Basic information			Substance of the ruling			Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date	Name of the case (or case number)	The body delivering the decision	Keywords, topic	Executive part	Brief summary	Full text	Page at the website of the issuing court	Page in other databases	Unofficial materials, press communications
January 12. 2023.	N° 2/2023.	Constitutional Court	Right to equality; discrimination; criminal law	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the extension of the limitation of statutes in all criminal cases regardless of the concrete impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the particular case was constitutional.	A royal decree extended the limitation of statutes in all criminal cases during the first months of the public health emergency. In a criminal case, the appellate court suspended the proceeding and turned to the Constitutional Court, since the defendant argued that the extension of statutes of limitation without distinction result in a violation of right to equality and amounts to a discriminatory treatment, because the concrete impact of the global pandemic has not been dully considered on the particular case. The Constitutional Court held that the impugned measure was constitutional, the public health circumstances led to the prolongement of each procedure regardless of the exact schedule of the hearings and other procedural steps.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2023/2023-002f.pdf
December 22. 2022.	N° 170/2022.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Criminal law; separation of powers; legal security	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the authorization provided for the minister of internal affairs to amend existing criminal rules during the public health emergency was constitutional, however, the court shall have the opportunity in these cases to impose less severe sanction than envisaged by the ministerial decree.	A person was convicted for the violation of the curfew regime in Belgium, which was ordered by a ministerial decree based on legislative authorization. The ministerial decree envisaged criminal sanctions for the violation of the curfew regime. The lower court imposed an one-month-long inprisonment, however, the appellate court turned to the Constitutional Court with a request for preliminary ruling concerning the constitutionality of the ministerial decree. The Constitutional Court held that the ministerial decree was based on a proper legislative authorization; moreover, its provisions were phrased with sufficient clarity, therefore, these measures and also the envisaged sanctions were constitutional. However, even in such cases, the courts should have the opportunity to consider the mitigating circumstances, and to impose less severe sanctions than the minimum level of penalty prescribed by the law.	https://juricaf.org/arret/BELGIQUE-COURCONSTITUTIONNEL-20221222-1702022			https://www.justice-en-ligne.be/La-Cour-constitutionnelle-valide-1652
November 10. 2022.	N° 146/2022.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Legal security; right to remedy	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the decrees of the Vallon Government ordering the suspension of appeal deadlines before the Council of State for a longer period than the federal rules was unconstitutional.	The Constitutional Court of Belgium heard a request for preliminary ruling concerning the validity of a decree issued by the Vallon Government. The decree provided a longer suspension of appeal deadlines before the Council of State than the relevant federal regulation. The Constitutional Court held that this regional decree undermined legal security and meant an infringement of right to remedy, therefore, the relevant provisions were abrogated.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-146f.pdf
September 22. 2022.	N° 110/2022.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Right to privacy; protection of personal data	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the creation of Covid-19-related databases were constitutional except from the lack of a designated body on the federal level responsible for the coordination of these databases; and the lack of a specific deadline until when the collected data could be stored.	Several rules were adopted from the establishment of databases concerning Covid-19 infected persons and their close contacts. Some parliamentarians from the German community and also NGO-s challenged the establishment of these databases on the ground of the alleged violation of right to privacy and the protection of personal data. The Constitutional Court held that the databases were established constitutionally, only two elements were found unconstitutional. Firstly, the relevant legislation did not specify a body on the federal level, which would be responsible for the coordination of these databases. Secondly, the relevant legislation did not provide a specific deadline, until when the collected information could be stored.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-110f.pdf	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-110f-info.pdf
September 22. 2022.	n° 109/2022.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Separation of powers; criminal law	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the authorization of the minister of internal affairs to criminalize certain activities and to envisage the sanction to be imposed when these are committed are constitutional; however, the exclusion of considering circumstances with mitigating effect meant an unconstitutional limitation of the judicial integrity.	The Constitutional Court of Belgium heard a request for preliminary ruling during a criminal proceeding, when a criminal sanction was to be imposed on the ground of a ministerial decree adopted during the public health emergency. The Constitutional Court held, that in the light of the extraordinary circumstances, it was constitutional to authorize the executive, namely the minister of internal affairs to amend the statutory rules of criminal law including the envisaged sanctions to be imposed. However, the rule which excluded the consideration of the circumstances with mitigating effect, and which excluded the imposition of a less severe sentence than the minimum sentences provided for shall be seen as an unconstitutional limitation of the judicial integrity.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-109f.pdf	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-109f-info.pdf
July 14. 2022.	n° 97/2022.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Right to property	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that a temporary eviction moratorium was constitutional during the first vawes of the Covid-19 pandemic, however, due compensation should be provided for the landlords, when this measure causes for them excessive harm.	The Government of Bruxelles ordered a temporary eviction moratorium from March to August 2020. due to the rising of the Covid-19 pandemic. The claimants considered that this amounted to a severe violation of their right to property. The Constitutional Court held that in the light of the extraordinary public health concerns, the measure was reasonable, however, on a case-by-case basis, due compensation should be provided for the landlords, when the financial harm caused by this measure exceeds the burden which might be imposed reasonably on the individuals for the protection of public interest during an emergency period.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-097f.pdf
19.05.2022	n°69/2022.	Constitutional Court	Scope of powers; Multilevel government and allocation of powers; Procedural law	Claim upheld, the Constitutional Court stated that the Walloon decree encroached on the rules on the division of powers between the federal and the federated entities.	The Constitutional Court was asked to rule on the constitutionality of the Walloon decree of 3 December 2020 suspending the time limits applicable to appeals against annulment proceedings before the Council of State in relation to acts adopted by the administrative authorities and regulations of the Walloon Region.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-069f.pdf		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/belgium-constitutional-court-judgement-692022-2022-05-19	https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/06/belgium-division-powers-impedes-walloon-region-enact-different-rules-suspension-time
10.03.2022	case 38/2022.	Constitutional Court	Vaccination, Right to health	Claim rejected	The Constitutional Court ruled that the application of the Covid Safe Ticket (a health ticket granting access to certain places to vaccinated or recovered persons) could not have caused the applicant serious harm that would be difficult to repair. The alleged harm is only hypothetical and cannot justify the suspension of the contested measure. The Court rejected the claim, considering that the harm was only hypothetical, because of two reasons. First, the mere risk of suffering a financial loss by undergoing PCR or antigen testing does not constitute a risk of serious harm that is difficult to repair. Second, the applicant does not put forward any concrete and precise elements from which it would appear that his personal data might be leaked or abused in the time needed for the Court to rule on the substance of the case, thus not posing a risk to the security of his personal data.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-038f.pdf		https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/03/belgium-constitutional-court-rejects-new-challenge-health-pass-now-discontinued	https://www.politico.eu/article/belgium-can-take-draconian-measures-during-next-pandemic-court-rules/; https://orbi.uliege.be/bitstream/2268/297291/1/BOUHON%20-%20WCCL%20workshop%208%20-%20Overview%20of%20the%20Belgian%20legal%20reaction%20to%20the%20covid-19%20pandemic.pdf;
February 3. 2022.	n° 21/2022.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Right to privacy; right to assembly; freedom of movement	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the requirement of Covid-19 vaccination certificate; negative Covid-19 test or certificate of recovery for accessing certain public places was constitutional.	Five private persons and a legal entity turned to the Constitutional Court of Belgium and contested the regulation ordering additional restrictions for non-vaccinated persons. The regulation prescribed, that one should not enter into several public places unless have been vaccinated; recovered; or tested. The Constitutional Court held that the regulation had a legitimate purpose and was based on a proper balancing of competing rights and interests, therefore, the contested regulation was constitutional.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2022/2022-021f.pdf
20.01.2022	Arret nº 10/2022	Constitutional Court	Freedom of movement of people; Data protection	Claim rejected. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the plaintiffs did not  prove sufficiently to what extent the immediate application of those provisions entailed damage that was serious or difficult to repair.	Several individuals and an NGO demanded the suspension of certain legal provisions on the use of the Covid Safe Ticket (these rules applied to access to certain indoor areas). The Covid Safe Ticket contained informations about the vaccination on persons. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the plaintiffs did not prove sufficiently to what extent the immediate application of those provisions entailed damage that was serious or difficult to repair.	https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2022-06/decisionfr.pdf		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/belgium-constitutional-court-arret-no-102022-2022-01-20
10.06.2021	No. 88/2021	Constitutional Court	Freedom of movement of people	Claim rejected. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the challenged measure should be considered a restriction of the freedom of movement. In addition, one of the substantive conditions for the suspension of the contested regulation was lacking, since the claimants failed to prove serious damage which it would be difficult to repair.	A 7-10 day self-isolation obligation for persons who have travelled to a high-risk area, who are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection or who have been informed that they are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection is required by the Flemish Community Decree. Several people then asked the Constitutional Court to suspend and annul this regulation. The claimants argued that the separation obligation constituted an unjustified deprivation of liberty in the sense of Art. 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the challenged measure should be considered a restriction of the freedom of movement. In addition, one of the substantive conditions for the suspension of the contested regulation was lacking, since the claimants failed to prove serious damage which it would be difficult to repair.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2021/2021-088f.pdf		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/belgium-constitutional-court-no-882021-2021-06-10
Mai 20. 2021.	n° 76/2021.	Constitutional Court of Belgium	Criminal law; rights of prisoners	The Constitutional Court of Belgium held that the regulation ordering only the hearing of the lawyer of the defendant and the public prosecutor before deciding from temporary deprivation of liberty was unconstitutional even during the public health emergency.	The Constitutional Court of Belgium heard a case concerning the constitutionality of the regulation ordering only the hearing of the lawyer of the defendant and the public prosecutor before any decision from ordering or maintaining detention. The regulation did not require the personal hearing of the defendant, and also excluded the audience from these hearings unless othervise provided by the court. The Constitutional Court held that the regulation had a legitimate purpose, however, it disregarded several safeguards of criminal proceedings as well as deprivation of liberty, therefore it was disproportionate and unconstitutional.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2021/2021-076f.pdf
01.04.2021	Judgement 56/2021	Constitutional Court	Labor law, Principle of equality, Health protection	Claim rejected. The Court considered that the contested measure did not infringe the principle of equality and the right to health protection.	In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic a law authorized people who were not legally qualified to be nurses to carry out nursing activities. There were two arguments about the constitutionality of this measure. The first was the principle of equality: the law in question treated nurses and unqualified nurses equally. The court pointed out that unqualified persons could be involved if there was no qualified professional to carry out the necessary health activities. Furthermore, the nursing activities were in the first place entrusted to those with a scientific background similar to that of nurses. In addition, those selected will be required to undergo an apprenticeship taught by nurses or doctors. The second argument concerned the protection of the right to health protection. On this issue, the Court explained that the law in question was of temporary application, aimed at tackling the worst of an extremely serious health crisis by alleviating the burden on nurses. The Court considered that the contested measure did not infringe the principle of equality and the right to health protection.			https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/belgium-constitutional-court-belgium-constitutional-court-judgement-562021-2021-04-01	https://www.healthybelgium.be/en/key-data-in-healthcare/covid-19/quality/ensuring-nursing-care; https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law-occ19/e1.013.1/law-occ19-e1
25.02.2021	No. 32/2021 (Reg. No. 7501)	Constitutional Court	Prison law, Right to health	Claim upheld. According to the Constitutional Court,  less restrictive measures could have been adopted, so the Court ordered the suspension of the contested measure. The decision was based on the grounds that the measure was disproportionate to the public health objective pursued.	According to the applicants, the contested measure infringes the right of interned persons to a speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of their detention and their right to an effective remedy. However, the aim of this measure is to avoid as far as possible contact between persons and to limit the transfer of internees. According to the Constitutional Court, less restrictive measures could have been adopted, so the Court ordered the suspension of the contested measure. The decision was based on the grounds that the measure was disproportionate to the public health objective pursued.	https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2021/2021-032f.pdf		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/belgium-constitutional-court-no-322021-reg-no-7501-2021-02-25
17.12.2020	Decision No. 169/2020	Constitutional Court	Vaccination	Claim rejected, because the applicants have failed to show that the immediate implementation of the contested law is likely to cause serious damage which would be difficult to repair.	The Law of November 6, 2020 authorized persons who are not legally qualified to carry out, activities relating to the art of nursing. Five persons working as nurses and a non-profit association have applied for the suspension and annulment of this law. It has been argued that allowing health professionals other than nurses to practise as nurses means that professionals in different situations are treated equally. It was also claimed that the law resulted in a significant restriction of the right to social security, health and social, medical and legal assistance, as it deviated from the minimum training requirements to guarantee the quality of nursing care. The applicants have failed to show that the immediate implementation of the contested law is likely to cause serious damage which would be difficult to repair.	https://www.const-court.be/en/judgments?year=2020		https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/belgium-constitutional-court-decision-no-1692020-2020-12-17