DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM JUGDMENT
8
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
21. In his application of 10 October 1980 to the Commission (no.
9186/80), Mr. De Cubber raised again several of the pleas which he had
unsuccessfully made to the Belgian Court of Cassation. He alleged, inter
alia, that the Oudenaarde criminal court had not constituted an impartial
tribunal, within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the
Convention, since one of the judges, Mr. Pilate, had previously acted as
investigating judge in the same case.
22.
On 9 March 1982, the Commission declared the application
admissible as regards this complaint and inadmissible as regards the
remainder. In its report of 5 July 1983 (Article 31) (art. 31), the
Commission expressed the unanimous opinion that there had been a
violation of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) on the point in question. The full text
of the Commission’s opinion is reproduced as an annex to the present
judgment.
AS TO THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (art. 6-1)
23. Under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1),
"In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a
... hearing ... by an ... impartial tribunal ... ."
One of the three judges of the Oudenaarde criminal court who, on 29
June 1979, had given judgment on the charges against the applicant had
previously acted as investigating judge in the two cases in question: in one
case he had done so from the outset and in the other he had replaced a
colleague, at first on a temporary and then on a permanent basis (see
paragraphs 8, 10 and 12 above). On the strength of this, Mr. De Cubber
contended that he had not received a hearing by an "impartial tribunal"; his
argument was, in substance, upheld by the Commission.
The Government disagreed. They submitted:
- as their principal plea, that Mr. Pilate’s inclusion amongst the members
of the trial court had not adversely affected the impartiality of that court and
had therefore not violated Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1);
- in the alternative, that only the Ghent Court of Appeal, whose
impartiality had not been disputed, had to satisfy the requirements of that
Article (art. 6-1);