The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54
(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the
Convention"),
Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human
Rights in the case of H. against Belgium delivered on
30 November 1987 and transmitted the same day to the Committee
of Ministers;
Recalling that the case originated in an application against
Belgium lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on
20 March 1980 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by
Mr. H., a Belgian national, who complained that the procedure
followed by the Council of the Ordre des Avocats of Antwerp when
considering his applications for restoration to the roll had
infringed Article 6 (art. 6) of the Convention;
Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the
Commission on 28 January 1986;
Whereas in its judgment of 30 November 1987 the Court:
- held by twelve votes to six that Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), applied in the instant case;
- held by twelve votes to six that Article 6,
paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated;
- held by sixteen votes to two that Belgium was to pay
the applicant the sum of 250 000 Belgian francs in respect of
non-pecuniary damage;
- held unanimously that Belgium was to reimburse the
applicant 100 000 Belgian francs in respect of costs and
expenses;
- rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for
just satisfaction;
Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of
Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of
the Convention;
Having invited the Government of Belgium to inform it of the
measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment of
30 November 1987, having regard to its obligation under
Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;
Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee
of Ministers, the Government of Belgium gave the Committee
information about the measures taken in consequence of the
judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this
resolution;
Having satisfied itself that the Government of Belgium has
paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment,
Declares, after having taken note of the information
supplied by the Government of Belgium, that it has exercised its
functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this
case.
Appendix to Resolution DH (93)19
Information provided by the Government of Belgium
during the examination of the H. case
by the Committee of Ministers
An act of 19 November 1992, published on 18 December 1992,
amended sections 432, 433, 459, 465, 471 and 476 of the Judicial
Code and inserted a section 469 bis in the said Code.
It appears from section 6 of this act, amending section 471
of the Judicial Code, that henceforth the refusal to restore a
disbarred avocat to the roll will have to be reasoned. The new
section 469 bis of the Judicial Code provides that appeal shall
lie against the decisions of the Conseil de l'Ordre concerning,
inter alia, refusal to restoration to the roll after disbarment.
Finally, section 4 of the act, which completes section 465
of the Judicial Code, provides that the Conseil de l'Ordre,
sitting in disciplinary or as in disciplinary matters, will deal
with the case at a public hearing, unless the accused avocat or
the person requesting admission or restoration to the roll asks
for the hearing to be held in camera. Under section 7 of the
act, section 476 of the Judicial Code is replaced by a provision
according to which oral hearings before the Disciplinary Appeal
Board will take place under the same conditions as before the
Conseil de l'Ordre.
The sum of 350 000 Belgian francs awarded by the Court in
respect of non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses was paid
on 11 April 1988.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy