DELCOURT v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT 12 functions exercised in a case of this kind by the Belgian Court of Cassation and by the Procureur général’s department attached to that Court. II. AS TO THE PRINCIPAL COMPLAINT OF THE APPLICANT 27. The Applicant complains in the first place of the fact that a member of the Procureur général’s department attached to the Court of Cassation, having made his submissions in open court, took part in its deliberations on 21st June 1965. It is beyond doubt that this participation was in conformity with the legislation in force in Belgium at that time; for under Article 39 of the Prince Sovereign’s Decree of 15th March 1815 "in proceedings in cassation, the Procureur général (had) the right to be present, but without voting, when the Court (retired) to consider its decision". The Court is therefore called upon to judge, in the first place, the compatibility of Article 39 of the Decree of 15th March 1815 with Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention. 28. In the course of their respective submissions, the Commission and the Government referred mainly to the principle known as "equality of arms". The Court, however, will examine the problem by reference to the whole of paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1). The principle of equality of arms does not exhaust the contents of this paragraph; it is only one feature of the wider concept of fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal (see Neumeister judgment of 27th June 1968, "As to the Law" paragraph 22). 29. In the present case, the two appeals to the Court of Cassation were both instituted by Delcourt; under Belgian law, the respondent party was not the Procureur général’s department at the Court of Cassation but the Procureur général’s departments at whose behest the lower courts had pronounced the decisions under appeal, that is, the Procureur du Roi at Bruges and the Procureur général attached to the Court of Appeal at Ghent. The Applicant could thus claim, under Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, full equality of treatment as against the Procureur général’s departments at those courts. In fact the undisputed information given to this Court shows that the Applicant did not suffer from any discrimination in this respect. Indeed, the Procureur général’s departments at the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal did not even avail themselves of their right to reply in writing to Delcourt’s memorial - and the relevant legislation did not even permit them to appear at the hearing before the Court of Cassation - still less be present at the deliberations. In contrast to the Procureur général’s department at the courts below, the Procureur général’s department at the Belgian Court of Cassation does not ordinarily conduct public prosecutions, nor does it bring cases before that court, nor does it either have the character of respondent and it "cannot", therefore, "be considered as a party" (Article 37 of the Decree of 15th March 1815). This situation only changes in certain exceptional matters