(TRANS]',AT/ON) THE FACTS (Extract ) The facts, as subrnitted by the pailies, may be summarised as follows . The applicant is a French national born on 30 April 1918 and resident at Le Blano-Mesnil in France, lie is a tnedical doctor . There are two aspects to his application : - disciplinary proceeding ; before the bodies of Ihe Medical Association ; - a natioial agreement on relations between the medical professien and the health insurance 1'unds, challenged by the applicant . 2 . Disciplinary measures were taken against the appl icant, suspending his right to practise medici ::te for three years . On 26 Navember and 9 December 1979 the applicant lodged threa : criininal complaints with the Bobigny Public Prosecutor, for attempted fraud (in a case concerning contpensation due to persons repatriai:ed from Algeria, and in a case concerning inheritance from his wife's parents) and for repeated attempted muiders, disgiised as road accidents . 33 Following these complaints, the applicant was called to the Blanc-Mesnil police station, but did not appear . After receiving a letter from the Chief of Police of Le Blanc-Mesnil setting out these facts, the Seine St . Denis Departmental Council of the Medical Association decided on 16 December 1979 to open proceedings against the applicant under Article L 460 of the Public Health Code . On 11 January 1980, the Chairman of the Departmental Council of the Medical Association requested the applicant to submit to a psychiatric examination by a specialist of his choice who, together with the specialist chosen by the Medical Association, would appoint a third specialist . The applicant refused to submit to any examination on the ground that he had not been given any reasons for the Depa rtmental Council's decision . In the absence of the applicant, the Bobigny Regional Cou rt appointed specialists at the request of the Regional Council . Between 13 May and 16 September 1980 the applicant did not attend any of the specialist examinations to which he was invited . On 14 November 1980, after drawing up a repo rt noting the applicant's failure to appear, the three specialists made their finding on the basis of the applicant's handwritten documents (three letters) . Since the time-limit of three months allowed to it for making its decision had passed, the Regional Council, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article L 460 of the Public Health Code, relinquished ju risdiction in favour of the disciplinary section of the National Council of the Medical Association . On 24 November, the applicant was notified that the case would be heard on 17 December 1980 and that he would have access to the file from 3 Decem ber. On 17 December, the National Council of the Medical Association suspende d the applicant's right to practise medicine for three years on the grounds "that Dr. Cavalin is suffering from mental disturbances characterised by a persecution complex and a state of mental over-excitement and that these symptoms of paranoia make it dangerous for him to practise medicine" . On 7 Janua ry 1981, the applicant made an application for legal aid in order to appeal against the decision of 17 December 1980 . On 10 March, the legal aid office of the Conseil d'Etat notified him of its refusal of legal aid on the ground that the appeal appeared to be manifestly ill-founded . The applicant nevertheless appealed, through a lawyer at the Conseil d'Etat . 34 In his submissions, he claimed that the proceedings were irregular and in violation of the =ights of defenceand thr, rights of the individua l -- in that ttie commi ttee of specialists had issu<A an opinion solely on the basis of letter> from the applicant ; -- in that t'ae Departnaental Council's decision to request a specialist opinion was taken only six days after the letter from the Chief cf Police and without any investigation or hearing of the person concerned . lie criticised the eomposition of the Council of the Medical Association, impugning the iinpa rtiality of its President. lie complalned that the pentdty of suspension is dispropo rtionate to the charges against hïm, which bear no reladon to practising medicine . By a judginent of 27 July 1982, the Conseil d'Etat dismissed this appeal, dealing with both the formal grounds relating to legility and the merits of the matter. THE LA.W (Extract) 1 . The applicant complains first of all of the decision by the National Council of the Nledical Association to suspend his right to practise medicine . He submils that this body's decision, and the procedure leading up to it, consttute a violation of Article f{ para. I of the Convention . In particular the applicant claims that his case was not heard by "an indepenclent ancl impartial tribunal", and tltat lie was not granted a "public hearing" witlnin a "reasonable" time . Finally he alleges that he did not enjoy the guarantees set cut ir, paragraphs 2 and 3 (a), (b) and (d) of ArticJe 6 of the: Convention . Before deciding on whether the facts alleged by the applicant diselose. any appearance of a violation of this provision, the Commission is required to examine whether Article 6 para . 1 applies to the proceedings against the applicant . It should be noted in this c:onnection that the Government do not dispute that Article 6 applies to these proceedings . The Comrrission and the Cou rt have consistently held in their case-law that it is irrelevant to the application of Artiele 6 para . I whether the d:,cisions at issue were taken by an administrative or disciplinary court . 7'he o,iuestion whether a right is a "civil right" depends solely on the namre and putpose of the dispute (Eur . Court H .R ., Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyei-e judgment of 23 June 1I981, Series A. no. 43, and Albert and Le Compte judgntent of 10 February 1983, Series A no. 58). 35 Article 6 para . I of the Convention applies even to administrative proceedings, where such proceedings are decisive in determining the relations in civil law between the applicant and third parties (Eur . Court H.R., Ringeisen judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, para. 94). Article 6 para . 1 therefore applies in this case, in that the proceedings at issue concerned rights and obligations of a private nature, namely the right to exercise a profession, and the question whether the proceedings brought against the applicant were of a disciplinary or administrative nature is not decisive . The Commission will now go on to consider whether, in the proceedings against him, the applicant enjoyed a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 para. I of the Convention . The applicant maintains that the procedure under Article L 460 of the Public Health Code infringes the right to a fair hearing set out in Article 6 para . I in that it is arbitrary and not public . He alleges that he was not given the opportunity, before the National Council of the Medical Association, to have the assistance of a lawyer and that he was unable to challenge the specialists' opinion or ask for a second opinion. He also claims to have been prevented from making any appeal against the decision taken against him . It should be noted that, in the Government's view, the proceedings against the applicant are of an administrative and not of a disciplinary nature . Since the purpose of these proceedings is the finding of a pathological state and not the imposition of a disciplinary sanction, it does indeed have certain special characteristics in that the applicant is not able to voice objections in such circumstances . The Government, however, dispute that these proceedings of an administrative nature were unfair within the meaning of Article 6 of the Convention . They support this view by reference to the Order of 31 July 1945 and the Decree of 30 July 1963, and to case-law, to show that an appeal to the Conseil d'Etat on grounds of abuse of power meets the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention . The Government further note that the Conseil d'Etat has wide-ranging powers in an appeal on grounds of abuse of power, which enable it to exercise complete supervision over the decision taken by the National Council of the Medical Association . The Commission notes, with regard to the circumstances of this case, that the measure imposed upon the applicant was indeed an administrative measure and not a disciplinary sanction and that the ruling of the Conseil d'Etat on the suspension of the applicant's right to practise medicine did lie within in the scope of an appeal on grounds of abuse of power. The Commission further notes that the Conseil d'Etat has wide-ranging supervisory powers in this area, very different from the restricte d 36 powers available to it when ;itting as a Court of Cassation ; this is because, due to developments in administrative ca :c-law, administrative aupervi :;ion over abuse of power covers not only points of law but also points of fact and ttte establishinent of the relevar.ce of facts . Ie. this case, it is true that the applicant complains that the National Council of the Medical Asscciation which suspende(i his right to practise medicine does not constimte "an independent and inipartial tribunal" meeting the requirenients of Article 6 para . I, and that none of the guarantees contained iri paragraphs 2 and 3 (a), !b) and (d) were cornplied with . The Commission notes, however, that the applicant did in fact bring aai appeal againsr this decision before (he Conseil d'Etat, and that this Cour :, in its examination of the appeal on grounds of an abuse of power, then proceeded io consider both the law and the facts of the case . Thr. Conseil d'Etat did in fact, therefore, rule on the dispute relating fo the applicant's civil right . The Commission also notes that the Conseil dEtat gaves its ruling afier havirig heard the observations submitted by the applicant's lawyer on his behalf. This being so the Commission considers, on the basis of an examination of the facts of (he case, that there is nothing in the file to suppon the applicant's allegations that in the procerdings before the Conseil d'Etat, ne did not enjoy the guararitees provided in Article 6 paras . 1, 2 and 3 of the Corrvention . The applicatiun rnust therefore be dismissed as, manil'estly ill-foanded in accordanr_e with Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37