|
|
Court of Cassation
|
|
|
27/05/2008
|
|
Legal provision
|
National law (including criminal law)
|
|
Area
|
Crime, Freedom, justice and security
|
|
Form of Discrimination
|
Harassment, Instruction to discriminate / incitement to discrimination , Direct discrimination
|
|
Grounds of discrimination
|
Discrimination on ground of racial or ethnic origin
|
|
Topic
|
Hate speech, Violence against persons , Discrimination by public bodies , Racist motivation as an aggravating circumstance
|
|
|
Belgium , Discrimination on ground of racial or ethnic origin .
|
|
|
Key facts of the case:(Cfr. Case Inv. no. 372)D. appealed from the Anwerp's Appeal Court to the Cour de Cassation. He argued that the Court had misinterpreted his own statements and that it condemned him for racist statements made by others. He also argued that the case had exceeded the reasonable timeframe for fair treatment because some facts dated back to 1999-2001. According to D., the trial was inspired by party politics.Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case:The Cour de Cassation rejected D.'s arguments and confirmed the judgement pronounced by the Court of Appeal in Antwerp.Results (sanctions) and key consequences or implications of the case:D. resorted to all appeal possibilities. Within two months of the Cour de Cassation's definitive decision, D.'s mandate as city councillor was terminated. His party, Vlaams Belang, announced that it would keep employing him in local and regional affairs. According to Belgian electoral rules, D.'s definitive condemnation means he will not be eligible for election to a local authority for a period of 12 years after his condemnation. D. will have the opportunity to avoid one full year effective imprisonment by requesting alternative sanctions. He will nevertheless have to pay about 10,000 € damages to the five victims.
|
|
|
http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be/view_decision?justel=N-20080527-12&idxc_id=220397&lang=fr (30.07.2008)
|