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 (see, for example, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v.

The Court has previously held that the civil limb of Article 6 § 1 was applicable to proceedings concerning a temporary suspension of the right to practise one’s profession (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and

Belgium judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127-B, pp. 27-28, paras. 24-29; see also, mutatis mutandis, in the case of a medical association, the Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of

Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, p. 20, para. 44).

Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 54, p. 25, para. 59, and the H. v.   Belgium judgment of 30 November 1987, Series A no. 127, p. 36, para. 54).

Court HR, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43, pp. 20-22, paras. 44-50).

all requirements may be justified if these bodies are subject to the subsequent control of a judicial body that has full jurisdiction guaranteeing the rights under Article 6 § 1 (see Le Compte, Van Leuven

of one of 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 the Le Compte, Van Leuven