Judgments

Having satisfied itself that the conditions set forth in Section 11 of the special law of 6 January 1989 for a law to be suspend had been met, the Court suspended a law which made no provision for transitional measures for people who, prior to the entry into force of the law, worked as psychotherapists, and which had serious consequences for those people and their patients, for want of foreseeability.

The Court has no authority to review a law with regard to legislative standards. It does, however, when examining compliance with the constitutional rules of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution), take into account the general principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law embodied, inter alia, in Article 15 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 2 of the Criminal Code.Unlike being banned from driving, the obligation to pass theoretical, practical, medical and psychological tests in order to be allowed to drive again after having been banned by a court judgment is not a criminal penalty but rather a preventive safety measure in the general interest.

The simple fact that the authorities impose restrictions on property rights in the general interest does not oblige them to pay compensation, but, in the event of a serious breach of the right to protection of one’s property, such as a refusal of permission to build on it or to subdivide it, such a burden must not be imposed on an owner without reasonable compensation for the loss of value of the land.In certain conditions compensation for a loss sustained as a result of planning policy will be payable to offset the effects of a ban on building on or dividing up a property, or a change in planning regulations affecting the use to which the property may be put. It is for the relevant regulatory authority to determine the conditions in which such compensation should be awarded, subject to the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court as to the reasonable and proportionate nature of the action taken.

When issuing legislative decrees in the socio-economic field the authorities enjoy a wide margin of appreciation. In the light of the aims they pursue in order to protect animal welfare, they might reasonably consider that differences exist between the possession of animals for the sole purpose of fur production and the possession of animals for other purposes, and that those differences justify prohibiting the possession of animals solely for their fur.

Members of Parliament are not bound by statements made prior to elections.A decrease in the purchasing power of persons receiving salaries, remuneration and social benefits affected by variations in the «flat health index» (see below) may be justified by aims pursued by the legislative authorities in the general interest.It is not contrary to the principles of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution) for a decrease in salary as a result of a «jump» and «block» of the flat health index to affect only those categories of people whose income is pegged to that index.In determining the scope of freedom of association (Article 27 of the Constitution), regard must also be had to Article 11 ECHR, which is comparable in scope.The jumping and blocking of the flat health index amounts to interference by the authorities with the right of collective bargaining to determine salary levels. This interference must be in compliance with the conditions laid down in Article 11.2 ECHR.

Interference with the exercise of the right to respect for privacy through the processing of personal data must be reasonably justified and proportionate to the aims pursued by the legislation. In determining whether it is proportionate, account must be taken of whether or not the relevant regulations include safeguards designed to prevent abuses in the processing of personal data. The provision on the composition of the supervisory board was accordingly partially set aside insofar as the majority of its members were appointed in their capacity as members of the local and federal police.Moreover, if the principle of proportionality is to be respected, the opinion of the supervisory board must be considered binding, the deletion of personal data and related information must be the rule and archiving the exception.Lastly, unless otherwise expressly provided for, the police are required to remove from databases any data which no longer satisfies the criteria of adequacy, relevance and non-excessiveness. There is an obligation to delete data and there are maximum deadlines for unlimited access. The authorisation by the «competent member of the legal service» which is required for processing specific personal data may not be interpreted as meaning that authorisation by a member of the public prosecutor’s department suffices.

If a person whose property is being expropriated has himself polluted the plot concerned, the Court which has to determine the provisional compensation for expropriation may take account of the costs of cleaning up the site.However, if the person whose property is expropriated did not cause the pollution and is not under an obligation to clean up the site, under Article 16 of the Constitution, the Court may not deduct the costs for cleaning up the site when determining the provisional compensation for expropriation.

The State Prosecutor’s Office has discretionary power to offer, or not to offer, a plea bargain or to accept, or not to accept, a proposal of this kind which is made by an indicted individual. Indicted individuals do not have the right to demand a plea bargain.A plea bargain which leads to the termination of criminal proceedings can take place only where the main proceedings in the case are conducted before an investigating judge or a criminal judge provided that the investigating courts or the criminal court can exercise sufficient judicial review as to the merits, with regard to both the proportionality and the legality of the envisaged plea bargain, and provided that reasons for the decision to enter into a plea bargain are given so that this review can be undertaken.

A difference in treatment between certain categories of persons which results from the application of different procedural rules in different circumstances is not in itself discriminatory.The legislature has discretion to decide which court is best placed to decide on a given type of dispute.

The principle of legality in criminal cases requires the legislature to state, in terms which are sufficiently precise and clear and provide legal certainty, which acts are penalised so that, on the one hand, a person who adopts a certain behaviour can satisfactorily assess in advance what the criminal consequence of this behaviour will be, and, on the other, so that the Court will not be given excessive discretion.However, the law does grant courts a certain margin of discretion.Equality between women and men is a fundamental value of democratic society which is protected by Article 11bis of the Constitution, by Article 14 ECHR and by various international instruments. More specifically, efforts to combat gender-based violence are a matter of current interest to both the European Union and the Council of Europe.Partial annulment (the word “essentiellement” in the French version of article 2) – Dismissal of remainder of the actions subject to the interpretation referred to in B.23.2.

A person or group only has an interest in the annulment of a law if he/it can be affected directly and unfavourably by the disputed provision.An action brought by several citizens and non-profit organisations against the law whereby the Belgian Parliament ratified the 2012 European Stability Pact was inadmissible. The fact that austerity measures can be imposed on the basis of the Stability Pact is not sufficient to demonstrate a sufficiently individualised connection between the personal situation of the applicants and the provisions that they disputed.The Stability Pact not only creates an inflexible budgetary framework, but it also entrusts certain powers to the institutions of the European Union, which is permitted by the Constitution. However, under no circumstances can there be any interference with the national identity inherent in the fundamental political and constitutional structures or with the fundamental values of the protection that the Constitution affords to legal persons.

To protect the environment, lawmakers can impose restrictions on property rights.However, by virtue of the principle of equality between citizens in respect of public charges, an authority cannot, without granting compensation, impose charges which exceed those that must be borne by a private individual in the general interest. If necessary, the court shall assess whether compensation should be awarded.The Court annulled the legislative provisions which did not provide for public participation in the development of plans concerning the environment (Aarhus Convention).

Where lawmakers decide to introduce a new regulation, it is for them to judge whether it is necessary or expedient to accompany it with transitional provisions.It is not discriminatory that the new possibility of bringing a class action for breaches of certain European legal standards and specific laws governing consumer protection is at present limited.Nor is it contrary to the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution) that the right to bring a class action seeking redress should be reserved for approved organisations and a very specific public service.However, it is contrary to the constitutional principle of equality and non-discrimination ( Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution), taken in conjunction with the provisions of European law, to deprive organisations in other Member States of this possibility. It is for the courts to remedy this deficiency by permitting class actions brought by such organisations.

If an action to challenge paternity brought by a child who has allowed his de facto filial status to continue after learning that his mother’s husband is not his biological father is dismissed due to the existence of this de facto status, this completely prevents the court from taking the interests of all parties concerned into account, which is contrary to the right to respect for private life (Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 8 ECHR).In legal proceedings to determine filiation, the universal right to know one’s filiation must, in principle, take precedence over the interests of family peace and of legal certainty of family ties.

If Article 1382 of the Civil Code is interpreted as generally opposing awards of damages exceeding one euro where a non-pecuniary interest of a legal entity is interfered with due to obstruction of its collective purpose, an exception is made to the principles of concrete assessment and full compensation without objective and reasonable justification. Such a limitation would also disproportionately affect the interests of the environmental protection organisations concerned, which play an important role in safeguarding the right to the protection of a healthy environment, as recognised by the Constitution.

Unlike the right to have a name, the right to give one’s surname to one’s child cannot be regarded as a fundamental right. When regulating the assignment of surnames, lawmakers therefore have broad discretionary power, provided that they respect the principle of equality and non-discrimination, combined with the right to respect for private and family life.The decision by lawmakers to give preference to the parents' freedom to choose a child’s surname makes it necessary to determine how a surname will be assigned if the parents disagree or do not make any choice. However, in deciding that the child must take the father’s surname alone in this situation, lawmakers are treating the child’s father and mother in a discriminatory fashion.