The role of the Belgian constitutional court in the legislative process

Statute Law Review

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 22-40

  Popelier, Patricia ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27644454802     PISSN: 01443593     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/slr/hmi004     Document Type: Article

References (127)

1. Quoted by A. Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (London: MacMillan, 1968) at p. 43.
2. European Court Human Rights, I. v. UK, 11 July 2002.
3. Cass. 27 May 1971, Pass. 1971, I, 886. In all probability the Court was much influenced by the case law of the European Court of Justice, stressing the supranational character of the European Community and the superiority of its regulations; however its rule was not limited to European Community Law.
4. Special Majority Law of 9 March 2003, Official Gazette 11 April 2003. The Belgian Official Gazette is published on www.staatsblad.be in Dutch and French.
5. For Germany, see C. Gusy, 'Das Grundgesetz als normative Gesetzgebungslehre?' (1985) Z.R.P. at 291-299
6. J. Lücke, 'Die Allgemeine Gesetzgebungsordnung' (2001) Zeitschrift für Gesetzgebung at 1-49
7. Ch.-A. Morand, 'Les exigences de la méthode législative et du droit constitutionnel portant sur la formation de la législation' (1988) Dr. Et Soc. at 391-407.
8. It can only review laws, decrees and Brussels ordonnances to rules attributing competences to the federal state, communities or regions, and to title II, art. 170, 172 and 190 of the Belgian Constitution (fundamental rights).
9. The principal decision of the Court of Jusitice was, Cases C-6/90 and 9/ 90, Francovich and Bonifaci, Jur. 1991, I-5357.
10. In some cases there is even a positive obligation to enact penal legislation, e.g. Hadjokostovat t. Bulgary, 4 December 2003.
11. The Court is not competent to judge a legislative omission as such, Court of Arbitration No. 10/1992, 13 February 1992, Official Gazette 14 March 1992. However, via the review of a law or decree, it regularly establishes that a legislative lacuna is unconstitutional.
12. In Portugal and Brazil, there is even a constitutional ground to do this, see art. 382 Portugese Constitution and art. 103 §2 and art. 5-LXX Brazilian Constitution. In Germany art. 31 (2) of the law on the BundesVerfassungsgericht provides for a legal basis.
13. D. Ribes, 'Existe-t-il un droit à la norme? Contrôle de constitutionnalité et omission législative' (1999) Revue belge de droit constitutionnel at 238-247.
14. For example Court of Arbitration No. 134/2003, 8 October 2003, Official Gazette 19 January 2003. The judgements of the Court of Arbitration are also published in Dutch and French at www.arbrage.be
15. Or, more accurately, the principle of the Rechtsstaat, Council of State, nv Ondernemingen Jan De Nul and nv Envisan, no 70.402, 17 December 1997, Council of State, Van Damme, no 72.464, 16 March 1998, Council of State, nv Ondernemingen Jan De Nul and nv Envisan, no. 73.266, 24 April 1998, see www.raadvst-consetat.be
16. Court of Arbitration, No. 89/2004, 19 May 2004. Another discrimination can be found, because the law recognises appeal against administrative acts of legislative bodies and their organs only if they relate to public supply contracts or members of their personnel.
17. The courts accept that the State can be held responsible for legislative faults and omissions, see e.g. Rb Brussels, 17 March 1997, (1997-1998) Rechtskundig Weekblad at 257,
18. Rb Liège, 17 November 2000, (2001) Journal des Tribuneaux at 299,
19. Brussels, 7 December 2000, (2001) Journal des Tribuneaux at 385,
20. Rb. Brussels, 6 November 2001, (2002) Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Burgerlijk Recht at 15,
21. Brussels, (2002) Tijdschrift voor Belgisch Burgerlijk Recht at 523.
22. Court of Arbitration No. 77/1996, 18 December 1996, Official Gazette 8 February 1997
23. Court of Arbitration No. 116/1999, 10 November 1999, Official Gazette 8 September 1999.
24. Court of Arbitration No. 52/2004, 24 March 2004.
25. Except for laws approving international agreements: Here the term is sixty days.
26. Court of Arbitration No. 87/2000, 5 July 2000, Official Gazette 4 August 2000,
27. Court of Arbitration No. 158/2001, 11 December 2001, Official Gazette 29 December 2001,
28. Court of Arbitration No. 46/2003, 10 April 2003, Official Gazette 28 July 2003,
29. Court of Arbitration No. 47/2003, 4 June 2003, Official Gazette 4 August 2003
30. and Court of Arbitration No. 48/2003, 4 June 2003, Official Gazette 4 August 2003.
31. Court of Arbitration No. 102/1999, 30 September 1999, Official Gazette 12 October 1999.
32. A law of 26 August 2003, Official Gazette 26 September 2003 postponed to 31 July 2005 the coming into force of the prohibition for international events.
33. However, the Courts can review ordonnances to all articles of the Constitution and the Special Brussels Law in so far as the Court of Arbitration has no competence for review.
34. Established jurisdiction. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 45/1992, 18 June 1992, Official Gazette 17 July 1992,
35. Court of Arbitration No. 18/2004, 29 January 2004, Official Gazette 24 February 2004.
36. Court of Arbitration, decisions of 2 February 1995, Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10/1995, www.arbitrage.be
37. Art. 4, last sentence Belgian Constitution.
38. But also e.g. for the organization of the Court of Arbitration (art. 142 Belgian Constitution) or the competences of the Council for Justice (art. 151 §3 Belgian Constitution).
39. See A. Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of majoritarian and consensus government in twenty-one countries (New Haven: Connecticut, 1984) at p. 229.
40. Court of Arbitration No. 18/90, 23 May 1990, Official Gazette 27 July 1990,
41. Court of Arbitration No. 17/95, 16 February 1995, Official Gazette 11 March 1995.
42. It does not check whether the special majority has been established in a correct way, Court of Arbitration no 35/2003, 25 March 2003, Official Gazette 15 April 2003, about the question whether the one German Community senator can be counted to attain the 2/3 majority.
43. Court of Arbitration No. 129/2002, 10 July 2002, Official Gazette 13 July 2002.
44. Court of Arbitration No. 94/2003, 2 July 2003, Official Gazette 11 August 2003.
45. U. Karpen, 'Giving Effect to European Fundamental Rights' 23 Stat L Rev 200 (2002).
46. European Court of Human Rights, Hatton, 8 July 2003, www.echr.coe.int, see especially considerations 99, 104, 128.
47. Court of Arbitration No. 51/2003, 30 April 2003, Official Gazette 12 June 2003.
48. Court of Arbitration No. 1/1993, 7 January 1993, Official Gazette 19 January 1993.
49. Court of Arbitration No. 51/2003, above n 25.
50. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 59/2004, 31 March 2004, Official Gazette 3 May 2004.
51. Court of Arbitration No. 134/98, 16 December 1998, Official Gazette 5 January 1999.
52. Court of Arbitration No. 7/95, 2 February 1995, Official Gazette, 1 March 1995.
53. Above n 19.
54. European Court of Human Rights, Mastromatteo, 24 October 2002.
55. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 42/97, 14 July 1997, Official Gazette 3 September 1997,
56. Court of Arbitration No. 136/2000, 21 December 2000, Official Gazette, 23 January 2001.
57. Court of Arbitration No. 56/93, 8 July 1993, Official Gazette, 27 August 1993. The Court gave the legislator a 'reasonable' time to adjust a whole complex of legislation. The whole structure in labour law, institutions and labour unions was based on this distinction, which makes the reform a complex and delicate enterprise. The Court's decision has until now not been completely observed.
58. European Court of Human Rights, Wessels-Bergervoet, 4 June 2002.
59. European Court of Human Rights, Rees, 17 october 1986, Publ.E.C.H.R. Series A, no 106,
60. European Court of Human Rights, Cossey, 27 September 1990, Publ.E.C.H.R. Series A, no 184.
61. European Court of Human Rights, I., 11 July 2002, European Court of Human Rights, Christine Goodwin, 11 July 2002.
62. Court of Arbitration No. 54/2004, 24 March 2004.
63. In Belgium this is called the 'Waleffe-doctrine', after the Waleffe case, Cass. 20 April 1950, Pas. 1950, I, 560.
64. Court of Arbitration No. 79/2004, 12 May 2004.
65. L. Fuller, The Morality of Law (revised edn, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973) at p. 262.
66. See especially I. C. Van der Vlies, Het wetsbegrip en beginselen van behoorlijke regelgeving (Gravenhage: VUGA, 1984) at p. 182.
67. See about these influences and their reception in Belgium, P. Popelier, 'Legal Certainty and Principles of Proper Law Making', 2 Eur J L Reform 321-324 (2000).
68. I wrote about legal certainty as a principle of proper law making in 'Legal Certainty and Principles of proper Law Making', above n 47
69. and Rechtszekerheid als beginsel voor behoorlijke regelgeving (Antwerp: Intersentia, 1997)
70. I reported about the other principles of proper law making developed in jurisdiction in 'Beginselen van behoorlijke wetgeving in de rechtspraak', (1995) Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht at pp. 1049-1114
71. and De wet juridisch bekeken (Bruges, Die Keure, 2004) at pp. 39-68.
72. Court of Arbitration No. 159/2001, 19 December 2001, Official Gazette 15 January 2000 (2nd edn),
73. Court of Arbitration No. 40/2003, 9 April 2003, Official Gazette 23 April 2003,
74. Court of Arbitration No. 73/2004, 5 May 2004, Official Gazette 4 June 2004.
75. For these developments see above n 50.
76. M. Childs, 'Constitutional Review and Underinclusive Legislation', PL 655 (1998)
77. referring also to D. Beatty, 'Law and Politics: Courts and the separation of powers', 44 Am J Comp L 131-150 (1996).
78. Recently the Court suggested that also in matters not reserved to the formal legislator, the essence should be regulated in primary law, Court of Arbitration No. 31/2004, Official Gazette 16 March 2004. It remains however unclear what differentiates these matters from explicitly reserved matters.
79. Amongst others, Court of Arbitration, No. 64/1995, 13 September 1995, Official Gazette 30 September 1995,
80. Court of Arbitration, No. 117/2002, 3 July 2002, Official Gazette 17 September 2002.
81. Amongst others, Court of Arbitration, No. 45/1994, 1 June 1994, Official Gazette 2 July 1994,
82. Court of Arbitration, No. 38/1999, 30 March 1999, Official Gazette 12 June 1999.
83. Court of Arbitration No. 56/2002, 28 March 2002, Official Gazette 13 April 2002.
84. See especially Court of Arbitration, No. 18/1998, 18 February 1998, Official Gazette 3 April 1998.
85. Court of Arbitration, No. 100/2003, 22 July 2003, Official Gazette 11 August 2003. Reference made to the normal law making procedure which has taken up too much time, is not accepted by the Court as an exceptional circumstance.
86. See especially Court of Arbitration No. 25/1990, 5 July 1990, Official Gazette 6 October 1990,
87. Court of Arbitration No. 36/1990, 22 November 1990, Official Gazette 28 December 1990,
88. Court of Arbitration No. 10/1993, Official Gazette 9 March 1993.
89. Court of Arbitration No. 10/1993, 11 February 1993, Official Gazette 9 March 1993.
90. See also M. Akehurst, 'The application of general principles of law by the Court of Justice of the European Communities', BYIL 38-40 (1981).
91. Established jurisdiction, see ECJ 15 December 1987, Case 325/85, Ireland/ Commission, Jur. 1987, 5041 and Case 326/85, Netherlands/Commission, Jur. 1987, 5143.
92. European Court Human Rights, Rakevich v. Russia, 28 October 2003.
93. It is one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law, European Court Human Rights, Assanidze v. Georgia, 8 April 2004.
94. Established jurisdiction, see first ECHR, Sunday Times, 26 April 1979, Publ.E.C.H.R. Series A, No. 30.
95. For a more shaded analysis see P. Popelier, above n 49.
96. Court of Arbitration No. 106/2004, 16 June 2004, Official Gazette 2 July 2004.
97. Ibid.
98. See for a more detailed analysis in P. Popelier, above n 49.
99. Court of Arbitration No 45/1996, 12 July 1996, Official Gazette 27 July 1996, ECHR, SW, 22 November 1995, Publ.ECHR, Series A, No 335-B.
100. See more details about these ten criteria and illustrative case law, P. Popelier, above n 42
101. a more elaborated analysis, in Dutch however, is to be found in my doctoral thesis, Rechtszekerheid als beginsel voor behoorlijke regelgeving (Antwerp, Intersentia, 1997) at p. 663.
102. Especially retroactive laws do not always stand this test. See, for example, Court of Arbitration No. 32/1993, 22 April 1993, Official Gazette 20 May 1993,
103. Court of Arbitration No. 154/2002, 6 November 2002, Official Gazette 24 February 2003,
104. Court of Arbitration No. 183/2002, 11 December 2002, Official Gazette 18 March 2002.
105. See also European Court of Justice, 21 March 1991, case 314/89, Rauh, Jur. 1993, 1647.
106. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 30/1996, 15 May 1996, Official Gazette 6 June 1996.
107. Court of Arbitration No 32/1997, 27 May 1997, Official Gazette, 31 May 1997,
108. Court of Arbitration No. 47/1997, 14 July 1997, Official Gazette, 7 August 1997.
109. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 30/1996, 15 May 1996, Official Gazette, 6 June 1996. On the other hand, once that period of time is expired a person can expect new legislation to replace a temporal or experimental law,
110. Court of Arbitration No. 40/1995, 6 June 1995, Official Gazette 4 August 1995.
111. For that reason, the retroactivity of interpretative laws is not as such contrary to the principle of legal certainty. However, the interpretation may not be completely new; the interpretation given by the interpretative law must give a possible reading of the interpreted law. See Court of Arbitration No. 189/2002, 19 December 2002, Official Gazette 15 January 2003,
112. Court of Arbitration No. 160/2003, 10 December 2003, Official Gazette, 31 December 2003.
113. Court of Arbitration No. 136/2000, 21 December 2000, Official Gazette 23 January 2001.
114. Court of Arbitration No. 6/1998, 21 January 1998, Official Gazette 4 April 1998,
115. Court of Arbitration, No. 106/2002, 26 June 2002, Official Gazette 12 September 2002.
116. K. Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies (London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969) at p. 225.
117. Above n 51.
118. Court of Arbitration, No. 159/2001, A.11.
119. Reference to the official report, the concrete procedure to establish facts and figures for each special domain in the pharmaceutical sector.
120. The weighing up to budgetary objectives, the temporal limitation.
121. The lawgiver himself has established the conditions and the procedure to be followed.
122. Law 29 July 1991 concerning the explicit motivation of administrative acts, Official Gazette 12 September 1991.
123. Council of State, division administration, Reno Amusement Park, No. 43.527, 29 June 1993.
124. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 27/1994, 22 March 1994, Official Gazette 31 March 1994,
125. Court of Arbitration No. 37/1996, 13 June 1996, Official Gazette 29 June 1996.
126. E.g. Court of Arbitration No. 45/2001, 18 April 2001, Official Gazette 4 May 2001.
127. See also L. Mader, L'évaluation législative (Geneva: Payot Lausanne, 1985) at pp. 100-101.