CASE OF S.P.R.L. ANCA AND OTHERS v. BELGIUM



         In the case of S.P.R.L. Anca and Others v. Belgium (1),

         The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,

constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1.  The case is numbered 35/1997/819/1022.  The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2.  Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply

to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

________________

         Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 25 June 1997, and composed

of the following judges:

         Mr C. Russo, Chairman,

         Mr A. Spielmann,

         Mr J. De Meyer,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

         Having regard to the application against the

Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court on 28 February 1997 by

S.P.R.L. Anca, a company registered in that State, and by

two Belgian nationals, Mr Daniel de Keyser and his wife

Mrs Marguerite Stourme, within the three-month period laid down by

Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1,

art. 47);

         Whereas Belgium has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of

the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified

Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends

Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person,

non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a

complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights

("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

         Noting that the present case has not been referred to the

Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the

Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention

(art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d);

         Having regard to the Commission's report of 15 January 1997

on the application (no. 26363/95) lodged with the Commission by the

applicants on 29 December 1994;

         Whereas the applicants complained of two sets of proceedings

in the Belgian civil courts, to which they were parties, and alleged

(1) an infringement of their right to a fair hearing by a tribunal

(Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1)), (2) discrimination

contrary to Article 14 of the Convention (art. 14) and (3) an

infringement of their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their

possessions (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1));

         Whereas the applicants did not submit any complaint concerning

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Commission, which, by

decisions of 15 May and 16 October 1996, declared admissible only the

complaint based on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1)

relating to the presence of State Counsel at the deliberations of the

Court of Cassation;

         Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

requested the Court (1) to hold that there had been a breach of

Article 6 of the Convention (art. 6) firstly on account of a

Belgian practice -which they considered contrary to that provision

(art. 6) - whereby judges conducting bankruptcy proceedings examined

witnesses in camera without an adversarial procedure, and secondly on

account of State Counsel's presence at the deliberations of the

Court of Cassation, (2) to hold that there had been a breach of

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) on account of the fact that

S.P.R.L. Anca had been declared bankrupt unlawfully in their view and

(3) to award them compensation, with default interest, for the

pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage they had allegedly sustained and

reimbursement of the costs and expenses they had incurred;

         Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and

Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1.       Finds that

(a)     the case raises no serious question affecting the

         interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court

         has already established case-law on the requirements which

         must be satisfied by the procedure in the Court of Cassation,

         while consideration of the other complaints lies outside the

         Court's jurisdiction, as the Commission has declared

         inadmissible the complaint relating to the right to a fair

         hearing and the applicants relied on Article 1 of

         Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) for the first time in their application

         to the Court; and

(b)     the case does not, for any other reason, warrant

         consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that

         there has been a breach of the Convention, the

         Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the

         applicants just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals

         made by the Commission;

2.       Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be

         considered by the Court.

         Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

5 August 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Carlo RUSSO

        Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

        Registrar

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy