CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 juillet 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 8 July 1999 Morel v. France (dec.) - 34130/96 Decision 6.7.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Non-communication of judge commissaire’s report to the parties: admissible Impartial tribunal Intervention of judge commissaire in both bankruptcy reorganisation and liquidation proceedings: admissible The applicant lodged a notice with the commercial court that construction companies of which he was the head were unable to pay their debts. Judicial reorganisation proceedings were consequently commenced and an insolvency judge, judicial administrator and creditors' representative were assigned to the case by the commercial court. The court ordered a six-month period of observation to allow the administrator to draw up a report on the companies’ finances and workforce and to make proposals as to whether or not they should continue to trade; the observation period was extended twice. The insolvency judge made a number of orders during that period regarding management of the business. In the light of the report prepared by the insolvency judge and the judicial administrator, the court made orders for the liquidation of the companies. The insolvency judge remained in office and was appointed president of the court chamber dealing with the liquidation. After an unsuccessful appeal, the applicant lodged a further appeal, on points of law. The Court of Cassation held that the fact that the insolvency judge had been one of the three judges that had delivered judgment was consistent with the relevant domestic law and did not contravene Article 6 of the Convention. The applicant had further argued that the insolvency judge's report had not been served on him. The Court of Cassation dismissed that ground of appeal, too, holding that the report could and had been presented orally and that there had therefore been no violation of Article   6. The applicant was subsequently unable to obtain a copy of that report which was deemed “secret, being part of the deliberations”. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal, fair hearing).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes