Requiring a lawyer to attend disciplinary proceedings personally can be compatible with a fair hearing, but the consequences of absence must leave room for an effective defence, the European Court of Human Rights said in an advisory opinion delivered on October 20.
The opinion answers Luxembourg’s Constitutional Court under Protocol No. 16. It is nonbinding and does not itself reinstate the lawyer involved or determine the domestic proceedings.
According to the court’s official explanation, disciplinary bodies must consider a representative’s account of why the lawyer is absent before treating non-attendance as a waiver or an attempt to evade proceedings. Without an unequivocal waiver or evasion, safeguards may require an adjournment or representation, at least on appeal.
The request arose from proceedings in which a lawyer was struck off for life. The court identified the difficulty created by combining exclusion of counsel with no fresh adversarial hearing on facts and law. A limited appeal on points of law does not necessarily repair that gap.
Official court record: advisory opinion P16-2026-002
