CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 juillet 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .sFCACDBC6 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40283553 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .s55B2EA68 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; line-height:150% } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5BB93D78 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s810C3978 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt } .s48A8B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s45AE5F73 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.15pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     INTERIM resolution DH   (99) 470 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 28055/95 DECOOPMAN AGAINST BELGIUM (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 July 1999 at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”), Having regard to the report drawn up on 16 April 1998 by the European Commission of Human Rights, in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention, relating to the application lodged on 6 June 1995 by a Belgian national, Mr   Bart Decoopman, against Belgium;   Whereas on 8 June 1998 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and the case has not been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a State entitled to do so under Article   48 of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers; considering, however, that, within this time-limit, the applicant seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 5 October 1998 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is now therefore called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention and with Article 48 of the Convention as amended by Article 5 of Protocol No. 9 for those States having ratified the latter; Whereas in his application, as declared admissible by the Commission on 10 September 1997 the applicant complained that he did not have the opportunity to respond to the conclusions of a representative of the prosecutor's office during the hearing before the Cour de cassation and that a representative of the prosecutor's office participated in the deliberations of the Cour de cassation as well as a representative of the conseil national de l’ordre des médecins in the deliberations in appeal;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1, of the Convention as regards the lack of opportunity for the applicant to respond to the conclusions of the representative of the prosecutor's office during the hearing before the Cour de cassation and the participation of a representative of the prosecutor's office in the deliberations of the Cour de cassation and that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the participation of a representative of the conseil national de l’ordre des médecins in the deliberations in appeal;   Whereas at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, and agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 15 July 1999, that there had been in this case a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention, as regards the lack of opportunity for the applicant to respond to the conclusions of   the representative of the prosecutor's office during the hearing before the Cour de cassation and the participation of a representative of the prosecutor's office in the deliberations of the Cour de cassation and that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention as regards the participation of a representative of the conseil national de l’ordre des médecins in the deliberations in appeal, Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case; Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.