X and X v Prosecutor

On By In Supreme Court
Supreme Court, X and X v Prosecutor, Nr. C.20.0482.N, 26 February 2021

In this case, two applicants instituted an appeal in cassation against a judgement of the Ghent Court of Appeal of 28 March 2019 denying their request for recognition as stateless persons. According to the Court of Appeal the applicants could not be regarded as stateless persons because they were considered as Palestinian nationals by the State of Palestine in accordance with applicable law. As the Palestinian law referred to was not specified in the judgment itself, the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment because of an inadequate statement of reasons.

Download
AGENTSCHAP INTEGRATIE & INBURGERING, “HvC verbreekt arrest dat naar Palestijnse nationaliteitswetteving verwijst”, 2021, www.agii.be/nieuws/hvc-verbreekt-arrest-dat-naar-palestijnse-nationaliteitswetgeving-verwijst.

X {Ex parte}

On By In First Instance Tribunal
Liège First Instance Tribunal, X, Nr. 20/770/B, 5 February 2021

The Tribunal assessed wether a man of Palestinian origin, as well as his underage children, could be recognized as stateless persons. According to the Tribunal, the inconsistent Belgian case-law on the question whether Palestine qualified as a State rendered it necessary to refer to the position of the organ constitutionally competent in the matter, i.e., the Belgian federal government. In light of the government’s refusal to recognize Palestine as a State, any attempt at indirect recognition of Palestinian statehood by the judiciary was in vain. The Tribunal accordingly confirmed the applicants should be regarded as being stateless in the sense of the 1954 New York Convention.

Download

Prosecutor v A.S., N.N. et al.

On By In First Instance Tribunal
Antwerp First Instance Tribunal, Prosecutor v A.S., N.N. et al, Nr. 20/A/3763, 4 February 2021

The Tribunal of First Instance imposes heavy prison sentences on four individuals of Iranian origin, including an diplomat accredited to the Iranian embassy in Austria, for planning a terrorist attack. The Tribunal finds that the diplomat cannot invoke immunity from jurisdiction under Article 31 VCDR, since this only applies in the bilateral relationship between the sending and the receiving State. In addition, the diplomat was not in transit in the sense of Article 40 VCDR. This provision must be read restrictively, and does not extend to situations where a diplomat is on a holiday abroad. The Tribunal also observes that the activities of which the diplomat is accused cannot form part of the normal diplomatic function, and that it cannot have been the intention of the States parties to the VCDR for such acts to be covered by diplomatic immunity.

According to the Tribunal, the immunity of Iran itself is not triggered since Iran or its secret service are not a party to the proceedings. With respect to the residual functional immunity of the diplomat as a State organ, the Tribunal asserts that such immunity extends only to acts performed in the exercise of official functions. The planning of a terrorist attack can be presumed not to be part of such tasks. Nor did Iran claim responsibility for this conduct. In any case, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that there is an exception to State immunity for commercial acts, but not for crimes against humanity that flout the basic right to life.

Download

Sipos Szabo v NATO and the Kingdom of Belgium

On By In Labour Court of Appeal
Brussels Labour Court of Appeal, Sipos Szabo v North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Kingdom of Belgium, 2018/AB/22, Nr. 28 October 2020
ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2019:ARR.20190207.11

The case concerned a medical doctor who claimed an entitlement under NATO’s Civilian Personnel Regulation (CPR) to an indefinite contract and had brought its claims before NATO’s Administrative Tribunal. NATO’s Tribunal ruled it had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims because the plaintiff concluded successive sui generis contracts that NATO was entitled to offer. Those contracts did not bring the plaintiff within the realm of the CPR, while the jurisdiction of NATO’s Tribunal is limited to alleged breaches of the CPR. The plaintiff brought her claims before Belgian courts, host nation of NATO, and argued on the basis of ECtHR case-law relating to the interplay between the right to a judge and International Organizations’ immunity that NATO’s immunity must be set aside because she did not have access to an effective remedy within NATO’s legal system as NATO’s Tribunal declared itself without jurisdiction and arguably did not consider the merits of her claims. NATO’s immunity was upheld before Brussels’ Labour Tribunal and, on appeal, by the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal which agreed with NATO that the plaintiff’s argument was based on a wrong premise, that NATO’s internal justice system was effective and independent, that the plaintiff was heard and received an articulated legal answer to her claims following due process.

Download

Baghouri et al. v Belgium

On By In Court of Appeal
Brussels Court of Appeal, Baghouri et al. v Kingdom of Belgium, Nr. 2020/******/C, 21 October 2020

The case concerns an appeal against two Orders of the Tribunal of First Instance of 11 December 2019 and 25 February 2020, ordering the Belgian State to provide consular assistance to several children held at the Al-Hol refugee/detention camp in Syria, as well as to provide necessary identity and travel documents enabling them to travel to Belgium.

The appellants seek reform of the contested Order inasmuch as it states that they are not eligible for consular assistance since they cannot invoke Article 9 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC) in order not to be separated from their children against their will. They claim that the Order is not in the best interests of the children and violates the CRC, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 22bis of the Constitution. However, the Court of Appeal finds this claim to be unfounded as the parents are not eligible for consular assistance pursuant to Article 83 Consular Code. This is so because they travelled to a region undergoing armed conflict despite a negative travel advice from the Belgian authorities.

Download