The Belgian Constitutional Court and the Administrative Loop: A Difficult Understanding

23 Pages Posted: 1 Apr 2017

Date Written: March 31, 2017

Abstract

This article focuses on the introduction of the administrative loop before the Belgian administrative courts. It aims to assess the compliance of this new procedural tool with the principles of the rule of law and fundamental (procedural) rights, as interpreted by the Belgian Constitutional Court. It is established that the initial Flemish version of the administrative loop, which finds its origin in Dutch administrative procedural law, was given a much more limited scope than the Dutch loop. It is exactly this limited scope of the Flemish loop that resulted in fundamental objections from the perspective of the rule of law and fundamental procedural rights and brought the Constitutional Court to annul of the Flemish loop. Whilst the federal version of the administrative loop differed in some aspects from the annulled Flemish loop, it was also given a very limited scope. Hence, also the federal version of the loop was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court. The latest version of the administrative loop, which was introduced by the Flemish decree of 3 July 2015 before the Flemish administrative courts, differs on several essential aspects from the previous unconstitutional legislation. It seems that the Flemish legislator in this way succeeded in its efforts to appease the objections of the Constitutional Court and to comply with the principles of the rule of law and fundamental (procedural) rights.

Keywords: Belgian administrative loop, Case law Constitutional Court, Rule of law, Fundamental procedural rights

JEL Classification: K00, K19, K23, K41

Suggested Citation

Bortels, Heidi, The Belgian Constitutional Court and the Administrative Loop: A Difficult Understanding (March 31, 2017). Maastricht Faculty of Law Working Paper No. 2017-2, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2943929 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2943929

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
58
Abstract Views
415
Rank
653,991
PlumX Metrics