Van Belle, lawyers practising in Leuven and Antwerp respectively. 3.     The Belgian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I.

Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, para. 45).   71.

  27; Le Compte, Van   Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium , 23 June 1981, §§   41   ‑   51, Series   A no.   43; Albert and Le Compte v.

Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A No. 43, p. 25, para. 58).

his (civil) rights is unlawful and complains that he has not had the possibility of submitting that claim to a tribunal meeting the requirements of Article   6 §   1” (see Le Compte, Van Leuven

  As to the complaint that the judges were biased   The Court recalls the presumption according to which a judge is impartial until there is proof to the contrary (cf: the Le Compte, Van Leuven

Court H.R., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 25 et seq., paras. 59 et seq.).

This body was the last national organ to determine both the questions of fact and the legal issues in dispute (the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 23,

Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v.

other authorities which do not themselves satisfy the requirements of that Article be subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction (see   Le   Compte , Van Leuven

In the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v.

These examples include disciplinary proceedings concerning the right to practise a profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v.

The Court recalls that the principle that a tribunal shall be presumed to be free of personal prejudice or partiality is long established in the case-law of the Court (Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere

it is required that the "tribunal" in question have jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before it (see, inter alia and mutatis mutandis, the Le Compte, Van Leuven

practice, it is proper to distinguish here between damage caused by a violation of the Convention and the costs and expenses necessarily incurred by the victim (see, inter alia, the Le Compte, Van Leuven

Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A No 43, p. 21, para. 47).   88.

Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1984, Series A no. 43, pp. 22-23, para. 51).

already stated, is rare within the community of Contracting States and which, on the face of it, must be considered incompatible with Article 11 (art. 11) (see, mutatis mutandis, the Le Compte, Van Leuven

submit a dispute over civil rights to a procedure which at each stage meets the requirements of that provision, provided it eventually may be determined by a body which does (cf., e.g., Le Compte, Van Leuven