Judgments

Dismissal of the actions (subject to the interpretation referred to in B.24.8.2)When Parliament authorises the euthanasia of minors in a hopeless medical condition, it must provide for increased protection to avoid any abuses, in order to safeguard their right to life and their right to physical integrity.Having regard to the safeguards it contains, the impugned legislation strikes a fair balance between everyone’s right to choose to end his/her life to avoid an undignified and distressing death, based on the right to respect for private life, and minors’ entitlement to measures to prevent abuses of the practice of euthanasia, based on the right to life and to physical integrity.However, one of the impugned provisions has to be interpreted to mean that a medical practitioner cannot perform euthanasia on an underage child, subject to the conditions provided for by law, unless that minor’s capacity of discernment has been certified in writing by a child psychiatrist or psychologist.

The independence of judges (Article 151 of the Constitution) and the requirement for independent and impartial tribunals in Article 6 ECHR do not apply to court registrars.The independence of judges, embodied in the Constitution (Article 151 of the Constitution) and in the general principle of separation of powers, is functional in nature and does not, as a matter of principle, prevent the legislative and executive branches, within the limits of their authority under the Constitution, from taking measures to secure the proper functioning of the judicial branch, particularly with regard to its management and financing.Geographical transfers of judges must be accompanied by a series of measures to safeguard their independence, including entitlement to an adequate remedy against transfer decisions.

By denying the eligibility of social assistance to a category of foreign nationals who are lawfully residing in the country, the impugned legislative provision significantly reduces the level of protection available to persons in this category. To be compatible with Article 23 of the Constitution, this significant reduction must be justified on grounds of public interest.While the legitimate objective of combating fraud may justify certain measures, such as refusal to grant social assistance to foreign nationals who can be shown to be trying to obtain it unjustifiably or terminating the right of residence of foreign nationals who have obtained it unlawfully, this cannot justify denying social assistance eligibility to an abstractly defined category of foreign nationals lawfully residing in the country in cases where a social welfare centre has confirmed their state of destitution, thus denying them the right to lead a life in keeping with human dignity. The impugned measure is disproportionate to the objectives pursued.

Any interference in property rights must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the need to protect individuals’ right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.In accordance with the principle of equality of citizens with regard to public burdens, the authorities may not, in the absence of compensation, impose burdens in excess of those that individuals must bear in the public interest.To determine whether local arrangements for protecting the built heritage are compatible with the right to respect for private life, it has to be established whether the authority issuing the decree has struck a fair balance between all the rights and interests concerned. The right to enter a building with the authorisation of the court, but after ex parte proceedings only, constitutes a disproportionate infringement of the right to the inviolability of the home (Article 15 of the Constitution).

The obligation to inform the provisional administrator of a protected person enables the said administrator to ensure effective protection of the interests of the person for whom he or she has responsibility and to fulfil his or her role. There is no justification for not informing him or her of any summons sent by a FOREM (Walloon public employment and training service) placement and/or vocational training office to a job-seeker placed under provisional administration since the failure to respond to those summonses automatically deprives the job-seeker of the social benefits which are part of the assets which the provisional administrator is responsible for managing.

Partial annulment – Dismissal of remainder of the actions subject to the interpretations referred to in B.44.3, B.44.5, B.44.6 and B.50.6.

In imposing the blanket retention of all data on traffic relating to telephone communications (landline and mobile), access to the Internet, e-mail and telephone communications via the Internet, covering everyone and all means of communication regardless of any link with the objective of combating serious crime, the law of 30 July 2013 constitutes a discriminatory and disproportionate violation of the right to privacy and the protection of personal data, and breaches the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution), read in conjunction with the right to respect for private life and the protection of personal data and the principle of proportionality ( Articles 7, 8 and 52.1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).This law partially transposes into Belgian law the European «Data Retention» Directive which the Court of Justice of the European Union declared invalid in its judgment of 8 April 2014 (C-293/12 and C-594/12).

Prisoners engaged in prison work are in a situation which is too far removed from that of employees for it to be possible for a useful comparison to be made of the legal regime governing the work of both categories.By assigning to the competent legislature the power to lay down in which cases and under what conditions the right to respect for private and family life may be violated, Article 22 of the Constitution offers all citizens a guarantee that there shall be no interference with this right except under rules adopted by a democratically elected deliberative assembly.A delegation to another power is not contrary to the principle of legality, provided that such authorisation is defined with a sufficient level of precision and relates to the carrying out of measures, the main features of which have previously been laid down by the legislature.Hostage taking is an extremely serious act which justifies the prolongation of confinement in a punishment cell.

When legislators consider that certain breaches of laws or regulations must be punished, they have the power to assess whether it is preferable to opt for criminal or administrative penalties. The choice of one or other of these categories cannot be considered in itself to constitute discrimination. Discrimination will only have occurred if the difference in treatment deriving from this choice entails a disproportionate restriction of the rights of the persons concerned.The right to proper administration of justice, as guaranteed by Article 6 CEDH, does not prevent an administrative penalty from being imposed by a civil servant provided that an independent and impartial court may carry out a full review of this administrative decision.The decision imposing the administrative penalty must contain an adequate description of the reasons on which it was based so that those affected can assess whether there is good reason to avail themselves of the remedies available to them.Article 22bis, paragraphs 4 and 5, of the Constitution and Article 3.1 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child do not prevent legislators from determining from what age certain types of conduct may be punishable by law, but they do require them, when deciding on the forms of conduct to be punished and the procedures through which penalties will be imposed, to take account of minors’ particular circumstances, especially as regards their personality and their degree of maturity.A temporary ban on entering certain areas whose aim is not to punish an offence but to counter a threat or risk of further disturbances of public order or anti-social behaviour in future can be regarded as an administrative measure, which forms part of the powers granted to mayors to enable them to keep order in their municipalities. It is for the relevant court hearing an appeal against such a measure to ascertain whether it was strictly limited to this aim.

Article 24.1.4 of the Constitution grants parents and pupils a fundamental right and requires the public authorities managing education to organise religion and non-denominational ethics classes. This provision does not entail a requirement to make a choice between instruction in one of the recognised religions and instruction in non-denominational ethics or a requirement to attend one of these classes.Under Article 24.3 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to an education in fundamental rights and freedoms. Among these fundamental rights is the right of parents, guaranteed in particular by Article 2 Protocol 1 ECHR, to ensure that the education dispensed to their children by the public authorities is in keeping with their own religious and philosophical convictions. There is no reason to distinguish between religious instruction and other subjects.

The right of access to a court is a general legal principle which has to be secured to everyone in accordance with the principle of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution). This right can be subject to limitations, including of a financial nature, provided that they do not impair the very essence of the right of access to a court. In itself the establishment of a register duty does not infringe this right provided that it does not place an excessive burden on one of the parties to a trial.The Court should not act solely on the basis of the claimant’s financial situation but should also carry out an objective analysis of the amount of the costs. It might also take into account the situation of the parties concerned, whether the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success, the importance of what was at stake for the claimant and for the protection of the environment, the complexity of the relevant law and procedure, the potentially frivolous nature of the claim at its various stages, and the existence of a national legal aid scheme or a costs protection regime.

Providing for an aggravation of the penalty for punishable offences which must be regarded as «serious» tax fraud is not incompatible with the principle of legality in criminal matters, which is enshrined both in the Constitution and in several treaties.

Punishing incitement to commit terrorist offences is not incompatible with the principle of legality in criminal matters, which is enshrined both in the Constitution and in several treaties.