13 DE CUBBER v. BELGIUM JUGDMENT "In many member States of the Council of Europe, the duty of adjudicating on disciplinary offences is conferred on jurisdictional organs of professional associations. Even in instances where Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is applicable, conferring powers in this manner does not in itself infringe the Convention.... Nonetheless, in such circumstances the Convention calls at least for one of the two following systems: either the jurisdictional organs themselves comply with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1), or they do not so comply but are subject to subsequent control by a judicial body that has full jurisdiction" - that is to say, which has the competence to furnish "a [judicial] determination ... of the matters in dispute, both for questions of fact and for questions of law" - "and does provide the guarantees of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1)." (Series A no. 58, p. 16, para. 29) In the Government’s submission, the principles thus stated apply equally to "criminal charges" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). As confirmation of this, the Government cited the Oztürk judgment of 21 February 1984 (Series A no. 73, pp. 21-22, para. 56) in addition to the above-mentioned judgments of 23 June 1981 and 10 February 1983 (Series A no. 43, pp. 23-24, para. 53, and Series A no. 58, pp. 16-17, para. 30). In the particular circumstances, the Government noted, Mr. De Cubber’s complaint was directed solely against the Oudenaarde court; he had no objection to make concerning the Ghent Court of Appeal, which in the present case, so they argued, constituted the "judicial body that has full jurisdiction", as referred to in the above-quoted case-law. On the whole of this issue, the Government cited the Blaise judgment of 4 April 1984, which the Belgian Court of Cassation had delivered in a similar case, and the concordant submissions of the public prosecutor’s department in that case (see paragraph 20 above). 32. The Commission’s Delegate did not share this view; the Court agrees in substance with his arguments. The thrust of the plea summarised above is that the proceedings before the Oudenaarde court fell outside the ambit of 1Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1). At first sight, this plea contains an element of paradox. Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) concerns primarily courts of first instance; it does not require the existence of courts of further instance. It is true that its fundamental guarantees, including impartiality, must also be provided by any courts of appeal or courts of cassation which a Contracting State may have chosen to set up (see the above-mentioned Delcourt judgment, Series A no. 11, p. 14 in fine, and, as the most recent authority, the Sutter judgment of 22 February 1984, Series A no. 74, p. 13, para. 28). However, even when this is the case it does not follow that the lower courts do not have to provide the required guarantees. Such a result would be at variance with the intention underlying the creation of several levels of courts, namely to reinforce the protection afforded to litigants. Furthermore, the case-law relied on by the Government has to be viewed in its proper context. The judgments of 23 June 1981, 10 February 1983 and 21 February 1984 concerned litigation which was classified by the domestic