the Code of Criminal Procedure). 24. Since the aforementioned Borgers and Vermeulen judgments
(see paragraph 3 above), appellants in the Court of Cassation have been
entitled, in both criminal and civil proceedings, to address the court
after the representative of the procureur général's department, who
does not then attend the court's deliberations. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
 
25. In his application of 13 March 1992 to the Commission
(no. 20122/92) Mr Van Orshoven complained of various breaches of his
right to a fair hearing as guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 of the
Convention (art. 6-1). 26. On 7 April 1994 and 27 February 1995 the Commission declared
admissible the complaint relating to the fact that it was impossible
for the applicant to reply to the procureur général's submissions at
the hearing in the Court of Cassation and declared the remainder of the
application inadmissible. In its report of 15 September 1995
(Article 31) (art. 31), it expressed the opinion by twenty votes to
seven that there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1),
after indicating that it would not examine the complaint that a member
of the procureur général's department had taken part in the
Court of Cassation's deliberations, which had been made late. The full
text of the Commission's opinion and of the seven separate opinions
contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment (1).
_______________
Note by the Registrar
 
1. For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed
version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1997-III), but a copy of the Commission's report is
obtainable from the registry.
_______________
 
27. In its request of 25 October 1995 bringing the case before the
Court, which was signed by its President, the Commission said, in
particular:
 
        "The subject matter of the request is the presence of a member
        of the procureur général's department at the Court of Cassation
        at that court's deliberations in disciplinary proceedings
        against a doctor and the question whether that situation
        complies with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the
        Convention (art. 6-1)."
 
FINAL SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURT
 
28. In their memorial the Government submitted:
 
        "May it please the Court,
 
        As our primary submission, with respect to the Court's
        jurisdiction,
 
        To hold that it has no jurisdiction to hear the present case,
        as the issue referred to it by the Commission was declared
        inadmissible by implication and the Court cannot extend its
        jurisdiction beyond the scope of the application or request
        whereby the case was referred to it;
 
        In the alternative, on the merits,
 
        To hold that generally in civil matters the fact that it is
        impossible to reply to the submissions of the
        procureur général's department at the Court of Cassation (and
        its representative's presence at the court's deliberations) do
        not amount to a breach of the principle of equality of arms
        where due process has been complied with before the courts
        below;
 
        In the further alternative, to hold that in the present case
        the fact that it was impossible to reply to the submissions of
        the procureur général's department at the Court of Cassation
        (and its representative's presence at its deliberations) did
        not amount to a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the
        Convention (art. 6-1) as the applicant's appeal on points of
        law in the present case could not have affected his legal
        position and the applicant could not reasonably have mistaken
        the role of the procureur général's department at the
        Court of Cassation."
 
29. At the hearing before the Court, Mr Van Orshoven's counsel
invited the Court to declare the application admissible and to "find
against" the Belgian State. AS TO THE LAW
 
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 OF THE CONVENTION
        (art. 6-1)
 
30. Mr Van Orshoven submitted that there had been a breach of
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), which provides:
 
        "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or
        of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a
        fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ..."
 
        Referring to the Borgers v. Belgium judgment of 30 October 1991
(Series A no. 214-B), he complained, firstly, that he had not been able
to reply, through his lawyer, to the avocat général's submissions or
to address the court last at the hearing on 13 September 1991 before
the Court of Cassation; and, secondly, that the representative of the
procureur général's department had taken part in the deliberations that
had followed immediately afterwards (see paragraph 12 above). A. The Government's preliminary objection
 
31. The Government noted that the only complaint in the
Commission's request bringing the case before the Court was based on
the fact that a member of the procureur général's department had taken
part in the Court of Cassation's deliberations. Yet in its report of
15 September 1995 the Commission had implicitly declared that complaint
inadmissible because it had been made out of time (see paragraphs 26
and 27 above). That being so, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear
it. As to the complaint based on the fact that it had been impossible
to reply to the avocat général's submissions, the Court had no
jurisdiction to hear that either as it had not been included in the
Commission's request. 32. At the hearing the Delegate of the Commission indicated that
the complaint concerning the Court of Cassation's deliberations, which
the Commission had rejected as being out of time, had been mentioned
in the request by mistake. The only issue before the Court was the
avocat général's being the last to address the
Belgian Court of Cassation at the hearing. 33. The Court reiterates that in accordance with its settled
case-law the scope of the case before it is determined by the
Commission's decision on admissibility (see, as a recent authority, the
Mauer v. Austria judgment of 18 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and
Decisions 1997-I, pp. 82-83, para. 28). In the instant case the only complaint declared admissible by
the Commission was that it had been impossible for Mr Van Orshoven to
reply to the submissions of the procureur général's department
(see paragraph 26 above). That complaint therefore constitutes the
sole subject matter of the case. Consequently, the Government's preliminary objection must be
dismissed. B. Merits of the complaint
 
34. Mr Van Orshoven said that at no stage in the proceedings before
the Court of Cassation had he been able to reply to the
avocat général's submissions, which furthermore had not been
communicated to him. Yet the avocat général's opinion could not be
considered impartial as he had advocated dismissing the appeal. The
applicant had therefore had a definite interest in being able to reply
before the hearing came to an end, particularly as much was at stake
in the appeal, namely the right to practise as a doctor. Admittedly, the procureur général's department had not in the
instant case taken part in the disciplinary proceedings on the merits
before the authorities of the Ordre des médecins. Nevertheless, the
procureur du Roi could at any time ask a provincial council of the
Ordre to commence proceedings against any member of the Ordre. The
procureur général's department was therefore to be regarded as every
doctor's potential opponent. In conclusion, Mr Van Orshoven's defence rights had been
infringed. 35. The Delegate of the Commission considered that the instant case
raised an issue similar to that in the cases of Lobo Machado
v. Portugal and Vermeulen v. Belgium (judgments of 20 February 1996,
Reports 1996-I, pp. 195 et seq., and 224 et seq.) and that the same
solution accordingly had to apply. He consequently submitted that
there had been a violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). 36. In the Government's view, the fact that the applicant had not
been able to reply to the avocat général's submissions did not mean
that the rights of the defence or the principle of equality of arms had
been infringed, because the avocat général had not been the applicant's
opponent or even a party to the proceedings. In disciplinary matters
the department of the procureur du Roi did not take part at any stage
or in any capacity in the proceedings before the provincial council or
the appeals board of the Ordre des médecins, even when it had
originated the proceedings. Furthermore, the proceedings in the tribunals of fact had
satisfied the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6), as
the Commission had found in its decision of 7 April 1994 on the
admissibility of the application (see paragraph 26 above). Relying on
the Ekbatani v. Sweden judgment of 26 May 1988 (Series A no. 134) in
particular, the Government argued that before the Court of Cassation,
whose jurisdiction was limited to questions of law, compliance with the
requirements could accordingly be less strict without that necessarily
incurring the criticism that there had been a breach of the Convention. An additional factor was that there had not really been
anything at stake for Mr Van Orshoven in the proceedings before the
Court of Cassation as the grounds in support of his appeal on points
of law were clearly unsustainable, either because they were
inadmissible or because they raised legal arguments that were contrary
to well-established case-law. Lastly, the applicant could not reasonably have been under any
misapprehension either as to the role of the procureur général's
department or as to the identity of his opponent, the
Ordre des médecins, since the Ordre was represented at the hearing
before the Court of Cassation. Thus, even if the applicant had
perceived the position differently, he could not be considered to have
been objectively justified in so doing. 37. The Court notes, firstly, that independently of whether the
case is a civil, criminal or disciplinary one, the main duty of the
procureur général's department at the Court of Cassation at the hearing
- as at the deliberations - is always to assist the Court of Cassation
and to help ensure that its case-law is consistent. 38. It should be noted, secondly, that the procureur général's
department acts with the strictest objectivity. On this point, the
findings in the Delcourt v. Belgium judgment of 17 January 1970
(Series A no. 11, pp. 17-19, paras. 32-38) and the Borgers (p. 31,
para. 24) and Vermeulen (p. 233, para. 30) judgments cited above
regarding the independence and impartiality of the Court of Cassation
and its procureur général's department remain wholly valid. 39. As in its judgments in the Borgers case (see p. 32, para. 26)
and the Vermeulen case (see p. 233, para. 31), the Court considers,
however, that great importance must be attached to the part actually
played in the proceedings by the member of the procureur général's
department, and more particularly to the content and effects of his
submissions. These contain an opinion which derives its authority from
that of the procureur général's department itself. Although it is
objective and reasoned in law, the opinion is nevertheless intended to
advise and accordingly influence the Court of Cassation. In this
connection, the Government emphasised the importance of the
department's contribution to ensuring the consistency of the
Court of Cassation's case-law. 40. In its judgment in the Delcourt case the Court noted in its
reasons for holding that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) was applicable
that "the judgment of the Court of Cassation ... may rebound in
different degrees on the position of the persons concerned" (pp. 13-14,
para. 25). It has reached a similar conclusion in several other cases
concerning different countries (see, mutatis mutandis, the following
judgments: Pakelli v. Germany, 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, p. 17,
para. 36; Pham Hoang v. France, 25 September 1992, Series A no. 243,
p. 23, para. 40; Ruiz-Mateos v. Spain, 23 June 1993, Series A no. 262,
p. 25, para. 63; Lobo Machado v. Portugal cited above, p. 206,
para. 30; and Vermeulen v. Belgium cited above, p. 233, para. 32). The
same applies in the instant case, since the appeal on points of law
concerned the lawfulness of the applicant's removal from the register
and the consequential ban on his practising medicine. 41. Regard being had, therefore, to what was at stake and to the
nature of the submissions made by the avocat général, the fact that it
was impossible for the applicant to reply to them before the end of the
hearing infringed his right to adversarial proceedings. That right
means in principle the opportunity for the parties to a trial to have
knowledge of and comment on all evidence adduced or observations filed
(see, among other authorities and mutatis mutandis, the
Vermeulen judgment cited above, p. 234, para. 33; and the
Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 18 February 1997,
Reports 1997-I, p. 108, para. 24).
 
42.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 41
Outcome: violation