San Juan v. France (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 39

February 2002

San Juan v. France (dec.) - 43956/98

Decision 28.2.2002 [Section I]

Article 6

Civil proceedings

Article 6-1

Civil rights and obligations

Access to profession of chartered accountant on the basis of professional experience refused by commission competent to examine the relevance of the candidate’s experience: Article 6 inapplicable

The applicant has worked for various accountancy firms as an accountant since 1965. In 1995 he applied to be registered as a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants on the basis of his professional experience, in accordance with a 1945 order on the profession of chartered accountant. Under the procedure laid down in the order, candidates may become chartered accountants on the basis of their professional experience if they have worked for fifteen years in the accounting or auditing field, including at least five years in posts or on assignments entailing substantial administrative, financial and accounting responsibilities. Applications are considered by a regional committee and unsuccessful candidates may lodge an appeal with a national committee. In 1996 the relevant regional committee rejected the applicant’s application on the ground that he had not produced a certificate attesting that he had five years’ experience in posts or assignments entailing substantial administrative, financial and accounting responsibilities. The applicant subsequently appealed against that decision to the national committee, which upheld the regional committee’s decision. He then applied to the Conseil d’Etat for judicial review of the national committee’s decision, arguing, in particular, that proceedings before the national committee did not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of their secret and anonymous nature. The Conseil d’Etat dismissed his application, holding, firstly, that the national committee was not a court and, secondly, that he had not met the criterion of at least five years’ experience in discharging duties specified in the 1945 order and other applicable provisions.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The applicant’s complaint was essentially that the regional committee’s assessment of his abilities had been incorrect. However, the national committee had carried out a thorough review of his application. Although there was a difference between the consideration of applications by the regional and national committees and the assessment, by a panel, of examinations for admission to the various professional bodies, the relevant procedure nonetheless entailed an evaluation of candidates’ knowledge and experience. An evaluation of that kind was akin to a school or university examination and was so far removed from the exercise of normal judicial functions that the safeguards provided by Article 6 could not be taken to cover disagreements on such matters. Accordingly, there was no “contestation” (dispute) within the meaning of Article 6, which was therefore not applicable: incompatible ratione materiae.

© 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

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy