EU Hypocrisy - Redux

[Dry]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The entire concept of the Belgian court setting itself up to judge actions anywhere in the world was abhorrent to my thinking of justice and sovereignty. What next, they would rule on the constitution of Canada?

Well, this concept of declaring Belgian court competent was not a decision of the judges. Belgium works like a democracy, it is the government that proposes the law, parliament votes it and, in case of justice, the judges may only decide if the law apply to the specific case or not.

The 'universal competence' of belgian tribunals was aimed to allow citizens of dictatorship, where there is no possiblility of legal proceedings, to have one.
In all democracies, a citizen may sue any other, including the leaders (except in case of immunity). I, as belgian, may even sue a frenchman, before a french court. This is not the case in dictatorships. The goal of this law was to allow such summoning for all citizens of the world.

Then came the Sharon case. There was a great debat in Belgium, because, on one side, Israel was a democracy and the possibilty of legal proceedings exists, but on the other side, some argued that the Pals where not really able to complaint: Sharon was Israelian and a trial before an Israelian tribunal could be suspected of unfairness...

The question remained: Sharon was leader of a democratic state, with the possibility to sue, but the litigants were Pals... do they really have that possibility?

Anyhow, some in Belgium agree that this law was badly written, decided and voted. Among them even judges and lawyers. It is too blur and allow too many weird cases.

What about the citizens of a country at war with another one? If tomorrow there is a war between India and Pakistan, could some pakistani villagers sue indian officers for having bomb their villages? They would have no chance to do that before Indian tribunals, so, in Belgium?

[Roland]

"In a court that is. Have your prosecutors look at all the allegations they like. Charges in a court are a bit more serious where I'm from. Just make sure your court has jurisdiction."

My understanding of the belgian decision is that no prosecutor took it up, hence private citizens sought to force the state attorney to bring charges through the court, and that was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction.

So I fail to see what you get worked up about.

And the HoL was a joke, abviously. hence

[notyoueither]

Dry,

I think the most important decision just came from your own appeals courts.

It's bull twaddle.

[notyoueither]

'My understanding of the belgian decision is that no prosecutor took it up, hence private citizens sought to force the state attorney to bring charges through the court, and that was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction'

So why was the case taken up by an appeals court? I'm sure I'd heard that this had proceeded beyond the complaint phase.

[Roland]

"So why was the case taken up by an appeals court? I'm sure I'd heard that this had proceeded beyond the complaint phase."

I'm not sure what you mean there, but I do not think it makes sense in a civil law system....

[notyoueither]

Appeals do not get involved with cases before lower courts are involved, where I'm from.

Or is it that a lower court ruled for charges and the higher court said 'go away' on an appeal prior to any action?

[Roland]

"Appeals do not get involved with cases before lower courts are involved, where I'm from."

If you take a 4 level court structure like the austrian one:

1 - district
2 - land
3 - oberland
4 - supreme court

then level 2 can function as a court for appeal, or some cases are brought directly before level 2. I think it's the same for Belgium even though the level 2 is called cour d'appel.

[notyoueither]

How many 'three-judge panel(s)' get involved in cases before a single judge has gone off the rails?

[Roland]

Huh ?

Those panels are usually for "important stuff". Like, it seems, overruling the decision of a prosecutor on a matter like this.

I'd need the actual decision to figure out what the exact meritum was.

[notyoueither]

You need 3 judges to overrule a prosecutor?

[Roland]

If it is supposed to force him to bring charges, why not ?

[notyoueither]

Wouldn't one judge be able to ride herd on a prosecutor?

Sorry, however this case has been on for some time.

It has brought disrepute to Belgian courts for some time.

To be honest, the concept that some court in Belgium is going to pass judgement on heads of states of democracies has brought the whole of European notions of justice and impartiality into some question. Outside of Europe of course.

[Colonâ„¢]

Disrepute, oh please. Nobody was talking about disrepute when the Belgian court convicted and prisoned a number of Ruandese for their complicity in the Ruandese genocide.

[Roland]

"Sorry, however this case has been on for some time."

No idea how long it pended, but it's been a while.

"To be honest, the concept that some court in Belgium is going to pass judgement on heads of states of democracies has brought the whole of European notions of justice and impartiality into some question. Outside of Europe of course."

It was a useless exercise at best. Although the idea isn't new, even by executive fiat. Waldheim, anyone ?

[Colonâ„¢]

BTW, a charge brought against the president of Ivory Coast, a predecessor of his and 2 of his ministers, was also dismissed to today, on the same ground as with Sharon.