Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary session in accordance with Rule 48 of the Rules of Court, and composed of the following Judges:
Decides as follows on the question of procedure raised at the hearing of the afternoon of 17th November 1970:
Whereas Mr. De Meyer, Agent for the Belgian Government, objected to the course of action intended by the Commission on the grounds that:
(a) the Commission, in his opinion, must be taken to be sufficiently informed on the points in question, seeing that in July 1969, it had drawn up its final report stating its findings of the facts in the present cases;
(b) since Me Magn�e had been counsel for the three individual claimants before the Commission, the application of Rule 29, paragraph 1, intended by the Delegates would defeat the provisions of Article 44 (art. 44) and the whole spirit of the Convention under which, according to Mr. De Meyer, individuals may not plead before the Court;
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.