CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 juin 1997

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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. June 1997 Van Orshoven v. Belgium - 20122/92 Judgment 25.6.1997 Article 6 Article 6-1 Fair hearing Adversarial trial Plaintiff in disciplinary proceedings in the Court of Cassation unable to reply to submissions made at the hearing by a member of the procureur général 's department at the Court of Cassation: 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.   Government's preliminary objection (Court's lack of jurisdiction) Only complaint declared admissible by the Commission: fact that it had been impossible for applicant to reply to submissions of procureur général 's department - sole issue before the Court. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits of the complaint Independently of nature of proceedings, main duty of procureur général 's department at the Court of Cassation was always to assist Court of Cassation and to help ensure that its case-law was consistent - findings in Delcourt, Borgers and Vermeulen judgments as to independence and impartiality of Court of Cassation and its procureur général 's department still entirely valid. Great importance of part actually played in proceedings by member of procureur général 's department: his submissions contained an opinion intended to advise and influence the Court of Cassation - what had been at stake for applicant in the proceedings before that court -fact that it had been impossible for applicant to reply to submissions before end of hearing had infringed his right to adversarial proceedings. Conclusion : violation (seven votes to two). II.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: no causal link with violation. Conclusion : claim dismissed (unanimously). Non-pecuniary damage: finding of a violation sufficed. Conclusion : sufficiently compensated by the judgment (unanimously). B.   Costs and expenses Claim for reimbursement allowed. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant for costs and expenses (eight votes to one).   © 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