Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19830712-926781
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 13:25:16+00:00
Document Index: 191039072

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 14", "l'article 107", "l'article 104", "l'article 107", "l'article 12", "l'article 14", "l'article 107", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 42", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 1", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 27", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 27", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 14", "l'article 27", "l'article 1", "l'article 1"]

MOUREAUX et autres c. BELGIQUE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche MOUREAUX et autres c. BELGIQUE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partielllement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9267/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-07-12;9267.81 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : MOUREAUX et autresDéfendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9267/8 1 Serge MOUREAUX and others v/BELGIUM Serge MOUREAUX et autres c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 12 July 1983 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 12 juillet 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artlele 25 of the Convention A person cannot be denied the status of 'bictim", when he is affected bv cunent law . tnerely because that law is part of a wider, legislative refortn, which has not yet been conrpleted. People may remairt " victims ", who have lodged applications in their capacity both as electors and elected representatives . eveu if they have not beert re-elected at a subsequent election . Article 1 of the Flnt Protocol The property rights of a public enti ty cannot be considered to be those of its representatives or lhe local inhabitants . Article 3 of the First Protoco l a) in principle . this provisiou guarantees the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate for election to the legislature. b) In interpreting the terni '7egislature" accounl ntust be tvken oj the structures established by the constitutiou . Jn Belgium the regional couucils are part of the legislature. c) The free expression of the opinion of [he people in the choice of the legislature implies that electors are rtot subjected to any restrictions or pressures in their choice of candidates . Article 14 of the Convention In conlunction with Artlcle 3 of the Firet Protocol : if soni e legislative powers are allotted to various regioual assemblies, !he requiremeuls of the transition may justify nol so empowering ce rt ain regions jor a while. Question of the representation of Freuch electors and the participation oj French elected representatives iu the Flemish . Belgian region (Complaint declared admissible) .
Article 25 de la Convention : On ne saurait dÃ©nier la qualitÃ© de "victime" Ã uue persomute ajjecrÃ©e par une loi en vigueur . du seul jair que cette loi jait partie d'une rÃ©jorrne lÃ©gislative d'ensemble non encore achevÃ©e . Peuvent demeurer "victimes" des personrres qui ont introduit une requÃ©te tatt eu leur qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs qu'eu leur qualirÃ© d'Ã©lus. alors ntÃ©me qu elles n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© rÃ©Ã©lues lors d'une Ã©lection ultÃ©rieure . Anicle 1er du Protocole additionnel : Les droicr patrimoniaux d'uue collectivitÃ© publique ne peuveut Ã©ne considÃ©rÃ©s comme ceux de ses reprÃ©sentants ou de ses habitants . Article 3 du Protocole additionne l a) Cette dispruition garantit en principe le droit de vote et celui de se porter candidat aux Ã©lections lÃ©gislatives . b) Les termes "corps lÃ©gislatif' doivent Btre interprÃ©tÃ©s contpte tenu des structures Ã©tablies par la constituriou. En Belgique . les conseils rÃ©gionaux jont partie du corps lÃ©gislatif. c) La libre expression de l'opinion du peuple sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatif implique qu'aucute contrainte ni pression ne doit Ã©tre exercÃ©e sur les Ã©lecteurs quant Ã leur choix parmi les candidats . Article 1 4 de la Convention combinÃ© avec l'arilcie 3 du Protocole additlonnel Si des compÃ©tences lÃ©gislatives sont rÃ©parties eune diverses assemblÃ©es rÃ©gionales . des nÃ©cessitÃ©s transitoires peuvent justifier que certaines rÃ©gions n'en soieut pas dotÃ©es pour un certain temps .
Question de la reprÃ©sentation des Ã©lecteurs jrancophones et de la parricipation des Ã©lus jrmtcophom+es dans la rÃ©gion belge Jlantande (Griej dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
( English : see p . 115)
Les faits exposÃ©s par les parties et ne faisant apparemment l'objet d'aucune contestation, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : 1 Les requÃ©rants sont sept dÃ©putÃ©s Ã la Chambre des ReprÃ©sentants beige' et huit sÃ©nateurs du SÃ©nat de Belgiqueiâ¢ . * Il s'agit des dÃ©putÃ©s suivants : Mme Marion Banneux . M . Guy Brasseur, M . Georges Clerfayt, M . FranÃ§ois Persooas, M . Basile Risopoulos, Mme Antoinette Spaak . M . Luc Bernard . â¢' II s'agit des sÃ©nateurs suivants : M . Joseph Bonma riage, M . Georges Desir, M . Roland Gillet, M . AndrÃ© Lagasse, M . Jacques Lepaffe, Mme Lucienne Mathieu-Mohin, M . Serge Moureaux, M . Marcel Payfa .
- qg -
A l'exception de M . Clerfayt, tous les dÃ©putÃ©s sont domiciliÃ©s Ã Bruxelles . M . Clerfayt est domiciliÃ©s Ã Rhode-St GenÃ©se, Ils ont tous Ã©tÃ© Ã©lus dans l'arrondissement de Bruxelles (province de Brabant) . A l'exception de Mme Mathieu-Mohin, tous les sÃ©nateurs sont Ã©galement domiciliÃ©s Ã Bruxelles . Mme Mathieu-Mohin est domiciliÃ©e Ã Vilvorde . Cinq sÃ©nateurs (MM . Lagasse, Lepat7e . Gillet, Mme Mathieu-Mohin et M . DÃ©sir) ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©lus par le corps Ã©lectoral dans l'arrondissement de Bruxelles . Deux sÃ©nateurs (MM . Payfa et Moureaux) ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©lus par le conseil provincial de Biabant et un (M . Bonmariage) a Ã©tÃ© Ã©lu par le SÃ©nat . 2 . La requÃªte vise certaines dispositions de la Loi du 8 aoGt 1980 (Loi spÃ©ciale de rÃ©formes institutionnelles) dont ils contestent la conformitÃ© avec les articles I et 3 du Protocole additionnel Ã la Convention, combinÃ©s avec l'article 14 de la Convention . Elle concerne principalement le mode de compositiou des Conseils et des ExÃ©cutifs des CommunautÃ©s et RÃ©gions . Le cadre cottstitutionnel et la Loi du 8 aoÃ»t 198 0 3 . Aux terntes de l'article 107 quater de la Constitution belge "La Belgique comprend trois rÃ©gions : la rÃ©gion wallonne, la rÃ©gion flamande et la rÃ©gion bruxelloise" (alinÃ©a I) . L'alinÃ©a 2 dispose que "La loi attribue aux organes rÃ©giouaux qu'elle crÃ©e et qui sont composÃ©s de mandataires Ã©lus, la compÃ©teuce de rÃ©gler les matiÃ¨res qu'elle dÃ©termine, Ã l'exception de celles visÃ©es aux articles 23 el 59bis, dans le ressort et selon le mode qu'elle Ã©tablit" .
4 . L'article 59bis de la Constitution dispose par ailleurs en son paragraphe I que "II v a un Conseil et un ExÃ©cutif de la communautÃ© franÃ§aise et uu Couseil et un ExÃ©cutit' de la communautÃ© flamande dont la composition et le fouctiounemeut sout fixÃ©s par la loi . Les Conseils sont composÃ©s de mandataires Ã©lus ." (alinÃ©a 1) et que "En vue de l'application de l'article 104quater, le Couseil de la comntunautÃ© franÃ§aise et le Conseil de la communautÃ© tlamande aiusi que leurs ExÃ©cutifs peuvent exercer les compÃ©tences respectiventeut de la rÃ©gion wallonne et de la rÃ©gion tlamande, dans les conditions et selon les modalitÃ©s fixÃ©es par la loi" (alinÃ©a 2) . 5 . La loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980 institue (article I) un Conseil et un ExÃ©cutif de la commuuautÃ© tlamande (Conseil flamand et ExÃ©cutif tlamand) et un Conseil et uu ExÃ©cutit de la comntunautÃ© franÃ§aise . Tandis qu'en rÃ©gion tlamande les compÃ©tences de ces organes rÃ©gionaux pour les matiÃ¨res visÃ©es Ã l'article 107 quater de la Coustitution sont exercÃ©s par le Conseil et l'ExÃ©cutif flamand, il a Ã©tÃ© constituÃ© en rÃ©gion wallonne en plus un Conseil rÃ©gional wallon et un ExÃ©cutif wallon compÃ©tents pour ces matiÃ¨res .
L'article 2 de la loi fixe, Ã titre transitoire, les territoires des rÃ©gions wallonne et llamande . Rien n'a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©vu dans la loi pour ce qui est de la rÃ©giou bruxelloise . 6 . Les niatiÃ¨res rÃ©servÃ©es par la Constitution ( a rt icle S9bis) Ã la commuuautÃ© (matiÃ¨res communautaires) sont des matiÃ¨res culturelles, l'enseignement, la coopÃ©ration culturelle, ce rt aines
dites "personnalisables" (en
pa rt iculier la politique de la sanlÃ© et l'aide aux personnes), ainsi que l'emploi des langues uotammeut en matiÃ¨re administrative et dans l'enseignenient . Ces matiÃ¨res sout prÃ©cisÃ©es au titre Il de la Loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980 (a rticles 4 et 5) . 7 . Les matiÃ¨res rÃ©serv Ã©es par la Constitution (a rt icle 107quater) Ã la rÃ©gion (matiÃ¨res rÃ©gionales) sout fixÃ©es par l'a rt icle 6 de la loi prÃ©citÃ©e . Elles po rtent uotammeut sur l'antÃ©nagement du territoire, l'environnement, le logement, les politiques Ã©couomiques de l'Ã©nergie et de l'emploi et la recherche appliquÃ©e . 8 . L'a rt icle 12 de la loi dispose que "Les bien meubles et immeubles de l'Etat . tant du domaine public que du domaine privÃ©, indispensables Ã l'exercice des compÃ©teuces des RÃ©gions et des Communautbs,leur sont transt'Ã©rÃ©s saus iudemnitÃ©" .
9 . La CommuuautÃ© et la RÃ©gion sont dotÃ©es d'un pouvoir dÃ©crÃ©tai qui s'exerce collectivement par le Conseil et l'ExÃ©cutit' (article 17) . Ce pouvoir s'exerce sur les matiÃ¨res rÃ©servÃ©es par la Constitution et la loi . Le dÃ©cret a force de loi . Il peut abroger, complÃ©ter, moditier ou remplacer les dispositions lÃ©gales en vigueur (a rt icle 19, paragraphe 2) . Les dÃ©crets pris par la CommunautÃ© dans les matiÃ¨res qui leur sont rÃ©se rv Ã©es ont force de loi Ã©galement Ã l'Ã©gard des institutions Ã©tablies Ã Bruxelles-Capitale qui, en raison de leurs activitÃ©s ou leur organisation, "doivent Ãªtre considÃ¨rÃ©es comme appa rt enant exclusivement Ã -l'une ou l'autre communautÃ¨" (article 59bis de la Constitution, paragraphes 4 et 4bis) . 10 . Le chapitre Il de la Loi traite de la composition et du fonctionnement des Conseils . la Loi fixe la contposition des Conseils d titre prooisoire et Ã Â«rre dÃ©finitiJ: Deux pÃ©riodes transitoires sont prÃ©vues . La premiÃ¨re jusqu'au renouvellement intÃ©gral des Chambres lÃ©gislatives qui suivra l'entrÃ©e en vigueur de la Loi (ler octobre 1980), la deuxiÃ¨me jusqu'Ã la rÃ©vision des a rt icles 53 et 54 de la Constitutimi (articles qui traitent de la composition du SÃ©nat) . Il . Pendant la premiÃ¨re pÃ©riode transitoire, les Conseils sont composÃ©s comme suit ( a rt icle 28, paragraphe 1) : "1 . Le Conseil flamand est composÃ© des membres des groupes linguistiques nÃ©erlandais des deux Chambres :
2 . Le Conseil de la CommunautÃ© fran Ã§ aise est composÃ© des membres des groupes linguistiques franÃ§ais des deux Chambres 3 . Le Conseil rÃ©gional wallon est composÃ© : a . des membres des groupes linguistiques franÃ§ais de la Chambre des ReprÃ©seutants et du SÃ©nat Ã©lus dans les provinces de Hainaut, de LiÃ¨ge, de Luxembourg et de Namur ; b . des membres des groupes linguistiques fran Ã§ais de la Chamb re des ReprÃ©sentants et du SÃ©nat Ã©lus dans la province de Brabant et domiciliÃ©s dans la RÃ©gion wallonne au jour de leur Ã©lection ; c . des membres du groupe linguistique fran Ã§ ais du SÃ©nat, Ã©lus par le SÃ©nat et domiciliÃ©s dans la rÃ©gion wallonne au jour de leur Ã©lection" . 12 . Pendaut la deuxiÃ¨nte pÃ©riode transitoire, dans laquelle l'on se trouve depuis les Ã©lections du 8 novembre 1981 et qui est donc le rÃ©gime actuellement eu vigueur pour dÃ©terminer la composition des Conseils, ceux-ci sont composÃ©s comme suit (article 29) : "Paragraphe lef - Le Conseil flamand est composÃ© des membres du groupe linguistique nÃ©erlandais de la Chambre des ReprÃ©sentants et des membres du groupe linguistique nÃ©erlandais du SÃ©nat Ã©lus directement par le corps Ã©lectoral ; Paragraphe 2 - Le Conseil de la CommunautÃ© tranÃaise est composÃ© des niembres du groupe linguistique franÃ§ais du SÃ©nat Ã©lus directement par le corps Ã©lectoral ; Paragraphe 3 - Le Conseil rÃ©gional wallon est composÃ© des membres liuguistiques franÃ§ais et la Chambre des ReprÃ©sentants et du SÃ©nat Ã©lus directentent dans les provinces de Hainaut, de LiÃ¨ge, de Luxembourg et de Namur, ainsi que dans l'arrondissement de Nivelles . " A titre dÃ©tinitif, la Loi pose le principe d'aprÃ¨s lequel le Conseil flamand, le Conseil de la CommunautÃ© franÃ§aise et le Conseil rÃ©gional wallon sont composÃ©s de sÃ©nateurs Ã©lus directement par le corps Ã©lectoral (article 24) . L'article 25 fixe comme suit le mode de composition : "Paragraphe let - Le Conseil flamand est composÃ© des membres Ã©lus directement du groupe linguistique nÃ©erlandais du SÃ©nat . Paragraphe 2 - Le Conseil de la ContmunautÃ© franÃ§aise est composÃ© des membres Ã©lus directement du groupe linguistique fran Ã§ ais du SÃ©nat . Paragraphe 3 - Le Conseil rÃ©gional wallon est composÃ© des membres du groupe linguistique fran Ã§ais du SÃ©nat Ã©lus directement dans les provinces de Hainaut, de LiÃ¨ge, de Luxembourg et de Namur ainsi que dans l'arrondissement de Nivelles ."
14 . La composition des ExÃ©cutifs est tixÃ© au chapitre 111 de la Loi . L'ExÃ©cutif est Ã©lu par le conseil (article 59) selon certaines modalitÃ©s (article 60) . L'ExÃ©cutif flamand comprend neuf membres . Un membre au moins d6it appartenir Ã la rÃ©gion bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale (article 63, par . I) . L'exÃ©cutif de la CommunautÃ© fran Ã§ aise compte trois membres, dont u n doit appartenir Ã la rÃ©gion bilingue de Bruxelles-Capitale (article 63, par . 2) . L'ExÃ©cutit'rÃ©gional wallon compte, lui, six membres (article 63, par . 3) . GRIEFS Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que la Loi du 8 aoÃt 1980 prive les habitants 15 . francophones de Flandre et de Bruxelles de leur droit de choisir leur "corps lÃ©gislatif rÃ©gional" . D'abord elle crÃ©e une discrimination, fondÃ©e sur l'appartenance Ã une "minoritÃ© nationale" Ã l'Ã©gard de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise et de ses reprÃ©sentants Ã©lus .En effet, elle attribue une partie du pouvoir lÃ©gislatif dans une sÃ©rie de matiÃ¨res aux seuls Ã©lus des rÃ©gions wallonnes et flamandes . Ainsi, seuls les Ã©lus francophones de la rÃ©gion de Bruxelles sont Ã©cartÃ©s de toute participation Ã la confection des lois rÃ©gionales (dÃ©crets), l'assemblÃ©e bruxelloise n'Ã©tant pas constituÃ©e, alors que les Ã©lus de langue nÃ©erlandaise participent, avec voix consultative et droit d'initiative aux dÃ©libÃ©rations de l'assemblÃ©e rÃ©gionale tlamande (article 50 de la Loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980) . Ensuite . elle crÃ©e une discrimination, fondÃ©e sur la "langue" dans la mesure oÃ¹ les Ã©lus francophones de la rÃ©gion flamande sont exclus de tont conseil et mÃªme de l'assemblÃ©e rÃ©gionale de la Flandre dont ils sont les Ã©lus . Il se plaignent, enfin, de ce que l'article 12 de la Loi transfÃ¨re sans indemnitÃ© une partie du patrimoine de l'Etat aux rÃ©gions flamande et wallonne, expropriant ainsi sans contrepartie la seule rÃ©gion de Bruxelles dont le patrimoine propre est maintenu dans celui de l'Etat national . 16 . Les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent que la Loi prÃ©citÃ©e viole les articles 1 et 3 du Protocole additionnel pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ©s avec l'article 14 de la Convention .
PROCÃDURE 17 . Le 5 fÃ©vrier 1982 , le Rappo rt eur a dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'a rt icle 40, paragraphe 2 a) du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, de demander aux requÃ©rants de rÃ©pondre aux trois questions que voici : 1 . Les requÃ©rants sont invitÃ©s Ã prÃ©ciser l'Ã©tendue du territoire constituant la rÃ©gion bruxelloise .
En narticulier . les communes de Vilvorde et de Rhode-St GenÃ¨se relÃ¨veut-elles de cette rÃ©gion ou font-elles partie du territoire de la rÃ©gion tlantande ? 2 . Les requÃ©rants sont invitÃ©s Ã prÃ©ciser le systÃ¨me d'aprÃ¨s lequel le territoire et la population sont reprÃ©sentÃ©s aux assentblÃ©es rÃ©gionales constituÃ©es par la loi du 8 aotlt 1980 . 3 . Les requÃ©rants sont invitÃ©s Ã communiquer Ã la Commission les ntoditications intervenues, en ce qui les concerne, dans la composition de l'AssemblÃ©e Nationale et du SÃ©nat Ã la suite des Ã©lections du 8 novembre 1981 . 18 . Quant Ã la premiÃ¨re question, les requÃ©rants ont rappelÃ© que la loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980 a fixÃ© Ã titre transitoire le territoire des rÃ©gions flamande et wallonne et que le territoire rÃ©siduaire rÃ©sultant de cette dÃ©limitation correspond Ã l'arrondissement administratif de Bruxelles-Capitale comprenant dixneut' comntunes parnti lesquelles ne figurent ni Vilvorde ni Rhode- St GenÃ¨se . Ces communes seules constituent, dans l'Ã©tat actuel de la lÃ©gislation, le territoire de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise . Il y a lieu par consÃ©quent de conclure que les contmunes de Vilvorde et de Rhode-St GenÃ¨se font actuellement partie du territoire de la rÃ©gion flamande . Quant au fait que la loi ne dÃ©limite pas le territoire de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise, les requÃ©ran[s rappellent l'avis rendu par le Conseil d'Etat . section de lÃ©gislation, qui a estimÃ© que le projet Ã lui soumis n'Ã©tait "admissible du point de vue constitutionnel que pour autant que l'exÃ©cution de l'article 107 quater Ã l'Ã©gard de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise soit simplement diffÃ©rÃ© et non pas abandonnÃ© et que le dÃ©faut d'Ã©xÃ©cution ne se prolonge pas au-delÃ d'un dÃ©lai raisonnable" .
19 . Quant Ã la deuxiÃ¨me question, les requÃ©rants ont soulignÃ© que le territoire et la population de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise ne se trouvent reprÃ©sentÃ©s daus aucune instance ou institution quelconque Ã l'instar de ceux des deux autres rÃ©gions . Eu ce qui concerne d'autre part la composition du Conseil Flamand, rÃ©suttant du rÃ©ginte actuellement en vigueur, le critÃ¨re retenu par la loi est I'appartenance Ã un groupe linguistique, en l'occurrence le groupe nÃ©erlandais . Il en rÃ©sulte, en particulier, que les dÃ©putÃ©s et sÃ©nateurs membres du groupe linguistique franÃ§ais Ã©lus directement et domiciliÃ©s dans une province ou un arrondissement relevant du territoire de la rÃ©gion Bamandeâ¢ en sont exclus, contme c'est le cas de M . Clerfayt, domiciliÃ© Ã Rhode-St GenÃ¨se .
â¢ Flandre orientate . Flandre occidentale, Anvers, Limbourg et arrondissements de Louvain et de Hal-Vilvorde .
20 . Quant Ã la troisiÃ¨me question, il rÃ©sulte qu'Ã la suite (les Ã©lections du 8 novembre 1981 ont Ã©tÃ© rÃ©Ã©lus, parmi les requÃ©rants les dÃ©putÃ©s Clerfayt, Risopoulos et Spaak ainsi que lÃ©s sÃ©nateurs Gillet, Lagasse . Lepaffe, DÃ©sir et Moureaux (sÃ©nateur cooptÃ© Ã©lu par le SÃ©nat) . II y a lieu de relever que Mme Mathieu-Mohin n'a pas Ã©tÃ© rÃ©Ã©lue . 21 . Le 15 juillet 1982, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© de po rt er la requÃ©te Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur et d'inviter ce dernier Ã lui prÃ©senter ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© et le bien-fondÃ© de la requÃªte pour autant qu'elle vise l'art icle 3 du Protocole nÂ° 1 pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ© avec l'a rt icle 14 de la Convention .
Le Gouvernement a Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã se prononcer sur la question suivante : La lÃ©gislatioti du 8 aoÃ»t 1980 dans la mesure oÃ¹ elle exige que les membres appelÃ©s Ã siÃ©ger au Conseil rÃ©gional flamand doivent appartenir au groupe liuguistique nÃ©erlandais de la Chambre des ReprÃ©sentants ou du SÃ©nat . mÃªme s'ils sont domiciliÃ©s en rÃ©gion flamande, est-elle ou non conforme Ã l'article 3 du Protocole nÂ° I, pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Conventiou ? 22 . Le mÃ©moire du Gouvernement sur la recevabilitÃ© et le fond est datÃ© du 3 dÃ©cembre 1982 . Les requÃ©rants y ont rÃ©pondu par un mÃ©moire datÃ© du 26 lÃ©vrier 1983 . 23 . Le 6 mai 1983, la Commission a dÃ©cidÃ©, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, paragraphe 3 b) de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, d'inviter les parties Ã lui prÃ©senter oralement des explications complÃ©mentaires sur la recevabilitÃ© et le bien-fondÃ© de la requÃ©te . 24 . Le 12 juillet 2983 s'est tenue l'audience Ã laquelle les parties Ã©taient reprÃ©sentÃ©es comme suit : Le Gouvernemenr dÃ©Jendeu r M . J . Niset, Agent du Gouvernemen t Me C . Cambier, du Barreau de Bruxelles, Conseil Me M . Deiiys, du Barreau de Bruxelles, Conseiller M . R . Reynders, Conseiller au Cabinet du Ministre des RÃ©formes institutionnelles, Conseille r Me B . Cambier, du Barreau de Bruxelles . Conseille r Les requÃ©rant s Me J .P . Lagasse, du Barreau de Bruxelles, Conseil Me B . Maiugain . du Barreau de Bruxelles, Conseil M . S . Moureaux . requÃ©rant
RÃ©sumÃ© des conclusions des pertles A . Le Gouvernernen(
25 . Le Gouvernement replace la situation envisagÃ©e dans son contexte historique, politique et institutionnel . Par les rÃ©visions constitutionnelles de 1970 et 1980 la Belgique a Ã©tÃ© dotÃ©e de structures d'inspiration fÃ©dÃ©rale : les communautÃ©s et les rÃ©gions . Le passage de l'Etat unitaire vers un Etat fÃ©dÃ©ral se fait par une redistribution des pouvoirs dans l'Etat, redistribution qui affecte avant tout le pouvoir lÃ©gislatif. Cette Ã©volution n'est pas achevÃ©e en particulier pour ce qui concerne la rÃ©gion de Bruxelles, pour laquelle on peut parler d'une situation d'attente . 26 . Ces communautÃ©s et ces rÃ©gions ont Ã©tÃ© dotÃ©es d'organes qui forment ces corps reprÃ©sentatifs que sont les conseils et les exÃ©cutifs . 27 . Quant Ã la composition des conseils, les dispositions lÃ©gales dÃ©terminent l'appartenance des Ã©lus Ã l'un ou Ã l'autre groupe selon le rÃ©gime linguistique de l'arrondissement par le CollÃ¨ge Ã©lectoral au titre duquel ils ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©lus . 28 . Pour les Ã©lus de l'arrondissentent de Bruxelles, constituant un collÃ¨ge Ã©lectoral bilingue, on a dÃ» faire rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã un autre critÃ¨re objectif que celui de la simple localisation . Le critÃ¨re retenu est celui de la langue dans laquelle ils ont prÃ©tÃ© serment lors de leur investiture . 29 . Ces critÃ¨res, qui font rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã des facteurs objectifs, sont Ã©tablis et appliquÃ©s sans aucune discrimination .
30. Le Gouvernement soulÃ¨ve deux exceptions prÃ©liminaires : ratione mareriae et ratione personae et conclut subsidiairement Ã l'absence manifeste de tondentent de la requÃªte . a . Quant Ã l'exception ratione ntateria e 31 . La rÃ©forme institutionnelle n'est pas encore achevÃ©e ; elle nÃ©cessite des mesures ultÃ©rieures . Celles-ci sont en cours d'Ã©laboration . Daus la ntesure oÃ¹ la requÃ©te s'en prend au fait que la lÃ©gislation iucrintiuÃ©e ne dote pas la rÃ©gion bruxelloise d'institutions propres, elle Ã©chappe aux pouvoirs de la Commission . Il s'agit d'une omission qui peut se comprendre comme consistant Ã avoir diffÃ©rÃ©, et non point abandonnÃ©, ce qui est Ã accomplir . b . Quant Ã l'exception ratimte persona e 32 . En ce qui concerne la prentiÃ¨re phase prÃ©vue par la loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980, relative Ã la composition du conseil flamand, seuls Mme Mathieu-Mohin et M . Clerf'ayt, domiciliÃ©s eli rÃ©gion flamande, auraient pu s'estimer lÃ©sÃ©s par l'exclusion de ce conseil . DÃ¨s lors, la requÃªte doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable pour autant qu'elle vise les autres requÃ©rauts pour dÃ©faut d'intÃ©rÃªt .
33 . Suite aux Ã©lections du 8 novembre 1981 (deuxiÃ¨me phase), l'intÃ©rÃªt Ã agir n'existe que dans le chef de M . Clerfayt, seul reprÃ©sentant Ã©lu directement du corps Ã©lectoral, domiciliÃ© en rÃ©gion flamande . c. Quant Ã l'abseuce maaifeste de fmrdemeu t 34 . La requÃªte s'en prend, d'abord, au prÃ©tendu manquement consistant dans le fait pour le lÃ©gislateur belge de ne pas avoir mis en place . simultanÃ©ment, les institutions rÃ©gionales flamandes et wallonnes et les institutions rÃ©gionales bruxelloises . Ce prÃ©tendu manquement se double d'une critique qui est que ces institutions n'auraient pas Ã©tÃ© mises sur pied dans un dÃ©lai raisonnable .
35 . Or, la profondeur et l'ampleur des rÃ©formes appellent des dÃ©lais Ã la mesure de la gravitÃ© et des difficultÃ©s de l'Åuvre entreprise . Le fait qu'on n'ait pas mis en place les institutions de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise, n'implique nullement une renonciation quelconque Ã la rÃ©alisation de cette rÃ©forme prÃ©vue par la Constitution . Le manquement imputÃ© Ã l'Etat belge n'est donc pas justifiÃ© . 36 . Pour ce qui est de la violation de l'article I du Protocole nÂ° 1, il suffit de relever que la rÃ©gion bruxelloise n'a pas encore de personnalitÃ© juridique . L'on ne saurait donc pas prÃ©tendre que des biens ont Ã©tÃ© soustraits Ã un patrimoine qu'elle n'a pas . D'autre part . les transferts de biens sont envisagÃ©s par l'Etat en contrepartie des charges que les collectivitÃ©s rÃ©gionales vont devoir assumer . 37 . La requÃ¨te incrimine, encore, la composition du Conseil flamand . Pour ce qui est de l'article 3 du Protocole nÂ° I, pris isolÃ©ment . il est de jurisprudence constante de la Commission que cette disposition n'impose pas aux Etats contractants un systÃ¨me Ã©lectoral quelconque . Il ne concerne pas non plus, selon le Gouvernement, la maniÃ¨re dont les Ã©lus sont dÃ©signÃ©s sur base du rÃ©sultat du scrutin et n'a donc rien Ã voir avec la dÃ©signation des membres du Conseil flanrand qui ne sont pas directement Ã©lus Ã cetit assemblÃ©e . 38 . Pour ce qui est de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e combinÃ©e avec l'article 14 . il suit de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de que cette derniÃ©re disposition n'est pas applicable dans la mesure oÃ¹ l'objet de la requÃªte sortirait du cadre de l'article 3 du Protocole . 39 . A titre subsidiaire, Ã supposer que l'article 14 puisse Ãªtre applicable . la distiuction Ã©tablie par la loi poursuit un but lÃ©gitime et respecte le principe de proportionnalitÃ© entre les moyens employÃ©s et le but visÃ© . 40 . D'abord . il est normal que puissent Ãªtre exclues du Conseil flamand les personnes n'appartenant pas Ã la communautÃ© dont le conseil est l'Ã©manation .
Ayant optÃ© pour le groupe linguistique franÃ§ais, les requÃ©rants ont officiellement exprimÃ© leur distanciement par rapport Ã la population d'expression tlamande . " 41 . Pour ce qui est d'un Ã©lu domiciliÃ© dans l'arrondissement de HalVilvorde, et donc en rÃ©gion flamande il existe une diffÃ©rence de sort selon qu'il appartient au groupe linguistique francais ou nÃ©erlandais . Cette diffÃ©rence ne correspond toutefois pas Ã une discrimination, dans la mesure oÃ¹ l'arrondissement Ã©lectoral de Bruxelles comprend deux arrondissements administratifs, un desquels relÃ¨ve de la rÃ©gion unilingue flamande . Pour l'assemblÃ©e Ã©lectorale bilingue correspondant Ã Bruxelles, il a fallu user non du critÃ¨re de la domiciliation, mais de celui du choix, laissÃ© Ã chaque Ã©lu, d'opter pour son classement pour le groupe t}ancophone ou le groupe nÃ©erlandophone . Si l'Ã©lu opte pour le groupe francophone, il ne peut pas faire partie du Conseil flamand parce que pour en faire partie il faut faire partie de la CommunautÃ© culturelle nÃ©erlandaise ce qui est la condition pour pouvoir assister Ã des sÃ©ances au cours desquelles pourront Ãªtre discutÃ©s de problÃ¨mes concernant les intÃ©rÃªts de la rÃ©gion Bamande . B . Les requÃ©rants 42 . Par suite des rÃ©forntes institutionnelles qui ont moditiÃ© la structure juridique de l'Etat belge . le pouvoir lÃ©gislatif est attribuÃ© en Belgique au Parlement national ainsi qu'aux Conseils rÃ©gionaux et communautaires . a . Quant Ã la contpÃ©tence ratione persorra c
43 . Les requÃ©rants prÃ©cisent qu'ils sont tous domiciliÃ©s dans l'arrondissement Ã©lectoral de Bruxelles . qu'ils sont tous Ã©lecteurs et susceptibles d'Ãªtre candidats . qu'ils sont en outre Ã©lus dans l'arrondissement prÃ©citÃ© . En leur double qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs et Ã©lus ils s'estiment directement concernÃ©s par la lÃ©gislation incriminÃ©e . 44 . En leur qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs, ils se sentent discriminÃ©s par rapport aux autres citoyens belges, notamment en ce qu'ils ne peuvent pas Ãªtre des reprÃ©sentants au sein d'un conseil rÃ©gional qui exerce les compÃ©tences exclusives qui lui sout attribuÃ©es par la loi . 45 . Eu leur qualitÃ© d'Ã©lus, ils sont Ã©galement victimes d'une violation en ce qu'ils ne peuvent faire partie d'aucun conseil rÃ©gional . En consÃ©quence . les pouvoirs qu'ils tiennent de leur Ã©lection diffÃ¨rent de ceux dont disposent les Ã©lus domiciliÃ©s en rÃ©gion tlamande et en rÃ©gion wallonne . b . Quant Ã la compÃ©tence ratioue tnateria e 46 . L'argument du Gouvernement belge concerne le bien-fondÃ© de la requÃªte et non la compÃ©tence de la Commission . Seul l'Ã©tat du droit actuel compte . De lege lata, la lÃ©gislation existante reste en dÃ©faut de respecter l'article 3 d u
Protocole dans la mesure oÃ¹ on a entendu ainsi empÃªcher les habitants de la rÃ©gion de Bruxelles de participer Ã des Ã©lections libres qui assurent la libre expression du peuple sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatif . c . Quant au bien fondÃ© de la requÃªt e 47 . Depuis la loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980 . le pouvoir lÃ©gislatif est exercÃ© par les Chambres et, sur un pied d'Ã©galitÃ©, dans les matiÃ¨res distinctes, par les Conseils communautaires et rÃ©gionaux . 48 . En n'organisant pas de rÃ©gion bruxelloise, la loi prÃ©citÃ©e a privÃ© une rÃ©gion crÃ©Ã©e par la Constitution, de tout transfert de biens ou tout au moins de toute indemnitÃ© quelconque visant Ã compenser les transferts de certains biens appartenant Ã la communautÃ© nationale au profit des deux autres rÃ©gions .
Il y a lÃ une discrimination grave au dÃ©triment d'une minoritÃ© nationale, constituÃ©e par les habitants de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise, manquant de la moindre justification objective et raisonnable . Les requÃ©rants, en leur double qualitÃ© d'habitants de cette rÃ©gion et d'Ã©lus en infÃ¨rent une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole nÂ° 1 combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Convention . 49 . II y a, ensuite, violation de l'article 3 du Protocole, pris isolÃ©ment . Elle rÃ©sulte en l'absence au niveau de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise d'organisation Ã des intervalles raisonnables d'Ã©lections libres au scrutin secret dans les conditions qui assureraient la libre expression de l'opinion du peuple sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatif. 50 . 11 v a, ent Â­ n, violation de l'article 3 du Protocole, combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Conveutiou . Cette violation concerne le principe de la composition du Conseil tlamaud, la uou-participation d'Ã©lus domiciliÃ©s dans la rÃ©gion bruxelloise daus une assemblÃ©e rÃ©gionale, l'absence d'organisation d'Ã©lections rÃ©gionales daus la rÃ©gion bruxelloise . 51 . Le Conseil tlamaud rÃ©sulte de la fusion du conseil de la communautÃ© flantaude et de celui de la rÃ©gion tlamande . Or . si le prentier se rattache Ã un critÃ¨re de communautÃ© culturelle et de laugue, le secoud se rattache Ã un critÃ¨re territorial qui ne permet de justifier en aucune maviÃ¨re l'exclusiou dans sa composition des personnes qui appartiennent Ã la collectivitÃ© gÃ©ographique ainsi tracÃ©e . Or . il y a exclusion au seul moti( de l'appartenance de l'Ã©lu au groupe linguistique franÃ§ais . Les requÃ©rants souligueut Ã cet Ã©gard que 100 000 francophones de la pÃ©riphÃ©rie bruxelloise sont concernÃ©s par cette questiou . 52 . Quant Ã la participation dans une assemblÃ©e rÃ©gionale d'Ã©lus domiciliÃ©s daus la rÃ©gion bruxelloise, il y a Ã©galement une discrimination dans la mesur e
oÃ¹ les habitants tlamands de cette rÃ©gion ont, Ã la diffÃ©rence des habitants d'expression t'ranÃ§aise, la possibilitÃ© d'exprimer leur opinion sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatit' d'une rÃ©gion, en l'occurrence, de la rÃ©gion Bamande . Il y a Ã©galement discrimination dans la mesure oÃ¹ les Ã©lus d'expression franÃ§aise ne participent aux travaux d'aucune assemblÃ©e, et ce, Ã la diftÃ©rence des Ã©lus d'expression nÃ©erlandaise . 53 . II y a, entin, discrimination dans la mesure oÃ¹ les habitants de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise se voient privÃ©s de reprÃ©sentants Ã©lus dans les matiÃ©res rÃ©gionales, ces ntatiÃ¨res Ã©tant rÃ©glÃ©es par le Parlement national . 54 . Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que la diffÃ©rence de sort dont souffrirait la population bruxelloise constitue de toute Ã©vidence une discrimination fondÃ©e sur l'appartenance Ã une minoritÃ© nationale et sur la langue . Le traitement dont ils se plaignent qui vise Ã empÃªcher dans la rÃ©gion bruxelloise l'orgauisation d'institutions rÃ©gionales composÃ©es de reprÃ©sentants expriniaut l'opinion du peuple ne poursuit pas un but lÃ©gitime . Le principe de proportionnalitÃ© est Ã©galement violÃ© dans la mesure oÃ¹ il u'y a pas respect du point de vue minoritaire
55 . Agissant en leur double qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs et d'Ã©lus de l'arrondissement Ã©lectoral de Bruxelles, les requÃ©rants allÃ¨guent que la loi spÃ©ciale du 8 aoÃ¹t 1980, dite de "rÃ©fornte institutionnelle", ent'reint dans leur chef l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel, tant pris isolÃ©ment que combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Couveution . Ils tont valoir Ã©galement que la loi incriminÃ©e viole, au dÃ©triment de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise, l'article I du Protocole additionnel . 1 . Sur les exceptions prÃ©limiaaires du Gouvernemeu t 56 . Le Gouvernement oppose d'abord deux exceptions prÃ©liminaires qu'il qualifie respectiventeut de "ratione materiae" et de "ratione personae" qui se rapporteut Ã des aspects particuliers de la requÃªte . 57 . La prentiÃ¨re exception concerne le grief ayant trait Ã l'absence d'orgauisatiou de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise . Elle consiste Ã soutenir que le processus rÃ©gioual n'est pas encore achevÃ© et que les mesures ultÃ©rieures que nÃ©cessite la rÃ©torme iustitutionnelle sout en cours d'Ã©laboration . La requÃªte serait dÃ¨s lors, sur ce poiut, prÃ©maturÃ©e et Ã©chapperait, par consÃ©quent, aux pouvoirs de la Contniission . Les requÃ©rants soutiennent, par contre, que cette argumentation se rapporte, eu fait, au foud de l'aft'aire ; que seul l'Ã©tat actuel du droit compt e
et que la lÃ©gislation existante ne respecte pas les prescriptions de la Convention et du Protocole additionnel sur lesquelles ils se fondent . 58 . La Commission souligne Ã cet Ã©gard que pour Ã©tayer leurs thÃ¨ses, les requÃ©rants i appuient sur des faits prÃ©cis et concrets, tels les dispositions litigieuses de la loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980 dont il n'est pas contestÃ© qu'elles trouvent Ã i appliquer en l'espÃ¨ce . Elle est d'avis que le fait que ces dispositions s'inscrivent daus le cadre d'un processus gÃ©nÃ©ral de rÃ©forme des institutions n'a pas d'incidetice sur le fait que les requÃ©rants sont actuellement et directement aPfectÃ©s par la situation qu'ils dÃ©noncent, au sujet de laquelle ils peuvent valablement prÃ©tendre qu'ils sont victimes d'une violation des droits qui leur sont reconnus dans la Conveution et dans le Protocole additionnel . Par la deuxiÃ¨me exception, le Gouvernement dÃ©nie la qualitÃ© de victime 59 . Ã certains des Ã©lus eu Ã©gard au fait qu'en tant qu'Ã©lus du CollÃ¨ge Ã©lectoral de Bruxelles ils ne peuvent siÃ©ger au Conseil tlamand . Selon le Gouvernement . aprÃ¨s le renouvellement des Chambres suite aux Ã©lections du 8 novembre 1981, l'intÃ©rÃ©t Ã agir, Ã cet Ã©gard, n'existerait que dans le chef de M . Clerfayt, seul Ã©lu domiciliÃ© en rÃ©gion tlamande . Les requÃ©rants combattent cette thÃ¨se et affirment qu'en leur double qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs et d'Ã©lus ils s'estiment directement concernÃ©s par la lÃ©gislatiou incriminÃ©e . 60 . Sous ce rapport . la Commission relÃ¨ve que les requÃ©rants agissent en leur double qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs et d'Ã©lus . Ils s'en prennent . par consÃ©quent, Ã une lÃ©gislation qui, selou eux, reste toujours en dÃ©faut de satisfaire aux obligations assumÃ©es par la Belgique au titre de la Convention et de son Protocole additionnel . La Contmission est d'avis, dÃ¨s lors . que cette exception, qui rne parait tenir compte que de la qualitÃ© d'Ã©lus des requÃ©rants, ne saurait Ãªtre reteitue . Elle estime, en outre, que l'argument selon lequel, Ã la suite du renouvellement des Chambres du 8 novembre 1981, l'intÃ©rÃªt Ã agir n'existerait que dans le chef de M . Clerfayt, ne saurait non plus Ãªtre retenu . En effet, au moment oÃ¹ la requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite, les requÃ©rants avaient bien la qualitÃ© de victimes, qualitÃ© qu'ils n'ont pas perdue par la suite du fait du renouvellement des Chambres . La Commission s'estime dÃ¨s lors compÃ©tente pour connaitre de ces aspects de la requÃ©te . â¢
61 . L'article 3 du Protocole additionnel se lit ainsi : "Les Hautes Parties Contractantes s'engagent Ã organiser, Ã des intervalles raisonnables, des Ã©lections libres au scrutin secret, dans les condi-
qui assurent la libre expression de l'opinion du peuple sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatif . Â° La Commission rappelle Ã cet Ã©gard sa ju ri sprudence selon laquelle cett e disposition intplique la reconnaissance du suffrage universel ( cf . RequÃªte n" 6573/74 . D .R . I . p . 87) et garantit en principe le droit de vote et le droit de se porter candidat aux Ã©lections lÃ©gislatives . Elle rappelle Ã©galement que le terme "corps ICglslanf doit @tre imerprÃ©tÃ© en tenant compte des structures " Ã©tablies par les constitutions des Pa rt ies Contractantes ( cf . Requ@tes n" 6745/74 et 6746/74 c/Belgique, D .R . 2, p . 110) . Quaut Ã la uature de l'organe qui est ici en cause - le Conseil rÃ©gional - la Contntission est d'avis que celui-ci fait dÃ©sormais partie du corps IÃ©gislatiF' de la Belgique . au sens de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e, dans la mesure oÃ¹ les dÃ©crets qu'il peut Ã©mettre ont force de loi dans les matiÃ¨res qui lui sout expressÃ©ment attribuÃ©es . 62 . Aux veux de la Comntission, la requÃªte soulÃ¨ve trois questions principales . 11 . Sur la questioa couceraant l'abseace dinstirutions rÃ©gionales pour la rÃ©gioa de Bruxelles La premiÃ¨re question Ã trancher consiste Ã savoir si le fait que la rÃ©gion de Bruxelles n'ait pas Ã©tÃ© dotÃ©e d'institutions rÃ©gionales est ou non conforme Ã l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel, pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Couveution .
63 . En effet, la loi du 8 ao0t a crÃ©Ã© une disparitÃ© en ce sens qu'elle ne crÃ©e par pour la rÃ©gion bruxelloise les institutions rÃ©gionales qu'elle met en place pour les deux autres rÃ©gions, Ã qui sont dÃ©volues des compÃ©tences en matiÃ¨re lÃ©gislative . La Commission estime qu'en principe chaque Haute Partie Contractant e .64 organise au point de vue administratif le territoire national selon des critÃ¨res de nature politique et institutionnelle qui Ã©chappent au contrÃ´le des organes de la Convention . Ainsi, l'organisation des collectivitÃ©s territoriales, telles les rÃ©gions ou les Etats qui composent une fÃ©dÃ©ration, ressortit entiÃ¨rement au pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire des organes Ã©tatiques de chaque Partie Contractante . Il s'ensuit Ã©galement que l'organisation du pouvoir lÃ©gislatif, lorsqu'il est rÃ©parti entre le Parlentent et les diffÃ©rentes collectivitÃ©s territoriales, est du ressort exclusif de ces mÃ©ntes organes . 65 . La question pourrait se poser de savoir si, lorsqu'il y a, comme en l'espÃ©ce, rÃ©partition de compÃ©tences en matiÃ¨re lÃ©gislative entre diffÃ©rentes assemblÃ©es rÃ©gionales, les Ã©lecteurs ne tiennent pas de la garantie offerte par l'article 3 du Protocole un droit Ã ce que dans chaque rÃ©gion soit Ã©tabli un corps lÃ©gislatif atiu que les mÃªmes chances soient offertes Ã tous les Ã©lecteurs du pays .
66 . En tout Ã©tat de cause, et Ã supposer mÃªme que cette disposition garantisse le droit prÃ©citÃ©, la Commission est d'avis qu'il faut admettre, en pareille matiÃ¨re, que l'organisation par un Etat, qui s'est dotÃ© de structures de tvpe fÃ©dÃ©ral, des rÃ©gions qui le composent puisse Ã©tfe diffÃ©rÃ©e, sous certaines conditions qui tiennent aux donnÃ©es politiques et institutionnelles propres Ã chaque Haute Partie Contractante . 67 . En outre, la Commission est convaincue qu'en l'espÃ¨ce la disparitÃ© dont se plaignent les requÃ©rants sur la base de l'article 14 de la Convention en tant qu'Ã©lecteurs et en tarit qu'Ã©lus . entre la rÃ©gion bruxelloise et les autres rÃ©gions du pavs, disparitÃ© qui rÃ©sulte d'une situation transitoire, trouve sa justification dans les considÃ©rations suivautes : problÃ¨mes dus aux changements dans la structure de l'Etat qu'implique le passage de l'Etat unitaire vers un Etat de type fÃ©dÃ©ral ; implications de nature administrative et linguistique affectant la rÃ©gion bruxelloise, rÃ©gion bilingue et comprenant dans son ressort la capitale du pavs .
Celte disparitÃ© est fondÃ©e sur des critÃ¨res raisonnables et objectifs qui justifient la diffÃ©rence faite en l'occurrence . Elle respecte en outre le principe de proportionnalitÃ© entre les moyens employÃ©s et le but visÃ© . Aucun traitement discrimiuatoire au sens de l'article 14 de la Convention ne peut Ãªtre dÃ©celÃ© en l'espÃ©ce. 68 . Eu consÃ©queuce, les droits garantis aux requÃ©rants par l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel- pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ©s avec l'article 14 de la Convention, n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s . Il s'ensuit que celte partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . Ill . Sur la distinctioat jaite entre les Ã©lecteurs et les Ã©lus de Brnxe!lesCapita(e par rapport mix Conseils rÃ©giouatjx wn!/on et flaman d 69 . La deuxiÃ¨me question sur laquelle la Commission est appelÃ©e Ã se prononcer concerne la distinction faite par la lÃ©gislation pour ce qui est des Ã©lecteurs et des Ã©lus de Bruxelles-Capitale par rapport au Conseil rÃ©gional tlantaud . d'uue part et le Conseil rÃ©gional wallon, d'autre part . En efTet, les Ã©lus nÃ©erlandophones domiciliÃ©s Ã Bruxelles-Capitale participent avec voix consultative et droit d'iuitiative aux dÃ©libÃ©rations de l'assentblÃ©e rÃ©gionale flamande alors que la rÃ©ciproque n'est pas vraie pour les Ã©lus francophones qui ne siÃ¨gent dans aucun conseil rÃ©gional . 70 . La Comniission rappelle Ã cet Ã©gard qu'en vertu de l'article I, paragraphe 1, de la loi du 8 aoÃ»t 1980, le Conseil et l'ExÃ©cutif de la communautÃ© tlamande exercent dans la rÃ©gion u amande les attributions des organes rÃ©giouaux . De la sorte, la rÃ©gion flamande fait l'Ã©conomie d'institutions particuliÃ¨res et d'autoritÃ©s rÃ©gionales . Comme l'a notÃ© le Gouvernement Ã -112-
l'audience, c'est comme membres du Conseil de la CommunautÃ© que les Ã©lus nÃ©rlandophones trouvent place dans ce conseil unifiÃ©, dans lequel . toutefois . ils n'assument d'autres responsabilitÃ©s que les compÃ©tences attribuÃ©es aux communautÃ©s . 71 . Par ailleurs, l'ou esl en droit de se demander si par leur participation au Conseil rÃ©gional tlamand les Ã©lus nÃ©erlandophones domiciliÃ©s Ã BruxellesCapitale fout ou ue font pas partie d'un "corps lÃ©gislatif" dans la mesure oÃ ils ne disposent pas d'un droit de vote . Quoi qu'il en soit, la Commission est d'avis que l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel, lu isolÃ©ment ou mÃªme combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Couvention, ne garantit pas un droit pour les Ã©lecteurs d'avoir des reprÃ©sentants Ã©lus dans un conseil rÃ©gional autre que celui qui serait compÃ©teut pour la rÃ©gion dans laquelle ces Ã©lecteurs sont domiciliÃ©s . Cette partie de la requÃ©te est Ã©galement manifestement mal fondÃ©e par application de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . IV . Sur la question relalive aix Ã©lecteurs et Ã©lus de !'urrondissernent de Hu!-Vilvorde 72 . La troisiÃ¨me question soumise Ã la Commission se rapporte au grie f coucernant Mme Mathieu-Mohin et M . Clerfayt, toujours en leur double qualitÃ© d'Ã©lecteurs et d'Ã©lus, cette derniÃ¨re caractÃ©ristique ne subsistant plus que dans le chef de ce dernier . Ce grief peut Ãªtre rÃ©sumÃ© comme suit : en tant qu'Ã©lecteurs t'raucophones ils ne peuvent dÃ©signer des reprÃ©sentants francophones au Conseil rÃ©gional flamand, bien qu'Ã©tant domiciliÃ©s dans l'arrondissement de Hal-Vilvorde et donc en rÃ©gion flamande, et qu'en tant qu'Ã©lus appartenant au groupe linguistique franÃ§ais des deux Chambres, ils n'y peuvent siÃ©ger . En particulier, cette situation constituerait une discrimination t'midÃ©e sur la "laugue" et sur l'appartenance Ã une "minoritÃ© nationale" .
73 . Selon le Gouvernement, l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel ne concerne pas la maniÃ¨re dout les Ã©lus sont dÃ©signÃ©s sur base du rÃ©sultat du scrutin et est donc Ã©tranger Ã la dÃ©signation des membres du Conseil flamand qui ne sont pas directement Ã©lus Ã cette assemblÃ©e . Par ailleurs, dans l'hypothÃ¨se oÃ¹ cette disposition serait d'application au cas d'espÃ¨ce, aucune discrimination ne peut Ãªtre relevÃ©e . En etTet, l'arrondissement Ã©lectoral de Bruxelles, au titre duquel les deux requÃ©rants prÃ©citÃ©s ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©lus, comprend deux arrondissemeuts adntinistratifs : l'un, Bruxelles-Capitale jouissant d'un statut particulier, l'autre Hal-Vilvorde relevant de la rÃ©gion tlamande . Or. s'agissant d'un arrondissenteut Ã©lectoral bilingue, il a fallu user pour les Ã©lus non pas du critÃ¨re de la donticiliation, mais bien de celui de l'appartenance Ã un groupe liuguistique consistant en la prestation du serment soit en franÃ§ais soit en nÃ©erlandais laissÃ©e Ã la libre apprÃ©ciation de chacun avec toutes les consÃ©quences qui dÃ©couleut de ce choix, notamment en ce qui concerne la compositiou du Couseil rÃ©gional flamand . - 113 -
74 . La Commission relÃ¨ve que l'article 3 du Protocole additionnel vise avant tout Ã garantir la "libre expression du peuple sur le choix du corps lÃ©gislatif" . Aiusi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jÃ soulignÃ©, ces mots signifient essentiellement que les Ã©lections ne sauraient comporter une quelconque pression sur le choix d'uu ou plusieurs candidats et que, dans ce choix, l'Ã©lecteur ne doit pas Ãªtre indÃ»ment incitÃ© Ã voter pour un parti ou pour un autre (cf . RequÃªte nÂ° 7140/75 c/Royaume-Uni, D,R, 7, p . 95) . Aucune contrainte ne doit dÃ¨s lors Ãªtre exercÃ©e quant au choix des candidats ou des partis (cf. RequÃ©te oÂ° 8364/78 . Lindsay c/Royaume-Uni, D .R . 15, p . 247) . Par ailleurs, une atteution particuliÃ¨re doit Ã©tre accordÃ©e Ã la reprÃ©sentation de la minoritÃ© lÃ oÃ¹ les Ã©lecteurs se prononcent gÃ©nÃ©ralement en fonction de critÃ©res, tels l'appartenance Ã une ethnie ou Ã une confession ( .cf . rnutatis nuutnndis, les RequÃªtes nÂ° 8364/78 dÃ©jÃ citÃ©e et nÂ° 8765/79 . Parti libÃ©ral c/Royaume-Uni, D .R . 21, p . 211) .
75 . La Commission estime que la requÃªte soulÃ¨ve de sÃ©rieux problÃ¨mes conceruaut la reprÃ©sentation des Ã©lecteurs francophones et la participation des Ã©lus traucophones . domiciliÃ©s comme en l'espÃ¨ce en rÃ©gion flamande, Ã l'assemblÃ©e de la rÃ©giou dont ils relÃ¨vent et la compatibilitÃ©, sur ce point, de la lÃ©gislation incriminÃ©e avec .les dispositions invoquÃ©es par les requÃ©rants, Ã savoir larticle 3 du Protocole additionnel pris isolÃ©ment ou combinÃ© avec l'article 14 de la Comâ¢ention . Etaot donuÃ© la complexitÃ© de ces problÃ¨mes, la Commission est d'avis que leur exameu relÃ¨ve de celui du fond de l'affaire et, partant que cette partie de la requÃªte ue saurait Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . V . Sur la questiou concernant le transJert des patriruoiues de l'Â£lat au proJil des rÃ©gions
76 . Les requÃ©rants se plaignent . enfin, d'une violation de l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel en ce que la loi litigieuse, en transfÃ©rant sans indemnitÃ© une partie du patrimoine de l'Etat aux rÃ©gions flamande et wallonne, a expropriÃ© ainsi saus coutrepartie la seule rÃ©gion bruxelloise dont le patrimoine propre est maiutenu dans celui de l'Etat national . Cet article est ainsi conÃ§u : "Toute persouue physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens . Nul ne peut Ã¨tre privÃ© de sa propriÃ©tÃ© que pour cause d'utilitÃ© publique et dans les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi et les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit international . " 77 . Eu reconnaissant Ã chacun le droit au respect de ses biens, l'article 1 garantit en substance le droit de propriÃ©tÃ© (Cour eur . D .H . . Affaire Marckx, ArrÃªt du 13 juin 1979 . SÃ©rie A nÂ° 31, p . 27, par . 63) . Il convient d'examine r
niaintenaut si les requÃ©rants sont titulaires d'un droit protÃ©gÃ© par cette disposition qui aurait Ã©tÃ© mÃ©connu par la lÃ©gislation incriminÃ©e . Or, tel u'est pas le cas . En effet, les requÃ©rants ne peuvent exciper d'aucuu droit de propriÃ©tÃ© sur les biens devant faire part ie du patrimoine de la rÃ©gion bruxelloise lorsqu'elle sera crÃ©Ã©e . Il Ã©chet de souligner, Ã cet Ã©gard, que les droits patrimoniaux d'une collectivitÃ© territoriale ne peuvent pas Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s contme Ã©tant ceux des reprÃ©sentants Ã©lus ou des habitants de celle-ci (cf . nturatis rnutandis, RequÃªtes nÂ° 5767/72 et autres requÃªtes jointes, Seize communes et certains de leurs conseillers municipaux c/Autriche, Ann . 17, p . 339) . Cette partie de la requÃªte est donc incompatible, ratione rriateriae, avec les dispositious de la Convention, au sens de son article 27, paragraphe 2 . Par ces motifs, et tous moyens de fond Ã©tant rÃ©se rvÃ©s, la Commission DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE en ce qui concerne le grief relatif aux requÃ©rants Mme Mathieu-Mohin et M . Clefayt ;
(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS The following is a summary of the (acts as submitted by the parties, which are apparently not in dispute : 1 . The applicants are seven mentbers of the Belgian House of Representatives' and eight senators of the Belgian Senate .* â¢ Apart from Mr Clerfayt, all Ihe members reside in Brussels . Mr Clerfayt resides at Rhode-St GenÃ¨se . They were all elected in the Brussels district (Brabant Province) . â¢ The members ate as follows : Mrs Marion Banneux, Mr Guy Brasseur, Mr Georges Clerfayt . Mr Franqois Persoons, Mr Basile Risopoulos, Mrs Antoinette Spaak, Mr Luc Bernard . " The senators are as follows : Mr Joseph Bonmariage. Mr Georges Desir, Mr Roland Gillet . Mr AndrÃ© Lagasse . Mr Jacques Lepaffe, Mrs Lucienne Mathieu-Mohin, Mr Serge Moureaux, Mr Marcel Payfa .
Apart from Mrs Mathieu-Mohin, all the senators also reside in Brussels . Mrs Mathieu-Mohin resides at Vilvorde . Five senators (MM . Lagasse, Lepaffe, Gillet . Mrs Mathieu-Mohin and Mr DÃ©sir) were elected by the electorate in the Brussels district . Two senators (MM . Payfa and Moureaux) were elected by the Brabant Provincial Council and one (Mr Bonmariage) was elected by the Senate . 2 . The application concerns certain provisions in the Law of 8 August 1980 (Special Law on Institutional Reforms) which the applicants submit is not in conformitv with Articles I and 3 of the Protocol to the Convention, in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention . It is mainly concerned with arrÃ¢ngements for the membership of the councils and executive bodies of the communities and regions . Coustitutionat context and the Law of 8 August 198 0 3 . Under Article 107 (d) of the Belgian Constitution "Belgiunt comprises three regions : the Walloon Region, the Flemish Region and the Brussels Region" (sub-paragraph I) . Sub-paragraph 2 stipulates that "the law confers on the regional bodies, which it sets up and which are composed of elected representatives the power to rule on such matters as it shall determine, to the exclusion of those referred to in Article 23 and 59(bis), within such jurisdiction aud in accordance with such procedure as it shall determine" . 4 . Article 59 (bis) of the Constitution further stipulates that "There shall be a Council and an Executive Body of the French community and a Council and an Executive Body of the Flemish community whose membership and operation shall be established by law . The Councils shall be composed of elected representatives ." (paragraph 1) and that "With a view to the implementation of Article 107 quater, the Council of the French community and the Council of the Flemish community, together with their exÃ©cutive bodies . may exercise the powers of the Walloon and Flemish regions respectively, in accordance with the conditions and procedure determined by law" (paragraph 2) . 5 . The Law of 8 August 1980 (A rt icle 1) sets up a Council and an Executive of the Flemish community (Fl emish Council and Flemish Executive) and a Council and an Executive of the French community . Whilst in the Flemish region the powers of these regional bodies in matters covered by A rticle 107 quater of the Constitution are exercised by the Flemish Council and Executive, in the Walloon Region a WaBoon Regional Council and a Walloon Executive were also set up to deal with these matters . A rt icle 2 of the Law defines, as a transitional arrangement . the territories ot' the Walloon and Flemish Regions . The Law makes no provision for the Brussels Region . - 116 -
6 . The Coustitution sets aside (Article 59 bis) for the Community (community matters) cultural matters, education, cultural co-operation, certain matters ret'erred to as "personalisable", i .e . capable of having a personal impact (particularlv health policv and personal aid), as well as the use of languages, notably in administration and education . These matters are set out under Head 11 of the Law of 8 August 1980 (Articles 4 and 5) . 7 . The matters set aside by the Constitution (Article 107 quater) for the Region (regional matters) are laid down by Article 6 of the aforesaid Law . They are mainly concerned with regional planning, the environment, housing, economic, energy and employment policies and applied research . 8 . Article 12 of the Law stipulates that "The State's movable and immovable assets in the public aud private sectors, which are essential for the exercise of the Regioui and Communities' powers, shall be transferred to them without compensation" . 9 . The Community and the Region have the power to issue decrees which is exercised collectively by the Council and the Executive (Article 17) . This power is exercised in matters set aside by the Constitution and the Law . The decree has force of law . It may abrogate, supplement, modify or replace the legal provisions in force (Article 19 . para . 2) . The decrees madc by the Community in matters set aside for it also have force of law in respect of institutions established in Brussels-Capital, which, because of their activities or organisation, "shall be regarded as belonging exclusivelv to one or other community" (Article 59bis of the Constitution, paras . 4 and 4 bis) .
10 . Chapter 11 of the Law deals with the membership and operation of the Councils . The Law establishes the membership of the Councils provisionally and finally . Provision is made for two transitional periods . The first until the full renewal of the Legislative Chambers which will follow the entry into force of the Law (I October 1980), the second until the revision of Articles 53 and 54 of the Constitution (Articles which deal with the membership of the Senate) . It . During the first transitory period, the Councils are composed as follows (Article 28, para . 1) : "I . The Flemish Council shall be contposed of the members of the Dutch linguistic groups in the two chambers ; 2 . The Council of the French community shall be composed of the members of the Freuch linguistic groups in the two chambers ; - 117 -
3 . The Walloon Regional Council shall be composed of : a . the members of the French linguistic groups in the House of Representatives and the Senate elected in the Provinces of Hainaut, LiÃ¨ge, Luxembourg and Namur ; b. the members of the French linguistic groups in the House of Representatives and the Senate elected in the Province of Brabant and residing in the Walloon Region on the day of their election ; c . the members of the French linguistic group in the Senate, elected by the Senate and residing in the Walloon Region on the day of their election . " 12 . During the second transitional period, which began after the elections on 8 November 1981 and is therefore the system at present in force when determing the membership of the Councils, the latter are composed as follows (Article 29) : "Paragraph 1- The Flemish Council shall be composed of the members of the Dutch Iinguistic group in the House of Representatives and the ntembers of the Dutch linguistic group in the Senate directly elected by electorate : Paragraph 2 - The Council of the French Community shall be composed of the members of the French linguistic group in the House of Representatives and the members of the French linguistic group in the Senate directly elected by the electorate ; Paragraph 3 - The Walloon Regional Council shall be composed of the French linguistic niembers in the House of Representatives and the Senate directly elected in the Provinces of Hainaut, LiÃ¨ge, Luxembourg and Namur as well as the district of Nivelles . " As a final arrangement, the Law establishes the principle that the Flemish Council . the Council of the French Community and the Walloon Regional Council shall be composed of senators directly elected by the electorate (Article 24) . Article 25 determines membership as follow s "Paragraph I - The Flemish Council shall be composed of the directly elected members of the Dutch linguistic group in the Senate . Paragraph 2 - The Council of the French Community shall be composed of the directly elected members of the French linguistic group in the Senate . Paragraph 3- The Walloon Regional Council shall be composed of the members of the French linguistic group in the Senate directly elected in the Provinces of Hainaut, LiÃ¨ge, Luxembourg and Namur as well as the district of Nivelles ."
14 . The membership of the executive bodies is established under Chapter III otthe Law . The Executive is elected by the council (Article 59) in accordance with certain procedures (Article 60) . The Flemish Executive comprises nine members . One member at least must come from the Brussels-Capital, bilingual region (Article 63, para . 1) . The Executive of the French Community has three members, one of whom must come front the Brussels-Capital bilingual region, (Article 63, para . 2) . The Walloon Regional Executive is composed of six members (Article 63, para . 3) .
COMPLAINT S 15 . The applicants submit that the Law of 8 August 1980 deprives the French-speakiug inhabitants of Flanders and Brussels of their right to choose their "regional legislature" . In the first place it creates discrimination, based on membership of a "national minority" in respect of the Brussels Region and its elected representatives . It assigus part of the legislative power in a number of matters to the elected representatives of the Walloon and Flemish Regions alone . Accordingly, oTily the French-speaking, elected representatives from the Brussels Region are prevented from playing any part in the drafting of regional laws (decrees), since the Brussels Assembly has not been set up, whilst the Dutch-speaking elected representatives take part, with a consultative vote and the right of initiative in the deliberations of the Flemish Regional Assembly (Article 50 of the Law of 8 August 1980) . Secondly, it creates discrintination based on "language" in that the French-speaking, elected representatives of the Flemish Region are excluded from all councils and even the Regional Assembly of Flanders of which they are elected members . Lastly they complain that Article 12 of the Law transfers, without compensation, part of the State's property to the Flemish and Walloon Regions, thus expropriating, without compensation, the Brussels Region alone, whose property remains that of the nation State . 16 . The applicants allege that the aforesaid Law violates Articles I and 3 of the Protocol, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention .
BEFORE THE COM)OHSSIO N 17 . On 5 February 1982, the Rapporteur decided, in accordance with Rule 40, para . 2 (a) of the Rules of Procedure, to ask the applicants to answer the following three questions : 1 . The applicants are invited to define the territory making up the Brussels Region .
In particular, are the Municipalities of Vilvorde and Rhode-St GenÃ¨se included in that region or are they part of the territory of the Flemish Region ? 2 . The applicants are invited to explain the system under which th e territory and population are represented in the Regional Assemblies set up under the Law of 8 August 1980 . 3 . The applicants are invited to notify the Commission of the changes that have occurred, and which concern them, in the membership of the National Assembly and the Senate following the elections of 8 November 1981 . 18 . As to the ffrst question, the applicants pointed out that the Law of 8 August 1980 had provisionally established the territory of the Flemish and Walloon Regions . and that the territory remaining after that partition corresponded to the administrative district of Brussels-Capital, comprising nineteen municipalities, which did not include Vilvorde or Rhode-St GenÃ¨se . As the legislatiou is at present, these municipalities alone make up the territory of the Brussels Region . Accordingly it must be concluded that Vilvorde and Rhode-St GenÃ¨se are at preseut part of the territory of the Flemish Region . As to the fact that the Law does not define the territory of the Brussels Region . the applicants recall the opinion given by the Council of State, which said that the draft Law before it was "admissible from the constitutional point of view only in so far as the implementation of Article 107 quater in respect ot the Brussels Region had simply been deferred, and not abandoned, and that the failure to implement it did not continue beyond a reasonable period" . 19 . As to the second qlrestion, the applicants submitted that the territory and the population of the Brussels Region were not represented in any body or iustitutiou as were those of the other two regions . With regard, moreover, to the membership of the Flemish Council, resulting tront the system at present in force, the criterion observed by the Law is membership of a linguistic group, in this case the Dutch group . It follows, in particular, that the members and senators in the French linguistic group, directly elected and residing in a province or district included in th e
territorv of the Fleniish Region,' are excluded, as is the case with Mr ClerJ'ayr, who resides at Rhode-Sl GenÃ¨se . 20 . As to the third question, as a result of the elections on 8 November 1981 the following among the applicants were re-elected : the members MM . Clerfayt, Risopoulos and Spaak and the senators MM . Gillet, Lagasse, Lepafte, DÃ©sir and Moureaux (a co-opted senator elected by the Senate) . It should be pointed out that Mrs Mathieu-Mohin was not re-elected . 21 . On 15 July 1982 the Commission decided to bring the application to the kuowledge of the respondent Government, and invite it to present its observations as to the admissibility and merits of the application, in so far as it concerned Article 3 of the First Protocol, read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention . The Government was invited to state its view on the following question In so far as it stipulates that members called to sit on the Flemish Regional Council must belong to the Dutch-speaking linguistic group in the House of Representatives or the Senate, even if they reside in the Flemish Region . is or is not the legislation of 8 August 1980 in conformity with Article 3 of the First Proto .ol . read alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Conventiou ? 22 . The Governntent's memorial as to admissibility and the merits is dated 3 Decentber 1982 . The applicants replied in a memorial dated 26 February 1983 .
23 . On 6 May 1983, the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para . 3 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to invite the parties to present, orally, supplementary explanations as to the admissibility and merits of the application . 24 . On 12July 1983 a hearing took place at which the parties were represented as follows : The respondent Governmen t Mr J . Niset . Government Agen t Mr C . Cambier, Lawyer practising at the Brussels Bar, Counsel Mr M . Denys, Lawyer practising at the Brussels Bar, Advise r Mr D . Reynders, Counsellor in the Office of the Minister for Institutional Reforms, Advise r Mr B . Cambier, Lawyer practising at the Brussels Bar, Advise r
â¢ Eastern Flanders, Western Flanders, Antwerp, Limburg and the Louvain and HalVilvorde districts .
The applicant s
Mr J .P . Lagasse . Lawyer practising at the Brussels Bar, Counsel Mr B . Maingain, Lawyer practising at the Brussels Bar, Counsel Mr S . Moureau, Applican t SUMMARY OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE PARTIES A . The Govenunen t 25 . The Government placed the situation concerned in its historical . political and institutional context . As a result of the constitutional reviews of 1970 and 1980, Belgium had been given structures based on the federai system : the communities and the regions . The transition from a unitary to a federal state took the form of the redistribution of the powers in the State, a process which mainly att'ected the legislature . That development has not been completed, particularly in the Brussels Region, where it is fair to speak of a"wait-and-seÃ©' situation . 26 . These communities and regions were given organs which make up the representative bodies consisting of councils and executives . 27 . As to the composition of the councils, the legal provisions determine ntembership by elected representatives of one or other group, according to the linguistic svstem of the district, decided on by the Electoral College, for which they were elected . 28 . In the case of elected representatives in the Brussels district, which constitutes a bilingual electoral college, reference had to be made to an objective criterion other than that of mere location . The criterion selected was that of the language in which elected representatives took the oath at the time of their investimre . 29 . These criteria, which are based on objective factors, are established and applied without discrimination . 30 . The Government raises two preliminary objections : ratione niateriae and ratione personae and concludes, as a subsidiary submission, that the application is manifestly ill-founded . a . As to the objection ratione ntateria e 31 . The institutional reform has not yet been completed ; it calls for subsequent measures . These are being prepared . In so far as the application challenges the fact that the legislation in dispute does not provide the Brussels Region with its own institutions, the Commision is not competent to consider it . That is an omission which can be regarded as being deferred, but certainly not abandoned, and therefore as something that has to be done .
b . As to the objection, ratia+e perso im e 32 . With regard to the first phase provided for by the Law of 8 August 1980 and retating to the composition of the Flemish Council, only Mrs Mathieu-Mohin and Mr Clerfayt, who reside in the Flemish Region, could have considered themselves prejudiced by their exclusion from that Council . Therefore, the application must be decla re d inadmissible in so far as it concerns the other applicants in view of the absence of a legitimate interest in their case . 33 . After the elections on 8 November 1981 (second phase), Mr Clerfayt alon e had a legitimate reason for action, since he was the only representative directly elected by the electorate, who resided in the Flemish Region . c . As to the objection, ntanifestly ill-/buaded 34 . The application first complains of an alleged breach, consisting in the fact that Belgian legislation did uot simultaneously set up Flemish and Walloon regional institutions and Brussels regional institutions . This alleged breach is supported by the criticism that these institutions were not set up within a reasonable time . 35 . However, the magnitude and extent of the reforms call for time-limits, in keeping with the gravity and difticutty of the work undertaken . The fact that institutions have not yet been set up in the Brussels Region in no way implies that the implementation of this reform, provided for under the Constitution, has been set aside . The breach ascribed to the Belgian State is therefore not justified . 36 . With regard to the violation of Article I of Protocol No . I . it need only be pointed out that the Brussels Region does not yet have a legal personality . Therefore it could not be clainied that assets have been taken from property which it does not possess . Furthermore, the transfer of assets is envisaged by the State in order to compensate for burdens which the regional authorities will have to bear . 37 . The apptication further complains of the composition of the Flemish Council . With regard to Article 3 of Protocol No . I, the Commission has constantly held, in its case-law, that this provision does not impose any electoral system on the Contracting States . Neither does it concern, in the Government's view, the way in which elected representatives are appointed on the basis of the results of the ballot, and therefore has nothing to do with the nomination of the members of the Flemish Council, who are not directly elected to that Assembly .
38 . With regard to the aforesaid provision, read in conjunction with Article 14, it follows from what has been said above that the latter provision is not applicable, in so far as the subject of the application falls outside the scope of Article 3 of the Protocol . Alternatively, even assuming that Article 14 is applicable, the distinctio n .39 established by the law pursues a legitimate aim and respects the principle of proportionality between the means used and the aim in view . Firstly, it is normal that it should be possible to exclude.40 from the Flemis h Council persons who do not belong to the community from which that Council has emerged . In opting for the French linguistic group, the applicants officially expressed their lack of identity with the Flemish-speaking population . 41 . With regard to an elected representative residing in the Hal-Vilvorde district, i .e . a Flentish Region . there is a difference, according to whether he belongs to the French- or the Dutch-speaking group . That difference does not constitute discrimination, however, in so far as the Brussels electoral district comprises two administrative districts, one of which comes under the Flemish single-language region . In the case of the bilingual electoral Assembly in Brussels, it was necessary to use not the criterion of residence, but that of the choice left to every elected representative to choose whether he wished to be classified in the French-speaking or the Dutch-speaking group . If the elected representative opts for the French-speaking group, he cannot become a member of the Flemish Council, because to do so it is necessary to be part of the Dutch cultural community . That is the condition which must be satisfied in order to be able to attend the meetings at which problems concerning the interests of the Flemish region can be discussed . The applicant s 42 . Following the iustitutional reforms which altered the legal structure of the Belgian State, legislative power in Belgium has been assigned to the national Parliament and the regional and community councils . a . As to competence . ratiooe persona e 43 . The applicants state that they all reside in the Brussels electoral district, that they are all electors and entitled to stand for election and that they were also elected iu the aforesaid district . In their dual capacity as electors and elected representatives they regard themselves directly affected by the legislation in dispute . 44 . As electors, they feel that they have been discriminated against in comparison with other Belgian citizens, notably in so far as they cannot be represented on a regional council exercising exclusive powers assigned to it by law . -124-
45 . As elected representatives, they are also the victims of a violation in that thev caunot be members ot' any regional council . Accordingly, the powers that they have front their election differ from those of elected representatives residing in the Flemish and Walloon regions . b . As to competence . ratione niateria e 46 . The Belgian Government's argument concerns the merits of the application and not the Commission's competence . Only the present state of law is relevant . Under existing law, current legislation fails to comply with Article 3 of the Protocol in so far as it was designed to prevent the inhabitants of the Brussels regiou from participating in free elections, which will ensure the free expression of the opiuiou of the people in the choice of the legislature . c . As to the merits of the applicatio n 47 . Siuce the Law of 8 August 1980, legislative power is exercised by the Chambers and, on an equal footing, in different matters, by the community and regional councils . 48 . By tailiug to set up a Brussels Region, the aforesaid Law deprived a region, established by the Constitution, of any transfer of assets, or at least of any compeusation designed to make up for the transfer of certain assets belonging to the national community, to the benefit of the other two regions . That constitutes a serious discrimination to the detriment of a national miuority . consisting of the inhabitants of the Brussels Region, which lacks the slightest objective and reasonable justification . In their dual capacity as inhabitants of that region and elected representatives, the applicants infer from this a violation of Article I of Protocol No . I read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention . 49 . There is also a violatiou of Article 3 of the Protocol taken in isolation . This results in the absence in the Brussels Region ot'the organisation ot' free elections, at reasonable intervals, by secret ballot, under conditions which could ensure the tree expression of the opiuion of the people in the choice of the legislature . 50 . Lastly, there is a violation of Article 3 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Couveution . That violation concerns the principle of the ntembership of the Flemish Council, the non-participation in a regional assembly by elected representatives residing in the Brussels Region and the failure to hold regional electious iu the Brussels Region . 51 . The Flemish Council results from the merging of the Council of the Flemish commuuity aud that of the Flemish Region . But although the tirst is based on the criterion of cultural community and lauguage, the second is based on a territorial criterion, which in no way makes i t
- 1 25 -
possible to justify the exclusion from its membership of persons belonging to the territorial entity thus defined . Accordingly exclusion is based solely on the elected representative's membership of the French-linguistic group . The applicants point out in that connection that 100 .000 French-speakers in the suburbs of Brussels are affected by this question . 52 . As to the pa rt icipation in a regional assembly by elected representatives residing in the Brussels Region . discrimination also exists in that, unlike the French-speaking inhabitants, Flemish-speaking inhabitants have an opponunity to express their opinion about the choice of the legislature in a region, in this case . the Flemish Region . Discrintination also exists in so far as the French-speaking elected representatives do not lake pa rt in the work of any assembly, unlike Dutchspeaking representatives . 53 . Lastly , discrimination exists in so far as the inhabitants of the Brussels Region are deprived of elected representatives in regional matters, since these ntatters are dealt with by the national parliament . 54 . The applicanls submit that the different fate of the Brussels population clearlv constitules a discrimination based on their membership of a national minority and on language . ' The treatment of which they complain, and which is designed to privent the organisation in the Brussels Region of regional institutions composed of representatives expressing the opinion of the people . does not pursue a legitimate aim . The principle of proportionalitv is also violated in so far as the minority point of view is not respected .
THE LA W 55 . In their dual capacity as electors and elected representatives of the Brussels electoral district, the applicants submit that the special, so-called "Institutional Reform" Law of 8 August 1980 violates, in their case . Article 3 of the Protocol read in isolation and also in conjunction with Article 14 of the convention . They also contend that the Law challenged violates Article I of the Protocol to the detriment of the Brussels Region . 1 . As ro the Governrnenr's prelindnarv objection s 56 . The Government first raises two preliminary objections, which it describes as "ratione materiae". and "ratione personae" . and which concern specific aspects of the application .
57 . The first objection concerns the complaint dealing with the absence of au organisation of the Brussels Region . It consists in the submission that the regional process has not yet been completed and that the subsequent measures called for by the institutional reform are being prepared . The application is therefore allegedly premature on this count and ; accordingly, the Commission is not contpetent to consider it . The applicants contend that in fact this argument concerns the merits of the case ; that only the present state of law counts and that existing legislation is not in conformity with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocol on which they base their case58 . In this connection the Commission notes that to substantiate their arguments, the applicants base themselves on precise, concrete facts, such as the disputed provisions in the Law of 8 August 1980 which, as is not denied, applv in the present case . It is of the opinion that the fact that these provisions are part of a general process of institutional reform does not alter the fact that the applicants are at present directly affected bv the situation of which they complain and in respect of which they can validly claim to be victims of a violation of the rights they enjoy under the Convention and the Protocol . In its second objection, the Government denies that certain elected rep.59 reseutatives cau be regarded as victims, in view of the fact that, as elected representatives of the Brussels Electoral College, they can sit on the Flemish Council . In the Government's view, after the renewal of the Chambers, followiug the electious of 8 November 1981 . Mr Clerfayt, the only elected representative residiug in the Flemish Region, no longer had any reason to take action in this respect . The applicants dispute that argument and submit that in their dual capacity as electors and elected representatives they are directly affected by the legislation in dispute . 60 . In this respect, the Conimission observes that the applicants are acting in their dual capacity as electors and elected representatives . Accordingly, they complain of legislation which, in their view, still fails to satisfy the obligations entered into by Belgium under the Convention and the Protocol . Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that this objection, which does not appear to take into account the fact that the applicants are elected representatives, cannot be accepted . It is further of the opinion that the argument to the effect that Mr Clerfayt, no longer had any reason to take action after the renewal of the Chambers on 8 November 1981 . can also not be accepted . . - 1Z% -
Moreover, when the application was lodged, the applicants were indeed victims, and they have not ceased to be so because of the renewal of the Chambers . Accordingly the Commission feels that it is competent to consider these aspects of the application .
61 . Article 3 of the Protocol reads as follow s "The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasouable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature . " The Commissiou recalls, in this connection, its case-law whereby thi s provision implies the recognition of universal suffrage (see Application No . 6573/74 . DR I . p . 87) and guarantees, in principle, the right to vote and the right to be a candidate for election to the legislature . It also recalls that the term "legislaturÃ©" must be interpreted in the light of the institutions established bv the constitutions of the Contracting Parties (see Applications No . 6745/74 and 6746/74 against Belgium . DR 2, p . 110) . As to the nature ot the body concerned in this case-the Regional Couucil-the Commission is of the opinion that it is now part of the "legislature" of Belgiunt . within the meaning of the aforesaid provisions, in so far as the decrees, which it may issue, have force of law, in matters expressly assigued to it . 62 . In the Commission's view, the application raises three principal questions . 11 . As to the question concerning the absence of regional institutions for the Brussels Region The tirst questiou to be decided is whether the fact that the Brussel s Regiou has uot beeu given regional institutions is in accordance, or not, with Article 3 of the Protocol, read in isolation or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Conveutiou . 63 . The Law of 8 August 1980 created a disparity in that it did not set up for the Brussels Region the regional institutions it established for the other two regions, to which legislative powers were transferred . 64 . The Commission is of the opinion that in principle every High Contracting Party organises itsuational territory, from the administrative point of view, accordiug to political and institutional criteria, which the organs of the Conveutiou are not competent to supervise . Thus, the organisation of territoria l
entities such as Regions, or the States which compose a federation, is entirely a ntatter for the discretionary power of the State bodies of each Contracting Party . It also follows that the organisation of legislative power, when apportioned between parliament and the different territorial entities, is exclusively a matter for those sante organs . 65 . It ntight be asked whether, when, asin the present case, powers have been apportioned in legislative matters between different regional assemblies, the electors do not enjoy, under the guarantee offered by Article 3 of the Protocol, the right that a legislature should be set up in every region, so that all the electors in the country have the same opportunities . 66 . In any case, and even if this provision guaranteed the aforesaid right, the Commission is of the opinion that it has to be conceded, in such matters, that the organisation by a State, which has federal-type structures, of the regions of which it is composed, may be deferred, under certain conditions, bound up with political and institutional factors peculiar to each High Contracting Party . 67 . Furthermore, the Commission is convinced that in the present case the disparity, of which the applicants complain on the basis of Article 14 of the Convention as electors and elected representatives, between the Brussels Region and the other regions of the country, a disparity resulting from a transitory situation, can be justified by the following considerations : problems due to alteratious in the structure of the State resulting from the transition front a unitary State to a federal-type State ; implications of an administrative and linguistic nature affecting the Brussels Region, a bilingual region which includes the capital of the country .
That disparity is based on reasonable and objective criteria which justify the difference made in this case . It also respects the principle of proportionality betweeu the means used and the aim in view . No discriminatory treatment within the nteaning of Article 14 of the Convention can be detected in the present case . 68 . Accordingly, the rights guaranteed to the applicants by Article 3 of the Protocol, read in isolation or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, have not been violated . It follows that this part of the application is ntanifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . 111 . As to the distn i ction made between the electors and elected representatives oj Brussels-Capita! in coniparison with the Wa[loon and Flendsh Regional Councits 69 . The second question, which the Commission must decide, concerns the distinction made by legislation with regard to the electors and elected rep-
resentatives of Brussels-Capital in contparison with the Flentish Regional Couucil and the Walloon Regional Council . The Dutch-speaking, elected representatives, residing in Brussels-Capital, participate with a consultative vote and the right to initiative in the deliberations of the Flemish Regional Assembly whilst the same is not true of the French-speaking, elected representatives who do uot sit on any Regional Council . 70 . The Comntission recalls in this conneetion, that under Article I, paragraph 1, of the Law oP 8 August 1980 . the Council and the Executive of the Flemish comntunity exercise the powers of regional bodies in the Flemish Region . Therefore, the Flemish Region does not have specific institutions and regional authorities- As the Government observed at the hearing, the Dutchspeakiug elected representatives sit on this unified Council as members of the Council of the comntunity, but they assume no other responsibilities than those powers assigued to the communities . 71 . Furtherntore, it is fair to ask whether, by their participation in the Flemish Regional Council, the Dutch-speaking, elected representatives, residing in Brussels-Capital, are a part, or not, of a"legislaturÃ©', in so far as they do uot have votiug rights . However that may be, the Commission is of the opinion that Article 3 of the Protocol, read in isolation or even in conjunction with Article 14 of the Couvention, does not guarantee the electors the right to have elected representatives ou a Regional Council, other than that which would be competent for the region in which these electors reside . This part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded in pursuance of Article 27 (2) of Ihe Couvention . IV . As to the qaestion caacerniag the electors and elected representatires oj dre Nal-Vilvorde distric t 72 . The third question submitted to the Commission concerns the complaint in respect of Mrs Mathieu-Mohin and Mr Clerf-ayt, in their dual capacity as electors aud elected representatives, although the last designation no longer applies to the latter . This complaint can be summed up as follows : as Frenchspeaking electors they cannot designate French-speaking representatives to th . although thev reside in the Hal-Vilvorde district eFlntishRgouaCc . i .e . Flemish Region, and, as elected representatives belonging to the French linguistic groups in the two Chantbers- thev cannot sit on that body . In particular, this situation allegedly constitutes a discrimination based on "lauguagÃ©" aud mentbership of a "national minority" . 73 . Accordiug to the Governntent- Article 3 of the Protocol does not concern the mauuer in which elected representatives are appointed on the basis of the result ot the ballot, and thus has nothing to do with the appointment of mentbers of the Flemish Council, who are not directly elected to that assembly . Furthermore, assuming that this provision were applicable in th e
present case, no discrintination can be dÃ©tected . -The Brussels electoral district, for which the two aforesaid applicants were elected, comprises two administrative districts : one, Brussels-Capital, which has a special status, the other . Hal-Vilvorde, which comes under the Flemish Region . But since this is a biliugual, electoral district- it was necessary to use, in the case of the elected representatives, uot the criterion of residence, but that of inentbership of a linguistic group, consisting in the taking of the oath either in French or in Dutch, which is left to the free judgnient of everyone, with all the consequences tlowing from that choice, notably with regard to the membership of the Flemish Regional Council . 74 . The Conimission points out that A rt icle 3 of the Protocol is designed above all to secure the "free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature" . As the Commission hasalready emphasised, in esseuce these words niean that elections cannotbe made iinder any form of pressure in the choice of one or more candidates, and that in this choice the elector ntust not be unduly induced to vote for one pa rty or another ( see Application No . 7140/75 against the United Kingdom . DR 7, p . 95) . No constraint must therefore be exercised in respect of the choice of candidates or pa rt ies (see Application No . 8364/78, Lindsay against the United Kingdom, DR 15, p . 247) . Fu rt hermore, pa rt icular attention must be attached to the representation of the miuority, in cases where electors generally decide in the light of criteria, such as niembership of an ethnic group or a denoniination (see tnutatis rnutandis, the aforementioned Applications no . 8364/78 and No . 8765, the Liberal Pa rt y against the United Kingdom, DR 21, p . 211) .
75 . The Commission is of the opinion that the application raises serious issues concerning the representation of French-speaking electors and the participation of French-speaking elected representatives, residing, as in the present case, in the Flemish Region . in the assembly of their region, and the compatibility- on this count, of the legislation in dispute with the provisions iuvoked by the applicants, i .e . Article 3 of the Protocol, read in isolation or in coujunction with Article 14 of the Convention . In view of the complexity of these issues, the Contmission is of the opinion that their exaniination is bound up with the nterits of the case and, therefore, that this part of the application cannot be declared manifestly illtouuded withiu the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . V . As to the quesriou coucerning the transjer oj State assets to tlrebeuefit qf the region s 76 . Lastly, the applicants complain of a violation of Article I of the Protoco l iu that the Law in dispute . by transferring without compensation, pa rt of the State's propertv to the Flemish and Walloon Regions, thereby expropriated , - 131 -
without compensation, the Brussels Region alone, whose property remains part of that of the national State . That Article reads as follows : "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyntent of his possessions . No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law . "
77 . By securing to everyone the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, Article I secures, in essence, the right to property (European Court of Human Rights, Marckx Case, Judgment of 13 June 1979 . Series A, No . 31, p ._27, para . 63) . It should now be considered whether the applicants are entitled to a right safeguarded by this provision, which was allegedly violated by the legislation in dispute . However, such is uot the case . The applicants cannot claim any right to the owuership of assets which will be part of the property of the Brussels Region, when it is set up . It should be emphasised, in that connection ; that the pecuniary rights of a territorial entity cannot be regarded as those of the elected representatives or the inhabitants of that territory (see ntutvtis rnutartdis Application No . 5767/72 and other joint applications, sixteen Austrian Communes and some of their councillors against Austria, Yearbook 17, p . 339) . This part of (he application is therefore incompatible rationne nmteriae with the provisious of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 (2) . For these reasons, and without prejudging in any way the merits of the case, the Comniissio u DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE in rÃ©spect ofthe complaiut relating to the applicants Mrs Mathieu-Mohin and Mr Clerfayt ; DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
- 132 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/07/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page