20151334 | Abri Anthraper

Dt: 27/03/2019

CASE OF VAN DER MUSSELE vs. BELGIUM

The case of Van Der Mussele v Belgium (app No 8919/80) is about Belgian advocates of the
European court for Human Rights being made to give pro bono work which the applicant is
arguing to be ‘forced labour’ when looked at in the context of article 4 of the Convention. A large
number of people that support the norm of pro-bono work considered were surprised that the
European court considered this to be deserving of their legal acumen when looked at in the context
of ‘pro-bono’ work.

The Court’s holdings with relation to pro-bono work in the spheres of individual and social benefit
are in my view considered and calculative to the extent that it is doing justice to the concept as
well as to the people. The court held that there was no violation of article 4 on the basis of four
grounds.

1. Pro-bono work was within the scope of the ordinary activities of an advocate.
2. Compensation played an important role in securing entry into the job as well as experience.
3. Compulsory pro-bono work was meant to serve a much large objective of providing access
to legal representation.
4. The burden imposed was not biased on the grounds that the constrained commitment was
still allowed for profitable work.

A lawyer had complained during his time under a senior that he was required to do free legal
representation work. He argues that this was about a 5th of his total legal duties and that therefore
this was ‘forced labour’. The court was unsatisfied by this argument. Therefore, the court did not
consider the consideration to be so disproportionate so as to be able to be read within the ambit
of article 4.

I feel as though the decision made by the court was wrong on various grounds.

1. Lawyers made to work as part of pro-bono work in a compulsory manner would not have
anymore excitement nor passion towards the field as they are not compensated
appropriately.
2. The applicants or defendants that eventually do come to represent the various people
would most likely be inexperienced legal representatives and would therefore only end up
being a constraint to the client.
3. Mandatory Pro-bono work can be seen as the state shirking its duties of providing it’s
economically backward classes the opportunity of being represented in a fair manner.
 20151334 | Abri Anthraper
Dt: 27/03/2019

There are obvious counter arguments that can be made to these points by way of making a concrete
structures plan for pro-bono work. It isn’t a far stretch to see the problems in forcing those
inexperienced legal hands into this line of work, as pointed above. If such a scheme for providing
of pro-bono legal help is made, then it must be made in such a manner so as to understand that
human beings do not only operate on the lines of procedure but also operate on the lines of needs
and wants.

It isn’t absolutely wrong for the state to impose pro-bono work upon the legal professionals within
its state. In fact, if done so properly I feel such a system would be more inclusive and take away
much of the intimidation that the law poses for laymen. The main point of my argument is the
fact the there must a proper structure and means of compensation for the work done by legal
professionals as we must understand that as much as it is the need for those citizens that don’t
understand the legal system to have legal representatives, that much also is the need for their legal
representatives to feel as though it is an honourable thing to represent them in court and fight for
them on the legal battlefront