Fundamental Rights Agency > Research and analysis > Case Law
 
 
Access to

by charter article

by ECHR article

by deciding body

by type of case

by year

About Case Law

Case Law

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.