Judgments

Article 131 of the Income Tax Code, fixing the tax-exempted proportion of income at 165 000 BEF (4 090,24 €) for single taxpayers and 130 000 BEF (3 222,62 €) for married persons, is not contrary to the constitutional rules of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution). Conversely, it is unjustified that married couples and unmarried persons living together should receive different treatment through the application to unmarried cohabitees (in the absence of any specific statutory provision) of the regulations for single taxpayers. However, this discrimination does not arise from the aforementioned Article 131 which was the subject of the preliminary question.

Immediate withdrawal of a driving licence has to be regarded as a temporary safety measure, and not as a criminal sanction. It does not imply any determination of a criminal charge within the meaning of Article 6 ECHR. In view of the legislature's concern to improve road safety, the need to take action without delay may justify the prosecuting authorities' ability to take such a measure without prior judicial verification.However, withdrawal of a driving licence for a maximum of 15 days, and its possible extension for two further periods of 15 days may, in certain cases, have serious consequences for the persons against whom the measure is taken. The issue of whether such decisions may be taken without verification by the courts concerns Article 56 of the law, about which no question was put to the Court.

The distinction between a penalty and additional financial sanctions is based, the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights being borne in mind, on whether or not the measure was applied for law enforcement purposes, on its objective, on the categories of persons likely to be subjected to it, on the preventive nature of the measure and on the classification of the sanction itself.The fact that a sanction has to be classified as a penalty does not necessarily mean that all the applicable rules of ordinary criminal law are applied to it. The court in such cases verifies proportionality in the light of the intention of the legislature.It may thus be justified for several sanctions to be imposed cumulatively, without application of the criminal law rule that, when more than one offence has been committed, only the severest penalty is imposed. It would be unjustified, on the other hand, for the judge not to be able to order remission of sentence or suspension of the judgment.

A law which makes no provision for a German-speaking section of the National Disciplinary Board responsible for disciplinary proceedings against judges, but which does provide for the presence within the Board of a German-speaking judge when the Board is dealing with proceedings against a judge who has proven his knowledge of German and requested the benefit of proceedings in German, is not contrary to the constitutional principles of equality and absence of discrimination (Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution).

The fact that a defendant has no right to the assistance of a lawyer and to see the criminal case file even before his first questioning by the investigating judge, as well as on the occasion of his questioning prior to the issue of the arrest warrant, is not contrary to the constitutional rules of equality and absence of discrimination (Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution), whether or not taken in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 ECHR.Nor is it contrary to the aforementioned provisions for a defendant, held in custody, not to be able to be tried within a maximum period of seven days from the date on which the investigating judge issued the arrest warrant.

A provision of a decree of the French Community which dealt extensively and in detail with the basic skills to be acquired in the first eight years of compulsory schooling was contrary to freedom of education (Article 24.1 of the Constitution) in that it did not allow the managing body of a school wishing to provide an education based on a particular educational philosophy (Steinerism) to request an exemption.

The federal parliament, which was responsible for laying down the requirements governing employment of foreigners in Belgium, had not infringed the principle of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution) by making entry to the employment market conditional both on the employer's first obtaining employment permission and the worker's first obtaining a work permit, provided that the provision whereby the Crown could make exceptions was interpreted as requiring that the Crown exempt categories of foreigners who, by virtue of their nationality or status, could not be required to obtain a permit in order to work in Belgium, in particular nationals of European Union member states and refugees recognised in Belgium.

A legislative provision whereby a political party can lose part of its annual financial allocation if it itself or any of its components displays manifest hostility towards rights or freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) or its protocols is not unconstitutional.