CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 septembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }     687 24.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Mérigaud v. France (application no. 32976/04)   DOUBTS CONCERNING IMPARTIALITY OF CHARTERED SURVEYORS’ SUPERVISORY BODY NOT   JUSTIFIED   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     (The judgment is available only in French .)   Principal facts   The applicant, Claude Mérigaud, a self-employed chartered surveyor, was born in 1946 and lives in Brive.   On 3 December 1999 the Surveyors’ Union of Corsica lodged a complaint against him with the Marseilles Regional Council of the Order of Chartered Surveyors (“the regional council”) for encouraging the unlawful practice of the profession of chartered surveyor by farming out work to D., a topographer. A hearing of the disciplinary section of the regional council was held on 7 March 2000, with G., the Chairman of the regional council, presiding. Mr Mérigaud requested G.’s withdrawal, on account of positions G. had adopted against him in the past, but to no avail.   In a call for tenders in May 1996, concerning topographical surveys to be carried out in Upper Corsica, Mr Mérigaud’s office had been selected, then ruled out on the strength of an opinion of G., expressed in a letter to the Director of Roads of Ajaccio, that it was preferable to choose a Corsican surveyor’s office as Mr Mérigaud did not meet the conditions concerning the opening of a branch office or a project office in Corsica. That intervention led to the regional council being fined 75,000 euros by the Competition Council for obstructing fair competition.   Subsequent to the hearing of 7 March 2000, on 22 March 2001 the regional council suspended Mr Mérigaud for a year for farming out to D. work which should have been done by a chartered surveyor. Mr Mérigaud appealed against that decision and the case was examined by the five-member investigation panel of the High Council of the Order of Chartered Surveyors. Deliberating on 29 May 2002, 20 members of the High Council – including four members of the investigation panel – set aside the decision of the regional council for failure to comply with the obligation to investigate a matter before referring it to a disciplinary body. They nevertheless suspended Mr Mérigaud for 12 months for having unlawfully sub-contracted work to D. that should have been done by a registered chartered surveyor.   Mr Mérigaud appealed against that decision on points of law, complaining of the presence of members of the investigation panel at the deliberations of the adjudicating body, of the fact that the case file had not been made available to him beforehand and also that he had not had an opportunity to present his case. On 3 March 2003 the Conseil d’Etat decided not to admit Mr Mérigaud’s appeal.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), Mr Mérigaud complained of a lack of impartiality on the part of the judicial bodies of the Order of Chartered Surveyors.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2 September 2004 and declared admissible in part on 31 January 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven 7 judges composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   While the content of G.’s letter to the Director of Roads of Ajaccio was, in itself, no basis for doubting G.’s personal impartiality vis-à-vis Mr Mérigaud, the general context and the fact that G. had not withdrawn from the disciplinary hearing – considering the authority he exerted over his colleagues in his capacity as chairman of the regional council – could have given rise to doubts in Mr Mérigaud’s mind which were objectively justified concerning the impartiality of the judicial body as a whole. The regional council had therefore not been an impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.   According to Mr Mérigaud, in the appeal proceedings, the High Council had similarly failed to show impartiality, because the investigation panel had taken part in the deliberations. The Court pointed out that there had been no sign, in the investigation stage, of any bias against the applicant, and that by its very nature the task of the investigation panel was limited to verifying the facts and presenting them objectively, which was what it had done in this case.   The final decision had been reached in the judgment given following the deliberations, based on the evidence adduced and discussed at the hearing. The preliminary findings of the investigation panel had not influenced their final decision.   The Court accordingly held that there had been no objective justification for the applicant’s doubts and that the appeal proceedings had provided a remedy for his complaints in so far as the High Council afforded all the guarantees of impartiality required by Article 6 § 1. The Court found unanimously that there had been no violation of that provision.   ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.