9 DELCOURT v. BELGIUM JUDGMENT AS TO THE LAW 20. In its decision of 6th April 1967, the Commission declared the Application of Delcourt to be admissible on one point only, that is, whether the participation of a member of the Procureur général’s department at the deliberations of the Court of Cassation in Belgium, on 21st June 1965, violated the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention. In the course of the examination of the merits of the case by the Commission, the Applicant has further complained that he had not been made aware, before the hearing, of the submissions of the Procureur général’s department at the Court of Cassation and that he did not have the right to the last word at the hearing. The Court will rule first on the Applicant’s original complaint. It will then see if there is occasion to consider the two "new" complaints made by Delcourt and, if so, whether they should be upheld or dismissed. 21. Only one provision of the Convention requires examination for the purpose of deciding the present case. This is Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) which provides that "in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law". I. AS TO THE APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 6 PARA. 1 (Art. 6-1) OF THE CONVENTION 22. At the oral hearings held on 29th and 30th September 1969, the representatives of the Belgian Government maintained, in substance, that, where the Court of Cassation gives judgment, as in the present case, on an appeal in cassation by one of the parties to the case challenging a judicial decision it does not make a determination either of civil rights or obligations or of a criminal charge against him within the meaning of the text quoted above. The Commission, on the contrary, was unanimously of the opinion that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is applicable for reasons explained to the Court by its Principal Delegate. 23. The Court recognises that it may be difficult to define exactly the field of application of paragraph 1 of Article 6 (art. 6-1). The Commission has delivered on this point a number of decisions in various particular cases - decisions which the Government invoked in its arguments but on which it is not incumbent on the Court to express an opinion in the present case. The Court, too, has had occasion to advert to certain aspects of the problem. It has ruled that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) does not apply to the procedure which regulates in Austria the examination of applications for provisional release (Neumeister judgment of 27th June 1968, "As to the Law"