CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 5 août 1997

.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 }           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