Home > Workplace > Belgium > 2009-10-13 - Constitutional Court, n. 2009/157

2009-10-13 - Constitutional Court, n. 2009/157

Workplace · Belgium · Neutrality · Religious belonging

Until a judge belonging to Freemasonry is not distinctly proved, his impartiality cannot be questioned

Key facts of the case - A Judge of the Constitutional Court is accused of partiality because of being member of secret association like the Freemasonry.

Main reasoning of the court - The Court emphasizes the fact that the application of challenging causes cannot prevent her from deliberate. What is more, she considers that fellow feelings towards or affiliation to Freemasonry pertains to the freedom of association. She refers to the European Court of Human Rights (Salaman v. the United Kingdom, decision of 15 June 2000, n. 43505/98) according to which the simple fact that a judge is Freemason does not give rise to challenging except if an opposite proof is provided by concrete elements concerning individual judges. In the absence of sufficient allegations objectively justifying the apprehensions as for the impartiality, the Court dismisses the challenging petition.