CASE OF VEGOTEX INTERNATIONAL S.A. v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium (no. 49812/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-07-07 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49812/09
Document type: CHAMBER
Document date: 2020-11-10 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2020:1110JUD004981209
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;41
Judges: Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Paul Lemmens;Georges Ravarani;María Elósegui
Represented by: WOUTERS  P. ; VAN BELLE D.
Issue: Section 49 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 9 July 2004 ; Article 1107 of the Judicial Code
Strasbourg case-law cited: A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, § 133, 15 November 2016;A.P., M.P. and T.P. v. Switzerland, 29 August 1997, § 40, Reports 1997 V;Amirov v. Armenia (dec.), no 25512/06, 18 January 2011;Arnolin and Others v. France, nos. 20127/03 and 24 others, § 76, 9 January 2007;Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen (ASLEF) v. the United Kingdom, no 11002/05, § 58, 27 February 2007;Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no 8162/13, §§ 92-94, 8 July 2014;Čepek v. the Czech Republic, no 9815/10, 5 September 2013;Chambaz v. Switzerland, no 11663/04, § 42, 5 April 2012;Chim and Przywieczerski v. Poland, nos. 36661/07 and 38433/07, §§ 199-207, 12 April 2018;Cimolino v. Italy, no 12532/05, § 45, 22 September 2009;Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France, nos. 65399/01, 65406/01, 65405/01 and 65407/01, 13 October 2005;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no 76639/11, § 146, 25 September 2018;Dimopulos v. Turkey, no 37766/05, § 32, 2 April 2019;Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no 44759/98, § 29, ECHR 2001 VII;Formela v. Poland (dec.), no 31651/08, § 127, 5 February 2019;García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999 I;Georgiou v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no 40042/98, 16 May 2000;Gil Sanjuan v. Spain, no 48297/15, § 38, 26 May 2020;Idalov v. Russia [GC], no 5826/03, § 186, 22 May 2012;J.R. v. Belgium, no 56367/09, § 59, 24 January 2017;Janosevic v. Sweden, no 34619/97, § 69, ECHR 2002 VII;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no 73053/01, ECHR 2006 XIV;König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no 27;Kovárová v. Slovakia, no 46564/10, § 48, 23 June 2015;Krčmář and Others v. the Czech Republic, no 35376/97, § 39, 3 March 2000;Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91 v. France, nos. 4696/11 and 4703/11, §§ 50-52, 27 October 2016;Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional v. Portugal, no 4687/11, §§ 61-62, 17 May 2016;Lilly France v. France (no 2), no 20429/07, § 51, 25 November 2010;Lobo Machado v. Portugal, 20 February 1996, § 31, Reports 1996 I;López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, § 149, 17 October 2019;Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09 and 4 others, 31 May 2011;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no 10511/10, § 134, 26 April 2016;National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom 23 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VII;Ndayegamiye-Mporamazina v. Switzerland, no 16874/12, § 39, 5 February 2019;Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, § 23, Reports 1997 I;OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France, nos. 42219/98 and 54563/00, 27 May 2004;Optim and Industerre v. Belgium (dec.), no 23819/06, §§ 24-26, 11 September 2012;Papageorgiou v. Greece, 22 October 1997, § 38, Reports 1997 VI;Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999 II;Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, Series A no 332;Prikyan and Angelova v. Bulgaria, no 44624/98, § 46, 16 February 2006;Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no 301 B;Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017;SCM Scanner de l’Ouest Lyonnais and Others v. France, no 12106/03, § 31, 21 June 2007;Scoppola v. Italy (no 2) [GC], no 10249/03, § 132, 17 September 2009;Scordino v. Italy (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, ECHR 2006 V;Skondrianos v. Greece, nos. 63000/00, 74291/01 and 74292/01, §§ 29-30, 18 December 2003;Sträg Datatjänster AB v. Sweden (dec.), no 50664/99, 21 June 2005;Vermeulen v. Belgium, 20 February 1996, § 33, Reports 1996 I;Villnow v. Belgium (dec.), no 16938/05, 29 January 2008;Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 9 others, ECHR 1999 VII
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Adversarial trial);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: FALSE