CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 septembre 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 10 September 1999 Serre v. France - 29718/96 Judgment 29.9.1999 [Section III] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Public hearing Lack of public hearing before disciplinary body: violation The regional chamber of the Veterinary Council, sitting in private, disqualified the applicant, who is a veterinary surgeon, from practice for three years, with a further five years suspended, for various breaches of the professional regulations. He appealed to the upper chamber of the Disciplinary Council. That chamber, also sitting in private, reduced the disqualification from practice to two years, with a further three years suspended. The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law with the Conseil d’Etat . In his pleadings he submitted, inter alia , that his case had not been heard in open court. The Appeal Committee ruled his appeal inadmissible. Law : The Court noted that as the matter at stake in the disciplinary proceedings was the right to practise as a veterinary surgeon in the private sector, there was no doubt that Article   6 § 1 applied to the disciplinary proceedings in the case. In concluding that there had been a violation the Court pointed out that the holding of proceedings in open court was a fundamental requirement. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41: The Court awarded the applicant 10,000 French Francs (FRF) for non-pecuniary damage and FRF 65,830 for costs and expenses, but dismissed the applicant’s claims in respect of pecuniary damage on the ground that it could not speculate as to what the outcome would have been if the disciplinary proceedings had been held in conformity with the Convention.   © 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