CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 9 octobre 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 14230/88 by Moses Ernest TAYLOR-PEARCE against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 9 October 1989, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      J. CAMPINOS                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 M.    C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mr.   L. LOUCAIDES                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 13 June 1988 by M. T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 20 September 1988 under file No. 14230/88;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The applicant is a British citizen born in 1945 and resident in London.   The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows.           The applicant was registered as a doctor with the General Medical Council (the "G.M.C.") in July 1970.   From 1979 to 1983 the applicant worked as doctor for the Gwent Health Authority (the "Authority").   On 14 November 1983, the applicant commenced a four year contract of employment with the Authority as Senior Registrar in geriatric medicine.           In October 1985, the applicant was admitted to a mental institution for three months.           On 6 June 1986, the applicant was informed that the G.M.C. was to hold an enquiry into an allegation by the Authority that the applicant in making his application for the post of Senior Registrar had falsely submitted that he held the qualifications MRCP (IRE) 1978 and MRCP (UK) 1981.   He was invited to attend a meeting of the Professional Conduct Committee on 8 July 1986.           The applicant attended the meeting which was adjourned when the question arose whether he was fit to practise by reason of his mental condition.   The Committee decided to refer this issue to the Health Committee and invited the applicant to submit to a psychiatric examination.           The Health Committee considered the matter on 29 October 1986, but adjourned it pending a medical examination of the applicant.           On 24 June 1987, the Health Committee decided that the applicant's fitness to practise was not seriously impaired and that the Professional Conduct Committee would resume their enquiry into the charge against the applicant.           On 2 December 1987, the Professional Conduct Committee decided that the applicant's name be erased from the Register and that he be immediately suspended.   Although the applicant had been invited to attend, he was neither present or represented.           The applicant appealed against this decision to the Privy Council.   After a hearing held on 5 May 1988 the Privy Council dismissed his appeal on 25 May 1988.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of the length of the proceedings instituted by the G.M.C.   He complains that he did not receive a fair hearing in these proceedings.   In particular, the hearing on 8 July 1986 was adjourned before the applicant had submitted his defence and he was not present or represented at the hearing on 2 December 1987. He submits that the Committee conducting these proceedings was not independent and impartial since its members were selected by the G.M.C., which had brought the charge against him.   The applicant further submits that he did not receive a fair trial before the Privy Council since it refused inter alia to consider certain documents presented by the applicant which he alleged proved his innocence and refused his appeal without giving reasons.           The applicant invokes Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   THE LAW           The applicant complains of the fairness of the proceedings before the General Medical Council and the Privy Council and of the length of time of these proceedings.   He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which provides, inter alia:           "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations         or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is         entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable         time by an independent and impartial tribunal established         by law."           The Commission recalls that in the present case the applicant was suspended and his name struck off the Medical Register following disciplinary proceedings instituted by the G.M.C., exercising its power to regulate the conduct of doctors subject to its authority. This decision, which prevents the applicant from continuing to exercise his profession as a doctor, constitutes, in the Commission's opinion, a determination of the applicant's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of the Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (see e.g. Eur. Court H.R., Albert and Le Compte judgment of 10 February 1983, Series A No. 58, p. 11) and the applicant was accordingly entitled to have his case heard by a tribunal satisfying the conditions laid down in that provision.           In the case of Albert and Le Compte (Eur. Court H.R., loc. cit., para. 29), which also concerned the striking off of a doctor following disciplinary proceedings, the Court stated as follows:           "In many member States of the Council of Europe, the duty         of adjudicating on disciplinary offences is conferred on         jurisdictional organs of professional associations.   Even         in instances where Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) is applicable,         conferring powers in this manner does not in itself         infringe the Convention (see the above-mentioned Le Compte,         Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, Series A No. 43, p. 23,         first sub-paragraph).   Nonetheless, in such circumstances         the Convention calls at least for one of the two following         systems: either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply         with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), or         they do not so comply but are subject to subsequent control by         a judicial body that has full jurisdiction and does provide the         guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1)."           In the present case, the disciplinary charge against the applicant was considered first by the Professional Conduct Committee of the G.M.C.   The Commission finds it unnecessary to consider whether this committee fulfilled the guarantees required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention since the Commission finds that, in any case, the applicant was able to appeal to the Privy Council, which is a judicial body with full jurisdiction over questions of fact and law in reviewing a decision of the committee.   While the applicant has complained of the fairness of the proceedings before the Privy Council, the Commission finds that the applicant has not substantiated these complaints and that there is no indication on the facts of the present case that he did not receive a fair hearing before the Privy Council as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.           As regards the applicant's complaint of the length of the proceedings, the Commission recalls that the applicant was first informed of the charges made against him on 6 June 1986 and that his final appeal was dismissed on 25 May 1988 almost 2 years later following two hearings before the Professional Conduct Committee and an appeal to the Privy Council.   The Commission notes that during this period the hearing of the charge was adjourned pending the referral of the question of the applicant's mental capacity to the Health Committee.   The Commission finds that in the circumstances of the case the proceedings did not exceed a reasonable time within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.           It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.        Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission                   (H.C. KRÜGER)                      (C.A. NØRGAARD)