CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 janvier 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 137 January 2011 Vernes v. France - 30183/06 Judgment 20.1.2011 [Section V] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Impartial tribunal Independent tribunal Public hearing Absence of public hearing before Stock Exchange Regulatory Authority or indication of identity of members of hearing panel: violations   Facts – The applicant, who was the chairman of a financial company, was permanently banned by the Stock Exchange Regulatory Authority ( Commission des opérations de bourse – “COB”) from engaging in any management activity for third parties. He complained before the European Court of Human Rights that hearings before the COB were not public, that the identity of the members examining his case was not disclosed and that it was therefore impossible to verify whether he had been given an impartial hearing. Law – Article 6 § 1 (a)     Public hearings – The Court had already found a violation of Article 6 §   1 in cases concerning the lack of a hearing before the Disciplinary Offences (Budget and Finance) Court ( Guisset v. France , no.   33933/96, 26   September 2000, Information Note no.   22) and the Court of Audit ( Martinie v. France [GC], no.   58675/00, 12   April 2006, Information Note no.   85). Of the grounds set forth in Article 6 §   1 that could be used to justify the absence of a public hearing, the Government had relied only on the possible reluctance of professionals working in the financial sector to have their management scrutinised by the public. Having regard to the COB’s powers to impose penalties and to the consequences of the penalty imposed in the present case, the Court found it comprehensible that public scrutiny could be seen as a necessary condition for transparency and the safeguard of respect for one’s rights, notwithstanding the technical nature of the proceedings. Regard being had to the importance of being able to request that hearings before the COB be public, the mere fact that there had subsequently been a review by the Conseil d’Etat had been insufficient in the present case. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Lack of impartiality of the COB – The provisions of domestic law in force at the material time had prevented the applicant from knowing the composition of the body that had imposed the penalty and thus from satisfying himself that there had been no prejudice on its part or any link between one of its members with the party in question that might invalidate the proceedings. In those circumstances, and for the sake of appearances, the failure to disclose the identity of all the members of the COB that had heard the case was capable of casting doubt on its impartiality. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Finding of violations constituted sufficient just satisfaction in respect of any non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes