The statutory provision making access to the criminal file by anyone other than the person charged subject to certain conditions does not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination set out in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The law is, however, discriminatory in that it does not provide for any judicial remedy against a refusal to grant the victim access to the criminal file during the inquiry.

According to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, Article 6.1 ECHR can apply to a constitutional court. That court has a duty to consider objectively whether the dispute referred to it, to which Article 6.1 ECHR would apply, concerns civil rights and obligations or a criminal charge against an applicant.Without having to ascertain whether Article 6.1 ECHR was applicable to the preliminary screening procedure, the Court found that the dispute referred to it by the applicant, concerning the legal provision stipulating that the president of the court of first instance may be granted the power, where necessary, to call on all active judges at that court to sit alone, regardless of their length of service, in no way related to civil rights and obligations or a ruling on a criminal charge against the applicant.

Like any other court, the Court of Arbitration is obliged to respect the general legal principle that judges must be both subjectively and objectively impartial.The fact that reporting judges continue to sit at the Court after proposing that consideration of a case be terminated by a preliminary screening procedure does not necessarily violate the right to be heard by an impartial tribunal, which is a general legal principle and is, moreover, enshrined in Article 6.1 ECHR.

The fact that the paternity of a man who is the husband of a child's mother can only be contested by that man, his wife or the child, and therefore not by any other person - including the biological father - does not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination set out in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.

The fact that deferred judgments, suspended sentences and probation do not apply to administrative sanctions, but may be granted for criminal sanctions imposed by a criminal court for the same act, does not violate the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination.However, the fact that courts cannot impose administrative fines below the statutory limit, whereas in mitigating circumstances criminal courts can, for the same act, impose fines below that limit, does violate the principle of equality and non- discrimination.

In principle, only the federal state, to the exclusion of communities and regions, can create courts.The Appeals Board, which examines appeals against the decisions taken by the Flemish Fund for the Social Integration of People with Disabilities, is a court. This is the conclusion to be drawn from the intention stated in the course of the parliamentary work on the decree inaugurating that board, provisions relating to the composition of the board and those aimed at guaranteeing its independence: it is presided over by a judge; members of the Flemish Fund may not be members of the Appeals Board; decisions of the board constitute res iudicata. The quasi-judicial nature of appeal is confirmed by the provisions of an implementing regulation for the decree in question: the president and deputy presidents must be judges; appeals must be in writing and contain reasons; the appellant may be represented by counsel; the parties may submit a memorial; the Appeals Board must take account of this; the decision of the Appeals Board must contain reasons; proceedings are inter partes.

Articles 43, 44 and 148 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Articles 962 et seq of the Judicial Code, interpreted as meaning that an expert designated by a criminal court acting as a trial court is not obliged to comply with any of the regulations on inter partes proceedings contained in the aforementioned articles of the Judicial Code, violate Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution which guarantee the principle of equality and non- discrimination, read separately or in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR.The same provisions, interpreted in the light of Article 2 of the Judicial Code as not exempting the expert, designated by the criminal court acting as trial court, from complying with the regulations on inter partes proceedings contained in the aforementioned articles of the Judicial Code, insofar as their application is compatible with the principles of criminal law, do not violate Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, read separately or in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR. Under the terms of Article 2 of the Judicial Code, it cannot be inferred that the provisions of the Code referring to the agreement of the parties or making certain effects subject to their initiative can be applied in criminal proceedings where the freedom of individuals to arrange their own affairs is not a relevant issue.

Proceedings to hold a forced public auction, portrayed as the enforcement of a legal obligation incumbent upon the owner of a disused business site by virtue of town planning legislation, but nevertheless pursuing the same aim and achieving the same results as a compulsory purchase order, i.e. depriving the owner against his will of his property at the instigation of a public authority on public interest grounds, must, insofar as the legislator has the authority to introduce limitations to the right to property, comply with the judicial compulsory purchase procedures laid down by law and the principle of fair compensation paid in advance.

The principle of the non-retrospective effect of laws, established by a law (Article 2 of the Belgian Civil Code), is a general legal principle. By giving retrospective effect to rules, there is a danger of creating legal uncertainty, such that, having regard to Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution guaranteeing equality and non-discrimination, any resulting difference in treatment could only be acceptable if warranted by special circumstances.In the case in question, the retrospective effect of the provision referred to the Court has the result that the legislation, in pursuing its aim of aligning retirement and survivors' pensions, represents undue interference with the pension rights of a single category of pensioners, whereas others who are entitled to the pension are not affected at all. Accordingly, the effects of the means employed are held to be disproportionate to the aim pursued.

The Court referred three preliminary points of law to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, concerning the interpretation of the provisions of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 designed to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of diplomas, with particular reference to training in general medical practice (Title IV of the directive). The questions asked were:1. Should the directive, and in particular Title IV, be interpreted as meaning that specific training in general medical practice cannot begin in Belgium unless the person concerned has obtained a diploma of doctor of medicine, surgery and obstetrics ("physician" in the Flemish community)?2. Does the requirement laid down by Article 31 of the Directive, in accordance with which specific training in general medical practice must "entail the personal participation of the trainee in the professional activities and responsibilities of the persons with whom he works", mean that the candidate may perform the activities of a doctor, which in Belgium are restricted to those holding the diploma of: "doctor of medicine, surgery and obstetrics" ("physician" in the Flemish community)?3. If so, should that provision be interpreted as meaning that the candidate may perform such activities from the beginning of the specific training in general medical practice, which in the Flemish community begins in the seventh year of medical studies, i.e. before being awarded the diploma in medicine, surgery and obstetrics ("physician" in the Flemish community)?