3.3.1 Observation of the time limit under Article 6(3) RDR

In D 1/22 the appellant argued that a final decision taken by the epi Disciplinary Committee after expiry of the time limit under Art. 6(3) RDR should be considered a substantial procedural deficiency because the epi Disciplinary Committee no longer had the competence to rule after that time. The DBA disagreed, noting that there was no devolutive effect upon expiry of the time limit pursuant to Art. 6(3) RDR; the epi Disciplinary Committee remained competent to deal with the case. The Disciplinary Board can, however, assume responsibility for the case by a decision of its chair transferring the case to the Disciplinary Board, in which case the Disciplinary Committee would no longer be able to rule on the case. The possibility of the Disciplinary Committee taking a decision more than nine months after being notified of an alleged breach of the rules of professional conduct is therefore only ruled out if the matter is transferred to the Disciplinary Board under Art. 6(4)(b) RDR. In any event, the DBA found that in the case in hand the Disciplinary Committee did not exceed the nine-month time limit under Art. 6(3) RDR.