Human Rights in the Criminal Code? A Critique of the Curious Implementation of the EU and Council of Europe Instruments on Combating and Preventing Terrorism in Belgian Criminal Legislation

in European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Different international instruments on the prevention and suppression of terrorism from the European Union and the Council of Europe task States with adopting new terrorist offences. At the same time, several provisions in these international instruments remind States of their obligation to fully adhere to their human rights obligations when implementing, interpreting and applying these new offences. Following these provisions, Belgium decided to insert a rather curious human rights clause in its Criminal Code. This article will critically examine this peculiar clause and the decision(s) made by the Belgian legislator. The key question is whether or not States should indeed also implement such human rights provisions in their criminal legislation, and if so, in what way they should best proceed. It will be argued that inserting such a specific human rights clause for one particular offence in a domestic criminal code might not only be superfluous, but could even have unforeseen, unwanted and hazardous effects.

Sections

References

3

OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 1 (hereafter ‘EU Council Framework 2002/475/JHA’).

5

OJ L 330, 9.12.2008, p. 21 (hereafter ‘Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA’).

64

 See Arbitration Court 13 July 2005, No. 125/2005, Official Gazette 3 August 2005, pp. B.6.2-B.7.4 (principle of legality) and B.9-B.11.4 (discrimination) (the Court still carried the name Arbitration Court at the time).

76

Ct. Appeals Antwerp 7 February 2008, No 7 FP 2007, pp. 149–159, available online at http://www.juridat.be.

82

 See A. De Nauw, Inleiding tot het bijzonder strafrecht [Introduction to specific criminal law] (Mechelen: Kluwer, 2010) p. 8.

85

Arbitration Court 13 July 2005, No. 125/2005, Official Gazette 3 August 2005, pp. B.7.2.

90

When drafting the Law of 2013, it was observed that legislator(s) only disposed of a limited margin of appreciation, Parl. Doc. Chamber of Representatives 2012–13, 2502/004, 5. But as was indicated (see fn. 29), the Council of State rightfully observed that there was no duty to also implement Article 2 Framework Decision 2008/919/JHA.

94

It was only in 1989, in the renowned Soering case, that the ECtHR said so for the first time, ECtHR, Soering v. the United Kingdom, Appl. No. 14038/88, Judgment, 7 July 1989, Series A No. 161.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 11 11 3
Full Text Views 1 1 1
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0