BelConLawBlog publishes a selected reading list of (I) new scholarship on Belgian constitutional law in journals and books, (II) decisions of the Belgian Constitutional Court in which a violation of the Constitution has been found, (III) upcoming conferences, and (IV) calls for papers. In order to submit relevant developments for our monthly overview, please contact us.

This overview was composed by Ruth Delbaere (Research Assistant, UGent).

Check out our new style for listing the rulings of the Constitutional Court in which a violation of the Constitution has been found.

I. Scholarship

A. Journals

– Chroniques de Droit Public – Publiekrechtelijke Kronieken, no. 2015-2

1. F. AMEZ, “Le bicaméralisme après la sixième réforme de l’Etat”, 189
   
   “Bicameralism after the sixth State reform”

– Tijdschrift voor Bestuurswetenschappen en Publiekrecht, no. 2015-9

1. H. BORTELS, “Rechtspraakoverzicht Grondwettelijk Hof 2014. Bevoegdheid en rechtspleging”, 495
   
   “Overview of case law of the Constitutional Court 2014. Competence and judicial procedure”

– Tijdschrift voor Wetgeving, no. 2015-4

1. J. VAN NIEUWENHOVE, “Wetgevingstechniek. Regeling van de verhouding tot gelijksoortige rechtsregels”, 290
   
   “Legislative technique. Regulation of the relation to similar legal provisions”

2. M. ELST, “Parlementair recht. Reglementswijziging over vereenvoudigde verdragswijzigingen in het Vlaams Parlement”, 293
   
   “Parliamentary law. Amendment of regulation regarding simplified treaty amendments in the Flemish Parliament”

– Rechtskundig Weekblad, no. 79-16

1. Y. PEETERS “Samenwerkingsakkoorden in het Belgische staatsrecht”, 603
   
   “Cooperation agreements in Belgian Constitutional Law”

– Rechtskundig Weekblad, no. 79-20

1. A. CARTON and S. LIERMAN, “De toekomst van de Anca-rechtspraak na het arrest van het Grondwettelijk Hof van 30 juni 2014”, 763-782
   
   “The future of the Anca-case law after the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 30 June 2014”

– De Juristenkrant, no. 321

1. T. DE COSTER, “Grondwettelijk Hof vernietigt delen van SUO-wet”, 1
   
   “Constitutional Court annuls parts of the SUO-Act”

2. W. DE SMEDT, “De rule of law is geen utopie”, 10
   
   “The rule of law is not utopian”

3. P. POPELIER, W. VANDENBRUWAENE, J. VAN NIEUWENHOVE, “Verlenging duur administratieve aanhouding – een ongrondwettige grondwetsherziening?”, 12
   
   “Extension of the duration of administrative detentions – an unconstitutional amendment of the Constitution?”

– De Juristenkrant, no. 322

1. G. VERSCHELDEN, “Grondwettelijk Hof vernietigt vaderlijk vetorecht bij toekenning familienaam”, 1
   
   “Constitutional Court annuls fatherly veto right when choosing a last name”

2. C. MATHIEU, “Raad van State geeft schadevergoedingsbevoegdheid vorm”, 8
   
   “Council of State establishes competence to rule on damages”

3. E. DE BOCK, “Wet op de dubbele naam ook discriminerend voor vaders”, 12
   
   “Act concerning double last name is also discriminatory for fathers”

– Rechtskundig Weekblad, no. 10

1. K. STAS, “De staatsrechtelijke positie van en de controle op het Comité P”, 555
   
   “The position in Constitutional Law of and the control on Comité P”                                                          

B. Books

• A. ALEN, G. CANIVET, M. CARTABIA, M. CLAES, et al., Grondwettelijk Hof 1985-2015 – Cour constitutionnelle 1985-2015, Brugge, Die Keure/La Charte, 2016, 177 p.
  
  Constitutional Court 1985-2015

II. Decisions of the Belgian Constitutional Court (violation of the Constitution)

The Belgian Constitutional Court:

1. ruled Articles 464/27 and 464/24, § 2-3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (part of the SUO-Act) unconstitutional, because the term “observation of someone’s home” should be defined more clearly and because it entails a violation of the principle of equality and of the rights of those involved (17 December 2015, no. 178/2015);
2. decided that in case of disagreement between parents or in case of absence of choice by parents, a child cannot be obligated to only get the father’s name (14 January 2016, no. 2/2016);
3. held the retroactive power of Art. 161 of the Act of 25 April 2014 concerning various provisions regarding justice unconstitutional (14 January 2016, no. 3/2016);
4. ruled that Art. 66 of the Act of 5 May 2014 is unconstitutional as it is not reasonable to let legal entities (in this case municipalities) other than the employer, who is responsible for the employment policy, pay the pension responsibility contribution (14 January 2016, no. 6/2016);
5. held that Art. 1382 of the Civil Code violates the principle of equality in the interpretation that it cannot allow a legal entity which defends a collective interest, such as the protection of the environment, to receive moral damages more than a symbolic compensation of one euro (21 January 2016, no. 7/2016);
6. decided that the allocation of costs for the maintenance or relocation of a gas installation to the domain manager is a competence of the regions, in case those regulations are also applicable to the use of public domains connected with those competences (21 January 2016, no. 8/2016);
7. ruled that certain differences between employees and labourers, such as differences in terms of notice and termination fees, are discriminatory (21 January 2016, no. 10/2016).

III. Conferences

1. Studiedag “Is samenwerking binnen het federale België nog mogelijk?”

   Study day “Is cooperation within federal Belgium still possible?”

• 18 March 2016 in Brussels
• More information via studipolis@diekeure.be
• See website

IV. Calls for papers