Judgments

As entities of the Belgian federal state, the Communities are empowered to regulate all matters relating to radio and television and may grant their broadcasters the right to record events open to the public and broadcast brief segments thereof, even if the organiser of the event has given another broadcaster exclusive broadcasting rights.

The Constitution and the special act of 6 January 1989 on the Court of Arbitration require all legal and natural persons who lodge an application to prove that they have a legitimate interest; consequently, popular actions are not admissible. Neither moral reprobation of a decree, nor the emotions which it arouses in the applicants, nor the desire to ensure compliance with the law in all circumstances constitutes a sufficient legitimate interest.Generally speaking, public law bodies may only bring proceedings before the Court under the powers conferred on them by the Constitution or national legislation and regulations.When a non-profit-making association asserts that it is acting on behalf of a group interest, its object must be of a particular nature and hence distinct from the public interest. This interest must not be confined to the individual interests of members; the provision appealed against must concern the association's object; and this object must genuinely be pursued, a fact which must emerge from specific activities, both past and present, engaged in by the association on a lasting basis.To be admissible, the arguments in support of an application for judicial review must show which of the rules whose observance is guaranteed by the Court have been violated as well as the provisions which are alleged to violate these rules, and they must explain how the rules have been violated by these provisions.In federal Belgium, the Communities have jurisdiction, in the area of assistance to individuals, for granting welfare assistance, but regulations which introduce a general right to take financial action on behalf of persons who were the subject of punitive measures after the second world war, even if such action may take the form of assistance to individuals, is so closely linked to the punitive measures taken against collaborators that it must be regarded as being part of the general regulations governing such matters, in respect of which the federal government retains a residual power.

In the interest of protecting public health, federal legislators are empowered to impose a general ban on advertising for tobacco products. In so doing, they are not encroaching upon the powers of the Communities with regard to radio and television broadcasting, public health, sport and tourism or the powers of the regions in the area of the economy and employment.In order to protect public health, it is not discriminatory to prohibit advertising for and sponsorship by tobacco products or advertising for brand products which are known primarily in association with a tobacco product (so-called diversification products), and not advertising for other products. It is also justifiable to allow exceptions to the ban on advertising for tobacco products in the case of advertising in tobacconist's and newspaper shops and in foreign newspapers and magazines, but the latter exception must then apply equally to advertising for diversification products.A distinction must, however, be made between events and activities organised on a world scale and other events and activities: in view of the relative ineffectiveness of a ban on advertising for tobacco products in the case of events which are organised on a world scale and can be moved to another country, as well as the economic, financial and social impact that moving these activities would have locally, without any compensatory arrangements, the measure places, in the current state of affairs (until 31 July 2003), a disproportionate restriction on freedom of trade and industry.Banning advertising for tobacco products is not at variance with either freedom of expression and the right of ownership as guaranteed by constitutional and international law or with the provisions of the EC Treaty on the free movement of goods and services.

The introduction of a new reason for suspending the limitation period in criminal cases, viz the time-limit within which a case must be brought before the trial court, did not appear, in the light of the initial examination conducted when the request for a suspension was made, to breach Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution (principles of equality and non-discrimination), even though the accused had begun to think that the time-limit for bringing a prosecution against her might well expire. The aforementioned , even if read in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR, did not mean that legislation introducing transitional measures had to be adopted.

As the Court has already ruled in earlier decisions, the distinction made in respect of welfare support between Belgians and persons lawfully resident in the country, who are entitled to this support, and aliens ordered to leave the territory, who are no longer entitled to this support, does not amount to discrimination, save in cases where aliens' appeals to the Conseil d'État against decisions rejecting their asylum applications are still pending.On the other hand, there is discrimination if welfare support is withdrawn from aliens who, for medical reasons, are totally incapable of obeying an order to leave the country, since there is no good reason for these people to be treated in the same way as people who are able to leave the country.

If a special-powers royal decree (in other words a regulation introduced by the executive when it has been authorised by the legislature to amend, supplement, repeal or replace a law) governing rights and obligations of military personnel is unlawful because the executive has not received a broad enough authorisation in a field which the Constitution reserves for the law, it is not acceptable for parliament to confirm such regulation. This purely formal confirmation amounts to a discriminatory violation of the constitutional guarantee afforded all military personnel whereby they may not be bound by obligations which have not been established by a democratically elected deliberative assembly.

Pending the processing of an application to set aside a legal rule, the Court may provisionally suspend the rule if (a) sufficiently reasonable grounds are submitted and (b) the immediate enforcement of the impugned rule could cause serious prejudice which would be difficult to redress. In the case in question, the Court suspended a measure to proceed with the automatic retirement at age 60 of officers and staff of the criminal police force.

Article 70 of the Value Added Tax (VAT) Code violates the principle of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if interpreted to mean that a court dealing with an appeal against an administrative fine imposed by the tax authorities for violation of VAT legislation is unable to exercise full jurisdictional review, including verification of the factual and legal justification for the administrative decision and compliance with general principles, including the principle of proportionality.If interpreted to mean that a court is indeed able to exercise full jurisdictional review, this provision does not contravene the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

Sections 14 and 17 of the consolidated laws on the Conseil d'État which grant competence to the latter to annul, and in the meantime, suspend the decisions of administrative authorities do not contravene Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution guaranteeing the principle of equality and discrimination, either read separately or in conjunction with Article 6 ECHR, insofar as these Articles do not rule out the possibility of the merits of a case being examined in the Conseil d'État by all or some of the members of a bench which has already ruled on the application for suspension.

The fact that prior to 1 July 1997 retirement pensions for self-employed men were reduced by 25% when they opted for early retirement at the age of 60 whereas women's pensions, paid at age 60, were not subject to any reduction is not discriminatory treatment.