Articles

Settlement in criminal proceedings partially annulled

Settlement in criminal proceedings partially annulled

Settlement in criminal proceedings partially annulled

07.06.2016 BE law

Last Thursday (June 2nd) an important decision of the Belgian Constitutional Court partially annulled article 216bis § 2 of the Code of criminal procedure with regard to the settlement and the resulting end of criminal proceedings. The Court stated that article 216bis § 2 violates a set of fundamental rights, including the right to a fair trial and the principle of judicial independence.

Also available in Dutch and in French

The Constitutional Court received four prejudicial questions that were posed by the Chamber of Indictment of the Court of Appeal of Gent in a case regarding suspicious financial transactions. The defendant stated himself being discriminated by the Public Prosecutor, who in application of the articles 216bis and 216ter of the Code of criminal procedure could decide whether or not to grant a settlement, even after criminal proceedings were started and without any judicial verification of the decision’s justification.

The decision of the Constitutional Court stated that §2 of article 216bis violates articles 10 and 11 of the Belgian Constitution, combined with the right to a fair trial and the principle of judicial independence as stated by article 151 of the Constitution, article 6.1 of the European Convention of Human Rights and article 14,1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as far as it grants the public prosecutor the power to end criminal proceedings that were already initiated or that were already pending before the Courts, by means of settlement, without any actual judicial verification.

The Constitutional Court does not criticize the fact that the Public Prosecutor has the possibility to settle a case that has already been initiated or is already pending before the Courts, but questions arise with the lack of substantive judicial verification. The fact that a judge merely has to verify whether all formal conditions for a settlement are satisfied, is, according to the Constitutional Court, not sufficient. According to the Constitutional Court the judge should be able to properly verify the settlement concluded by the Public Prosecutor, including the proportionality and the opportunity of such settlement.

The annulment of article 216bis §2 will not have any influence on settlements concluded and validated in the past: the decision will not change anything in cases where the settlement has already lead to closure of the criminal proceedings. The Constitutional Court states that the article will remain valid until the decision has been published in the Belgian Official Journal, which could take a few weeks. After the decision has been published, it will be up to Minister of Justice Koen Geens to amend the article and to extend the judicial verification during settlement proceedings.

Constitutional Court - Decision 2016/83 (French version / Dutch version)

Team

Related news

11.04.2019 NL law
Double roles in attributing knowledge

Short Reads - The knowledge of a person who in fact runs a company can be attributed to the company if the sole director and shareholder is a 'straw man', the Supreme Court confirmed in a judgment of 29 March 2019. The rules by the Supreme Court are not revolutionary or even new. But circumstances essential for the attribution of knowledge are ignored. The double role played by the 'man in charge' raises questions about how to apply the rules as identified by the Supreme Court to the facts

Read more

28.03.2019 NL law
European Parliament votes in favour of representative actions for consumers

Short Reads - On 26 March 2019 the European Parliament approved an amended version of the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on representative actions for the protection of collective interests of consumers, following a debate on 25 March 2019. The Directive will become law once the Council and the European Parliament reach an agreement on the European Commission's proposal. The Council has not yet been able to adopt a position on the Directive, meaning that the Directive will most likely be considered again after the ­­­European elections in May 2019 by a different European Parliament

Read more

10.04.2019 NL law
Damage due to a defective driveway and the Dutch twenty year limitation period: When does limitation start in case of a continuous event that causes damage?

Short Reads - On 22 March 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court ruled (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:412) that the strict liability for buildings (opstalaansprakelijkheid) is not linked to a specific damaging act but to a damaging condition, as referred to in section 6:174 DCC. Therefore, there is no reason to regard a damaging act as an 'event that caused damage' as referred to in section 3:310 DCC concerning the limitation period for claims for damages.

Read more

04.04.2019 NL law
European Court of Justice: actio pauliana is covered by jurisdiction rule of forum of contract. A judgment with foreseeable consequences?

Short Reads - Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor's possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring