CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 mai 1998

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sC43FB860 { width:27.12pt; display:inline-block } .sFB5197D3 { width:24.9pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. May 1998 Gautrin and Others v. France - 21257/93, 21258/93, 21259/93 et al. Judgment 20.5.1998 Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Public hearing No public hearing before Ile-de-France regional council and disciplinary section of National Council of ordre des médecins and lack of impartiality of those bodies: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability Disciplinary proceedings in which what was at stake was right to continue to practise medicine as a private practitioner gave rise to “ contestations (disputes) over civil rights”. B.   Compliance 1.   Publicity (a)   Government’s preliminary objection (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) Objection based on failure to appeal on points of law to Conseil d’Etat – appeal would not have been an “adequate” and “effective” remedy in case before Court as Decree   no.   48‑1671 of 26 October 1948 expressly precluded holding in public hearings before professional disciplinary bodies and it was Conseil d’Etat ’s settled case-law that provisions of Article 6 § 1 were inapplicable to proceedings before them. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). (b)   Merits of complaint Recapitulation of Court’s case-law. It was not suggested that circumstances existed to permit dispensing with a public hearing – fact that hearing before Conseil d’Etat would have been in public was irrelevant. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). 2.   Impartiality (a)   Government’s preliminary objections (failure to exhaust domestic remedies) (i)   Failure to exercise right of challenge Remedy not “effective”: complaint not of bias on part of any individual member of disciplinary bodies in question, but of “objective” bias of those bodies; right to challenge could only be exercised in respect of individual members, impossible to challenge all members of the disciplinary section of the National Council of the ordre des médecins . (ii)   Failure to appeal on points of law Objection had been raised before Commission: Government not estopped. Remedy not “adequate”: if Conseil d’Etat had quashed decision of disciplinary section of National Council of ordre , it would not have been bound to rule on merits of case – if it had remitted the case, it could only have done so to same body without there being any requirement that it be differently constituted; it would have been only after a second appeal on points of law that Conseil d’Etat would have been required to decide case finally. Conclusion : objections dismissed (unanimously). (b)   Merits of complaint Conferring duty of adjudicating on disciplinary offences on professional disciplinary bodies did not in itself infringe Convention – it was nevertheless necessary that either professional disciplinary bodies themselves complied with requirements of Article 6 § 1 or that they were subject to subsequent review by a judicial body that had full jurisdiction and did provide the guarantees of that Article. There were two tests for assessing whether a tribunal was impartial. First consisted in seeking to determine personal conviction of a particular judge in a given case. Second – which was only one applicable in case before Court – consisted in ascertaining whether judge offered sufficient guarantees: Court verified whether applicants’ fears were objectively justified. There was a worrying connection between competitors of SOS Médecins and professional disciplinary bodies – composition of latter tended to justify applicants’ fears. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damages Pecuniary damage: Court could not speculate as to conclusions disciplinary bodies would have reached if breaches found had not occurred. Non-pecuniary damage: judgment constituted sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses Partial reimbursement ordered. C.   Other claims Court had no jurisdiction. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicants specified sums (unanimously).   © 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