(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The facts of the case as submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows : The applicant, who is a Belgian national, was born in 1954 . When she introduced her application she resided at Mons where she practised as a lawyer . She resides at present at C. (People's Republic of China) whereshe is a teacher . 36 Bcl'ore the Commission she is represerited by Mr . Eric Balate of the Mons Bar. After obtaining a law degree, the applicant was sworn in as a barrister o n 20 January 1978 before the Mons Court of Appeal and completed the statutory threeyear period of pupillage, first at the Charleroi Bar and than at Dinant. On 26 June 1981 the D!nant Bar Council decided to admit her to the Dinant Bar. This de.cision was notifiA to her on 2 July 1981 . The applicant then moved for personal reasons and on 3 September 1981 reauested hat she be admitted to the Arlon Bar . On 6 October 1981 the Presiclent of the Arlon Bar replied Ihat to be eligible for admission to theArlon Bar she would have to complete another three-year period of pupillage and fiud a pupil master in the judicial district in qutstiorl . By letter of 12 October 1981 .the applicant informed the President ofthe Arlo n Bar that no member of the Arlon Bar was qualified under the Bar Council's reguaations to take her as a pupil and, consequently, she renewed her application for admission . By decision of 22 Octobar 1981, notified to the applicant on 4 November 1981, the Arlon Bar Council refusecl to admit the applicant cn the ground that she did not satisfy ttie conditions for admission . In addition, it appears from the file tttat at the beginning ofSeptember 1981 Ihe applicant applied to the President of the Neufchâteau Bar for information regarding conditions for admission to the Neufchâteau Bar . 'rhe President appears to have informed her that she would have to complete one year's pupillàge before applying for admission . In November and Decernber 1981 the applicant contacted several members o f the Neufch£teau Bar and received a favourable reply from a lawyer who did not however have suffi~ient seniority ai the Bar to satisfy the conditions laid down in the regulations of the Neufchàteau Bar . On 7 Jamuary t982 the applicant applied for admission to the Neufchâteau Bar . On the sane occasion she asked thé Neufchâteau Bar Council to aake an exception to the rule requiring pupil masters to have tén ycai~s' seniority n the profession before being able to take on pupils . Furthefmore, she undertoolc to transfer her chambers to the juclicial district of Neufchâteau. ' ' By decision of 30 January 1982, notified to the applicant on 10 February 1982, the Neufchâteau Bar Council deciéed to reject the applicant's applicant, as formulated, on the ground that she was resident in another clistrict and that she had failed to find a pupil master satisfying the conditions laid down in the regulations of the Ne,ufchâteau Bar, namely wilh ten years' seniority . 37 By letter of 13 March 1982 the aoplicant lodged another application for admission to the Neufchâteau Bar . She stated that she had found a pupil master with the necessary seniority and confirmedthat she would set up chambers in the Neufchâteau district. Subsequently, by letter of 18 March, she undertook in addition to transfer her private home if the Bar Council so required . By letter of 31 March 1982 to the President of the Neufchâteau Bar the applicant withdrew her application for admission because "in the light of developments regarding (her) admission to the Neufchâteau Bar" she had preferred to reply to a more attractive offer from a group of lawyers from the Mons Bar . The applicant was admitted to the Mons Bar . On 12 January 1983 she requested that her name be removed from the roll of the Mons Bar. Her removal from the roll was confirmed by the Mons Bar Council on 2 February 1984. COMPLAINTS (Extract) I . The applicant complains of the decision of the Neufchâteau Bar Council of 30 January 1982 rejecting her application for admission to the Neufchâteau Bar . She takes the view that in so far as this decision made her admission conditional inter atia on her completing a further one-year period of pupillage, despite the fact that she had been admitted to the Dinant Bar since June 1981, it was arbitrary and unjustified . She alleges that Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention were violated by the procedure followed by the Neufehâteau Bar Council and by the fact that no remedy was available before an authority with power to review the manner in which the Bar Council concerned laid down specific conditions for admission to its roll . THE LAW (Extract) 1 . The applicant complains of the procedure followed by the Neufchàteau Bar Council which resulted in the decision of 30 January 1982 rejecting her application for admission to the Neufchâteau Bar . She complains that no remedy is available against this decision, which she regards as arbitrary andunjustified, and, more particularly, that no authority has conipetence to review the manner in which the specific conditions of admission to a local roll, in this case of Neufehâteau, are laid down . She relies on Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention . Article 6 para . 1 provides inter alia that : "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criininal charge against him, everyonë is entitled to a fair and public hearing . . . by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. " 38 The Governnient contend that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to her in as much as she withdrew tter second application for admission to ttie Neufch£teau Bar . In addition she cannot be regarded as a victim within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention, since in N iew of the fact that she failed to pursue her secoid application for reasons unconnected with the conditioris laid down by the Bar C'ouncil in question and that she was admitted to the Mona Bar, she has no interest in complaining in respect of the contested decision . _TheapplicantreferstoArticle432oftheJudicialCodeandsubinitsthatn o remedy was available against the Bar Council's decision of 30 january 1982 . Steps which she had taken subsequently in order to conform to the reauirements laid down in the disputed decision do not affect the definitive nature of thai : decision. The Commission notes that under Article 432 of Ihe Jtrlicial Code "admissioris n:l the bar and pupillage are d.ecidec by the Bar Council, which stall determine the aomposiùon of the roll and the list ol'pupil barristers . Its decision is final" . It follows Itat the applicant had no remedy against the decision of the Neufchàteau Bar Council and that, accordingly, she lias satisfied the condition regarding exhaustion of domestic reinedies laid down in Article 26 of the Convention . Even if it is accepted that Artiele 6 para. 1 of the Convention applies to the proceedings whereby bie applieant requested her admission to the Neufch£teau Bar, the complaint must be rejected on another ground . The Commission notes Ihat in the coraested deci.sion of 30 January 19132 the Veufch£ieau Bar Council rejected t6e applicant's request fer admission to the Neufeh £teau Bar on the g,round that she did not satisfy the conditions regarding residence and seniority applying to her admission . The Commission would obsene that, by letter of 13 Nfarch 1982, the applicant lodged a further request for admission to ttte Neufch£teau Bar . In this request she stated that she satisfied the conditions laid down by ~_he Bar Council in que .stion. 1-lowever, bi letter of 31 March 1982, apparently before a decisien had been made i-egarding her second application, the applicant wrote to the President of the Neufch £teau 13ar to withdraw her request, explaining that she preferred to accept ari offer to work with a group of lawyers of the Mons Bar, where she was in fact admitted . Furthermore, the Commission notes that on 12 Janua:-y 1984 the applicant requested that her name be withdrawn from the roll of the Mons Bar, and thîs withdrawal was confirmed on 2 February 1984. At present the applicant is working as a teacher in the People's Republic of China . In these circurnstances the Contmissiou takes the view that the, applicant has no legitimate complaint against the Bela,ian Government for having allegedly infringed Articles 6 and 13 ot'the Convention . Her conduct has shown that she did not attach inuch importance to her admission to the Neufch£teau Bar and subsequently that she had little real desire to practise as a lawyer . 39 The Commission considers accordingly that the appl3cant cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of these provisions within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention (see No . 7826/77, Dec . 2 .5.78, D.R. 14 p. 197 ; No. 8083/77, Dec. 13.3.80, D.R. 19 p . 223) . This part of the application must therefore be dismissed as manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 40