CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 18 mai 1993

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of H. against Belgium delivered on 30 November 1987 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against Belgium lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 20 March 1980 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mr. H., a Belgian national, who complained that the procedure followed by the Council of the Ordre des Avocats of Antwerp when considering his applications for restoration to the roll had infringed Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 28 January 1986;        Whereas in its judgment of 30 November 1987 the Court:        -     held by twelve votes to six that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), applied in the instant case;        -     held by twelve votes to six that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated;        -     held by sixteen votes to two that Belgium was to pay the applicant the sum of 250 000 Belgian francs in respect of non-pecuniary damage;        -     held unanimously that Belgium was to reimburse the applicant 100 000 Belgian francs in respect of costs and expenses;        -     rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of Belgium to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of 30 November 1987, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of Belgium gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of Belgium has paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of Belgium, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (93)19          Information provided by the Government of Belgium             during the examination of the H. case                  by the Committee of Ministers        An act of 19 November 1992, published on 18 December 1992, amended sections 432, 433, 459, 465, 471 and 476 of the Judicial Code and inserted a section 469 bis in the said Code.        It appears from section 6 of this act, amending section 471 of the Judicial Code, that henceforth the refusal to restore a disbarred avocat to the roll will have to be reasoned.   The new section 469 bis of the Judicial Code provides that appeal shall lie against the decisions of the Conseil de l'Ordre concerning, inter alia, refusal to restoration to the roll after disbarment.        Finally, section 4 of the act, which completes section 465 of the Judicial Code, provides that the Conseil de l'Ordre, sitting in disciplinary or as in disciplinary matters, will deal with the case at a public hearing, unless the accused avocat or the person requesting admission or restoration to the roll asks for the hearing to be held in camera.   Under section 7 of the act, section 476 of the Judicial Code is replaced by a provision according to which oral hearings before the Disciplinary Appeal Board will take place under the same conditions as before the Conseil de l'Ordre.        The sum of 350 000 Belgian francs awarded by the Court in respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses was paid on 11 April 1988.