CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s4ECD4776 { margin-top:104.85pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (97) 357 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 21010/92 DE BRABANDERE AND OTHERS AGAINST BELGIUM   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 1997 at the 597th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),   Having regard to the report drawn up on 4 September 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, relating to the application lodged on 20 November 1992 by Mr Joseph De Brabandere, Ms Cécile De Brabandere, Ms Marie-Jeanne De Brabandere, Ms   Marguerite De   Brabandere, Ms Agnès De Brabandere, Mr André De Brabandere, Mr Hubert De   Brabandere, Ms Geneviève De Brabandere, Mr Louis De Brabandere, Ms Claire De Brabandere, Mr   Pierre De Brabandere, Mr Jean De Brabandere and Ms Anne-Marie De Brabandere against Belgium (Application No.   21010/92);   Whereas on 3 October 1996 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the case has not been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a State entitled to do so under Article   48 of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers; considering however, that within this time-limit, the applicants seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 16   May 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention and with Article   48 of the Convention as amended by Article 5 of Protocol No.   9 for those States having ratified the latter;   Whereas in their application, declared admissible by the Commission on 18   October 1995, the applicants complained, on the one hand, of the length of certain proceedings to review the allowance awarded in respect of an expropriation and, on the other hand, of the unfairness of the proceedings before the Cour de cassation , due to the lack of transmission to the applicants of the Advocate-General’s conclusions and due to the Advocate-General’s participation in the deliberations of this court;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed the opinion, by thirteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention as regards the fairness of the proceedings and, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the length of the proceedings;   Whereas at the 597th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 11 July 1997, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph   1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the fairness of the proceedings and that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the length of the proceedings,   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;   Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.