Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

Belgium / Constitutional Court / 114/2020

Order of Francophone and Germanophone Bars, Order of Flemish Bars and the Institute of Accountants and Tax Consultants and others
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
24/09/2020

Χάρτης των Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης

Title II: Freedoms

Article 7 - Respect for private and family life

Title VI: Justice

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

  • Belgium / Constitutional Court / 114/2020
    Key facts of the case:
    The Act of 18 September 2017 relating to the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing and Limitation of the Use of Cash introduces preventive measures to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing, punishable by administrative and criminal penalties. It was adopted in light of developments in this field at the European and international level and aims to implement Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing. The Act applies to many entities, including lawyers who assist their client in the preparation or execution of certain transactions. The applicants claimed that Articles 47 and 49 of the Act of 18 September 2917 infringe lawyer's professional secrecy as an essential element of the right to respect for private life and the right to a fair trial. The Act created an administrative authority, the ‘Financial Information Processing Unit’ (FIPU), tasked to process and provide information with a view to combating money laundering and terrorist financing. Articles 47 and 49 of the Act require lawyers to provide all suspicions of money laundering or terrorist financing to the FIPU.
    Key legal question raised by the Court: 
    The key legal question was whether the new Act was in violation with lawyer's professional secrecy as an essential element of the right to respect for private life and the right to a fair trial (as provided by Articles 10, 11 and 22 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
    Outcome of the case:
    The Constitutional Court ruled that several provisions of the Act of 18 September 2017 are contrary to the professional secrecy of lawyers, as an essential part of the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial. The Act is therefore partially annulled.
     
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    The compatibility of legislative provisions with Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Articles 10, 11 and 22 of the Constitution and Articles 6 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, may be examined by the Court only to the extent that those provisions give effect to Union law. In so far as the contested provisions transpose the first subparagraph of Article 33(1)(a) and the second subparagraph of Article 33(2) and Article 34(1) of Directive 2015/849, they fall within the scope of European Union law. The right to respect for private life as guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the right to an effective remedy guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union should be defined, in application of Article 52(3) thereof, by reference to the content and scope given to it by the European Convention on Human Rights. The explanations relating to Article 7 of the Charter show that that Article is based on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear from the explanations relating to Article 47 of the Charter that the second paragraph of that Article corresponds to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, except to the extent that in Union law the right of access to justice does not apply only to disputes relating to civil rights and obligations or to criminal proceedings.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    De verenigbaarheid van wetsbepalingen met de artikelen 7 en 47 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie, in samenhang gelezen met de artikelen 10, 11 en 22 van de Grondwet en met de artikelen 6 en 8 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens, kan door het Hof slechts worden onderzocht in zoverre die bepalingen het Unierecht in werking stellen. In zoverre de bestreden bepalingen artikel 33, lid 1, eerste alinea, a), en tweede alinea, artikel 33, lid 2, en artikel 34, lid 1, voormeld, van de richtlijn (EU) 2015/849 omzetten, vallen zij onder het toepassingsgebied van het recht van de Unie. Het recht op eerbiediging van het privéleven zoals het is gewaarborgd bij artikel 7 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie en het recht op een doeltreffende voorziening in rechte gewaarborgd bij artikel 47 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie moeten, met toepassing van artikel 52, lid 3, ervan, worden gedefinieerd onder verwijzing naar de inhoud en de reikwijdte die door het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens eraan worden toegekend. Uit de toelichting bij artikel 7 van het Handvest blijkt dat dat artikel gebaseerd is op artikel 8 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens. Uit de toelichting bij artikel 47 van het Handvest blijkt dat de tweede alinea van dat artikel overeenstemt met artikel 6, lid 1, van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens, behoudens in zoverre in het recht van de Unie het recht op toegang tot de rechter niet alleen van toepassing is op geschillen inzake burgerlijke rechten en verplichtingen of op strafvervolging.