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

04.06.2019 NL law
Dutch Supreme Court clarifies evidentiary rules concerning signatures and signed documents

Short Reads - In two recent decisions, the Dutch Supreme Court has clarified the evidentiary power of signed documents. If the signatory unambiguously denies that the signature on the document is his or hers or claims that another party has tampered with the signature (for instance, through forgery or copying a signature from one document and pasting it in another), it is up to the party invoking the signed document to prove the signature's authenticity (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:572).

Read more

24.05.2019 NL law
European regulatory initiatives for online platforms and search engines

Short Reads - As part of the digital economy, the rise of online platforms and search engines raises all kinds of legal questions. For example, do bicycle couriers qualify as employees who are entitled to ordinary labour law protections? Or should they be considered self-employed (see our Stibbe website on this issue)? The rise of online platforms also triggers more general legal questions on the relationship between online platforms and their users. Importantly, the European Union is becoming increasingly active in this field.

Read more

03.06.2019 NL law
Toerekening van kennis van groepsvennootschappen

Articles - In de praktijk doet zich vaak de vraag voor of kennis die aanwezig is binnen de ene vennootschap kan worden toegerekend aan een andere vennootschap binnen hetzelfde concern. In dit artikel verkent Branda Katan zowel de dogmatische grondslag als de praktische toepassing van een dergelijke toerekening. Zij concludeert dat het ‘Babbel-criterium’ (heeft in de gegeven omstandigheden de kennis X in het maatschappelijk verkeer te gelden als kennis van Y?) geschikt is voor het toerekenen van kennis in concernverband.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Arbitral award obligating Ecuador to prevent enforcement of USD 8.6 billion order does not violate public order

Short Reads - Due to environmental damage as a result of oil extraction in the Ecuadorian Amazon, oil company Chevron was ordered to pay USD 8.6 billion to Ecuadorian citizens. In order to claim release of liability, Chevron and Texaco initiated arbitration proceedings against Ecuador. Arbitral awards ordered Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment, leaving the Ecuadorian plaintiffs temporarily unable to enforce their judgment. According to the Supreme Court (12 April 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:565), these arbitral awards did however not violate public order.

Read more

28.05.2019 NL law
Dutch court: insufficient substantiation? No follow-on cartel damages action

Short Reads - Dutch courts are forcing claimants (including claims vehicles) to be well-prepared before initiating follow-on actions. The Amsterdam District Court in the Dutch trucks cartel follow-on proceedings recently ruled that claimants – specifically CDC, STCC, Chapelton, K&D c.s. and STEF c.s. – had insufficiently substantiated their claims. These claimants now have until 18 September 2019 to provide sufficient facts regarding transactions that – according to them – were affected by the cartel. Preparation should thus be key for cartel damages actions.

Read more

01.05.2019 NL law
Termination of an agreement: compelling grounds?

Short Reads - When does a reason given for termination of an agreement qualify as a compelling ground? That was the central question in the Dutch Supreme Court's decision of 29 March 2019 (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:446). Depending on the nature of the agreement and the circumstances of the case, termination may only take place under certain conditions, e.g. only on compelling grounds. 

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