The Government submit that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention does not apply to disputes concerning claims under public law, such as the applicant's claim to a licence to open a pharmacy

The claim or dispute, however, must be of a "genuine and of a serious nature" (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).

The Court recalls that the principles relating to the notion “dispute” (see, for example, Benthem   v.

    The applicant, for his part, stressed the pecuniary aspect of his claims and contended that the proceedings accordingly concerned “civil rights and obligations”. 23.

THE LAW     THE SCOPE OF THE CASE 31.

A claim is manifestly ill-founded if it evidently contravenes the facts on which it is based or if the facts from the claim contravene the evidence proposed by the plaintiff or well-known facts (section

to [lodging such a claim before] a court.

The Court reiterates that, generally speaking, proceedings before the courts of audit fall within the scope of application of Article 6 § 1 (see Francesco Lombardo v.

  The Government submit that this complaint falls outside the scope of Article 6.

However, a matter could be decided without hearing a concerned party if the claim was dismissed without prejudice or immediately rejected, if the claim that was approved did not affect another concerned

Mandamus is the appropriate remedy (see R (Westropp) -v- Clare County Council 1904 2 I.R. 4 2 I.R. 569. Hoey -v- the Minister for Justice 1994 I.L.R.M. 334 is analogous.

The applicant did not claim compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage. 59.     The Government contested the claim. 60.

Adresse 5] [Localité 1] Immatriculée au rcs de [Localité 3] sous le numéro 036 380 061 Représentée par Me Thi My Hanh NGO-FOLLIOT, avocat au barreau de PARIS, toque B 853 Assistée de Me Vincent BERTHAT

that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of this provision (see Eur.

    The Government contested these claims. 50.

In any event the applicants’ claim in the present case went well beyond the mere question of passing a qualifying examination.

Court HR, Benthem v. the Netherlands judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97, p. 14, para. 32).

He provided further particulars of these claims on 24 April at the request of the President. 6.

   The application concerns the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of a patent claim.