Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Litigating the Rights of the Child pp 105–122Cite as

Belgium

The Convention of the Rights of the Child in Belgian Case Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1570 Accesses

Abstract

Since the entry into force in Belgium of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), its provisions have been invoked by tribunals and courts in about 250–300 judicial decisions. A major obstacle in Belgian doctrine is the denial of direct effect to a number of CRC provisions. The CRC has played a gap-filling role in the absence of domestic legislation, particularly in regard to the right of children to express their views and have access to court. In the area of migration, it has performed a strong corrective role towards the legislator and a legitimising one towards the judicial bodies. The CRC often plays a subsidiary role in the absence of domestic legislation or relevant provisions in the European Convention on Human Rights. The CRC is certainly not the only legal reference text on children’s rights; nonetheless, the full potential of the CRC and the interpretative work of the CRC Committee has not yet been fully capitalised upon by Belgian judicial bodies.

The UNICEF Chair in Children’s Rights is a joint-venture of the University of Antwerp and UNICEF Belgium. UNICEF respects the academic freedom of the chair-holder. Opinions expressed by the chair-holder do not commit UNICEF. I would like to thank Steven Van Raemdonck for offering research assistance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Belgium is a federal state with six main federated entities: the Flemish Community and the Flemish Region; the French Community; the Walloon Region; the German-speaking Community; and the Brussels Capital Region.

  2. 2.

    Senaeve rejects direct effect for a number of provisions on the basis of their wording, that is, when in his view they are only imposing obligations on States parties (art. 4, art. 11 and 26 CRC).

  3. 3.

    CRC Committee (1995). Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Belgium, para. 5.

  4. 4.

    Court of Cassation 4 November 1999. Judgments are available in German, French and Dutch on http://www.const-court.be/ (last accessed 27 August 2013). Summaries in English of the Constitutional Court’s case law can be found on http://www.const-court.be/en/common/home.html. Accessed 27 August 2013.

  5. 5.

    Council of State 29 May 2013, Judgments of the Council of State can be found on http://www.raadvst-consetat.be. Accessed 27 August 2013.

  6. 6.

    Criminal Tribunal Liège 1 March 1994, Journal du droit des jeunes (hereafter JDJ) 1994, no. 136, 46.

  7. 7.

    Labour tribunal Brussels 22 June 1994, JDJ 1996, no. 155, 230–234.

  8. 8.

    Council of State 19 March 1997, http://www.raadvst-consetat.be.

  9. 9.

    For an in-depth discussion, see Robert (2006) as far as civil procedures are concerned, and Veny and De Vos (2006) with regard to administrative procedures.

  10. 10.

    Not granted: Civil Tribunal (Summary Proceedings) Liège 7 March 2003, Revue trimestrielle de droit familial (hereafter RTDF) 2005, 1175–1177. Granted: Summary Proceedings Leuven 16 September 2010, NieuwJuridischWeekblad (hereafter NJW) 2011, 236.

  11. 11.

    Court of Cassation 15 September 2010, RechtskundigWeekblad (hereafter RW) 2011–12, 1085–86; Court of Cassation 26 May 2010.

  12. 12.

    Court of Appeal Ghent 20 June 2005, Tijdschrift voor Jeugdrecht en Kinderrechten (hereafter TJK) 2007, 35–36.

  13. 13.

    For an extensive analysis, see Swennen and Caluwé (2006).

  14. 14.

    We therefore did not include cases in which children’s rights, but not the CRC itself, were referenced by the judicial body. Similarly, we excluded cases in which only (one of) the litigating parties invoked the CRC. We did, however, include cases in which the judicial body cited another judgment in which the CRC had been referenced, even though the judicial body directly concerned did not itself reference the CRC.

  15. 15.

    Constitutional Court 22 July 2003, no. 106/2003, B.4.2.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, Council of State 29 May 2013 with regard to articles 3, 8 and 20 of the CRC; Council of State 30 March 2005; Council of State 28 June 2001 with regard to article 9(1) of the CRC.

  17. 17.

    Aliens Appeal Board 4 May 2009, www.rvv-cce.be. Accessed 27 August 2013.

  18. 18.

    Aliens Appeal Board 18 May 2010, JDJ 2011, no. 307, 39–41.

  19. 19.

    Aliens Appeal Board 21 February 2013. Drawing on the CRC Committee’s General Comment No. 5, it concluded that article 3(1) of the CRC and article 24 of EU Charter also apply to measures that affect children indirectly, such as requests for family reunification by adults.

  20. 20.

    Aliens Appeal Board 29 May 2008, TJK 2009, 66–68.

  21. 21.

    Court of Cassation 4 November 1999. Judgments of the Court of Cassation can be found on http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be. Accessed 27 August 2013.

  22. 22.

    At least implicit recognition of direct effect article 3 in the Court of Cassation 16 January 2009 (personal contact); Cass 31 October 2006; 14 October 2003 (trial by adult court).

  23. 23.

    Court of Cassation 26 May 2008.

  24. 24.

    Court of Cassation 11 June 2010.

  25. 25.

    Court of Cassation 26 May 2008.

  26. 26.

    Court of Cassation 30 September 2011.

  27. 27.

    See, for example, Summary Proceedings Leuven 16 September 2010, NJW 2011, 236.

  28. 28.

    Court of Appeal Ghent 30 May 2005, Revue de droit judiciaire et de la preuve 2005, 313–315.

  29. 29.

    The view is that the article does not have direct effect if it is read so as to create a right to social assistance; it does have direct effect, however, in the sense that the judge has to take into consideration as a matter of priority the best interests of the child whenever he or she has a certain margin of appreciation. Labour Tribunal Brussels 9 December 2004, JDJ 2005, no. 244, 33–40 and SocialeKronieken (hereafter Soc.Kron.) 2005, 135–141.

  30. 30.

    In combination with art. 28 CRC, see CRC President Brussels 7 December 2004.

  31. 31.

    By negative-obligations dimensions I refer to those obligations that require a state to abstain from certain action, as opposed to positive obligations which do require a state to take action. See Labour Tribunal Huy 19 January 2005, JDJ 2005, no. 242, 29–35: the CRC prohibits a rule that allows parents and children to be separated without the possibility of invoking the best interests of the child.

  32. 32.

    Summary Proceedings Brussels 1 July 2005, JDJ 2007, no. 262, 37–40.

  33. 33.

    Labour Tribunal Bruges 12 November 2003, NJW 2004, 168–170.

  34. 34.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 19 May 2005, JDJ 2005, no. 246, 24–39.

  35. 35.

    Summary Proceedings Brussels 1 July 2005, JDJ 2007, no. 262, 37–40.

  36. 36.

    Court of Appeal Brussels 28 March 2006, Jurisprudence de Liège, Mons et Bruxelles (hereafter JLMB) 2007, 513–516.

  37. 37.

    Id.

  38. 38.

    Summary Proceedings Brussels 1 July 2005, JDJ 2007, no. 262, 37–40.

  39. 39.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 7 October 2004, Soc.Kron. 2005, 160–163.

  40. 40.

    Labour Court Mons 3 September 2009, unpublished (implicitly).

  41. 41.

    Youth Tribunal Antwerp 29 April 2003, NJW 2003, 1376–1377.

  42. 42.

    Tribunal of First Instance Antwerp 24 May 2004, Tijdschrift voor Vreemdelingenrecht(hereafter T.Vreemd.) 2004, 365–368.

  43. 43.

    Tribunal of First Instance Antwerp 24 May 2004, T.Vreemd. 2004, 365–368.

  44. 44.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 3 September 2007, Soc.Kron. 2010, 101–105.

  45. 45.

    Labour Tribunal Namur 28 April 2006, Soc.Kron. 2008, 233–235; Labour Court Antwerp 26 January 2005, Soc.Kron. 2005, 125–128.

  46. 46.

    President Brussels 17 November 2003, JDJ 2003, no. 230, 36–41.

  47. 47.

    Judge of the Peace Roeselare 5 July 2005, RW 2006–07, 693–695: with regard to art. 3 and 19 CRC; Labour Tribunal Antwerp 5 January 2005, Soc.Kron. 2005, 176–177 (standstill and minimum core).

  48. 48.

    Labour Tribunal Bruges 12 November 2003, NJW 2004, 168–170.

  49. 49.

    Labour Court Liège 26 October 2004, JDJ 2005, no. 241, 35–39.

  50. 50.

    Affirmative case law: Labour Tribunal Ghent 24 July 2003, OCMW-visies 2003, 61–67.

  51. 51.

    Labour Tribunal Antwerp 6 January 2003, T.Vreemd. 2003, 366–370. Contra: no direct effect, hence no subjective right to guaranteed family benefit: Labour Tribunal Ghent 24 July 2003, OCMW-visies 2003, 61–67.

  52. 52.

    Constitutional Court 22 July 2003, no. 106/2003.

  53. 53.

    Labour Tribunal Antwerp 22 November 2004, 157–159.

  54. 54.

    For an attempt to operationalise the system such that only children would benefit from it, see Labour Tribunal Kortrijk 4 February 2004, OCMW-visies 2004, 73–77.

  55. 55.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 19 May 2005, JDJ 2005, no. 246, 24–39.

  56. 56.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 1 July 2010, vreemdelingenrecht.be.

  57. 57.

    Labour Tribunal Antwerp 5 January 2005, Soc.Kron. 2005, 176–177.

  58. 58.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 29 October 2007, JDJ 2008, no. 275, 34–37.

  59. 59.

    Labour Court Ghent 24 June 2005, Journal des tribunaux de travail (hereafter JTT) 2005, 435–438.

  60. 60.

    Labour Court Antwerp 26 January 2005, Soc.Kron. 2005, 125–128.

  61. 61.

    Summary proceedings Labour Tribunal Charleroi 20 January 2012, JDJ 2012, no. 314, 40–41. This line of reasoning has been criticised.

  62. 62.

    Court of Arbitration 15 March 2006, no. 43/2006, B.5; Court of Arbitration 1 March 2006, no. 35/2006, B.4.

  63. 63.

    President Brussels 16 November 2005, JDJ 2006, no. 255, 49–52.

  64. 64.

    Tribunal of First Instance (Civil) Brussels 7 September 2009, unpublished.

  65. 65.

    Labour Tribunal Brussels 3 September 2007, Soc.Kron. 2010, 101–105.

  66. 66.

    President Brussels 7 December 2004, unpublished.

  67. 67.

    Tribunal of First Instance (Civil) Brussels 7 September 2009, unpublished.

  68. 68.

    Summary proceedings Bruges 28 March 2007, T.Vreemd. 2007, 212–214.

  69. 69.

    Court of Appeal Ghent 21 June 2007, unpublished.

  70. 70.

    Court of Appeal Mons 16 December 2009, vreemdelingenrecht.be.

  71. 71.

    Investigation Chamber Brussels 6 October 2005, T.Vreemd. 2006, 40.

  72. 72.

    Council Chamber Liège 22 February 2007, JDJ 2007, no. 263, 41.

  73. 73.

    Investigation Chamber Brussels 13 August 2007, unpublished.

  74. 74.

    Constitutional Court 18 July 2013, no. 106/2013.

  75. 75.

    Tribunal of First Instance (Civil) Brussels 15 February 2011, unpublished.

  76. 76.

    Court of Appeal Brussels 22 December 2008, JLMB 2009, 1074–1080.

  77. 77.

    Tribunal of First Instance (Civil) Liège 16 May 2008, RTDF 2009, 214–216.

  78. 78.

    Court of Appeal Brussels 28 March 2006, JLMB 2007, 513–516.

  79. 79.

    Constitutional Court 9 August 2012, no. 103/201; 23 May 2012, no. 2012/61; 16 December 2010, no. 2010/144; 14 May 2003, no. 66/2003, B.4.3–B8.

  80. 80.

    Court of Appeal Ghent 1 March 2004, RechtspraakAntwerpen, Brussel, Gent 2004, 1233–1236.

  81. 81.

    Court of Appeal Ghent 20 June 2005, TJK 2007, 35–36.

  82. 82.

    Tribunal of First Instance (Criminal) Brussels 30 June 2011.

  83. 83.

    Court of Cassation 4 March 2008.

  84. 84.

    Court of Cassation 16 January 2009 (personal contact).

  85. 85.

    Youth Tribunal Antwerp 13 February 2004, Revue générale de droit civilbelge2006, 480–482.

  86. 86.

    Court of Appeal Brussels 2 March 2009, TJK 2009, 339–344.

  87. 87.

    Court of Appeal Brussels 17 November 2008, RW 2011–12, 1852–1857.

  88. 88.

    Court of Cassation 30 September 2011.

  89. 89.

    Youth Tribunal Antwerp 29 April 2003, NJW 2003, 1376–1377.

  90. 90.

    Court of Appeal Ghent 30 April 2012, TJK 2012, 261–263.

  91. 91.

    Constitutional Court 19 June 2013, no. 92/2013, B.5.2.

  92. 92.

    CRC Committee (2010). Concluding Observations Belgium of 18 June 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/BEL/CO/3-4, para. 83(a).

  93. 93.

    Court of Cassation 31 October 2006.

  94. 94.

    Court of Cassation 22 March 2005.

  95. 95.

    Constitutional Court 25 March 2009, no. 62/2009, B7.

  96. 96.

    Constitutional Court 21 February 2013, no. 12/2013.

  97. 97.

    Constitutional Court 30 October 2008, no. 145/2008, B.7.2.

  98. 98.

    Constitutional Court 7 March 2013, no. 30/2013, B.10–B11.

  99. 99.

    Constitutional Court 22 December 2010, no. 154/2010, B.10–B.12; Constitutional Court 13 March 2008, no. 49/2008, B.30.7.

  100. 100.

    Constitutional Court 13 March 2008, no. 50/2008, in particular B.15.6–B.15.18.

  101. 101.

    Constitutional Court 29 October 2009, no. 168/2009, B.5.2 and B.6.2 and following.

  102. 102.

    Constitutional Court 11 March 2009, no. 50/2009, B.16.2.

  103. 103.

    Ibid., B.17.2.

  104. 104.

    Constitutional Court 29 October 2009, no. 168/2009, B.10.1–10.2.

  105. 105.

    Court of Arbitration 18 February 1998, no. 19/98, B.11.1.

  106. 106.

    The distinctive characteristic of art. 2 CRC—that it also prohibits discrimination on the basis of the status of the parents—has been used in particular in migration cases where the irregular status of the parents was at stake.

References

  • Alen, A., & Pas, W. (1996). The UN convention on the rights of the child’s self-executing character. In E. Verhellen (Ed.), Monitoring children’s rights (pp. 165–186). Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese, A. (2001). International law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claes, E., & Vandaele, A. (2001). L’effet direct des traités internationaux. Une analyse en droit positif et en théorie du droit axée sur les droits de l’homme. Revue belge de droit International, 36(2), 411–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemmens, P. (2008). De rechten van het kind als grondrechten in de Belgische rechtsorde. In W. Vandenhole (Ed.), Kinderrechten in België (pp. 37–58). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poelemans, B. (1997). Het hoorrecht van minderjarigen. In P. Senaeve & W. Pintens (Eds.), De hervorming van de echtscheidingsprocedure en het hoorrecht van minderjarigen. Commentaar op de wetten van 30 juni 1994, 27 december 1994 en 20 mei 1997 (pp. 53–123). Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, T. (2006). De burgerrechtelijke procesbekwaamheid van de minderjarige. In CBR (Ed.), De procesbekwaamheid van minderjarigen (pp. 37–73). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheinin, M. (1994). Direct applicability of economic, social and cultural rights: A critique of the doctrine of self-executing treaties. In K. Drzewicki, C. Krause, & A. Rosas (Eds.), Social rights as human rights: A European challenge (pp. 75–78). Åbo: Åbo Akademi University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senaeve, P., & Sara Arnoeyts, S. (2004). Tien jaar belgische rechtspraak inzake de Aanwending van het Ivrk. In P. Lemmens & P. Senaeve (Eds.), De betekenis van de mensenrechten voor het personen- en familierecht. Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swennen, F., & Caluwé, N. (2006). De (vorderings)rechten van het Openbaar Ministerie in burgerlijke zaken. In CBR (Ed.), De procesbekwaamheid van minderjarigen (pp. 75–101). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veny, L. M., & De Vos, N. (2006). Procesbekwaamheid van minderjarigen in bestuurlijke (beroeps) procedures. In CBR (Ed.), De procesbekwaamheid van minderjarigen (pp. 103–162). Antwerp: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Law and Development Research Group, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium

    Wouter Vandenhole

Authors
  1. Wouter Vandenhole
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wouter Vandenhole .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child Law, Leiden Law School, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Ton Liefaard

  2. Faculty of Law, VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jaap E. Doek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Vandenhole, W. (2015). Belgium. In: Liefaard, T., Doek, J. (eds) Litigating the Rights of the Child. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9445-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation