Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Legal Instruments to Confront Administrative Inaction in Belgium: A Gift for the Citizen but a Curse for the Government?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sound of Silence in European Administrative Law

  • 268 Accesses

Abstract

From the outset it should be noted that there is no general legislation on the Belgian (federal) level which stipulates a certain fixed deadline that all administrations must adhere to when taking administrative actions. Nevertheless, timeliness has always played an important role in Belgian administrative procedural law. Specific laws and decrees determine specific deadlines. And even without a national doctrine on administrative silence, jurisprudence indicates that the “tacit refusal” is the more preeminent model, rather than the lex silencio positivo technique. This chapter focuses specifically on how the Belgian legal system views the concept of a deadline and how the prolongation of a deadline or the consequences of disregarding a deadline are handled within specific fields of law. Special attention is paid to the legal remedies developed mainly through case law to protect individual rights against administrative inaction.

Ludo M. Veny: Deceased

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The former province Brabant was split up into Flemish Brabant and Walloon Brabant in 1995.

  2. 2.

    “Provincial College” in the Walloon part of Belgium, “Deputation” in the Flemish part of Belgium.

  3. 3.

    “Municipal College” in the Walloon part of Belgium, “CBA” in the Flemish part of Belgium and in the Brussel Capital Region.

  4. 4.

    Van Damme (2001, p. 74).

  5. 5.

    See Mast et al. (2017, pp. 56–73).

  6. 6.

    CoS 27 May 2004, nr. 131.827.

  7. 7.

    CoS 30 January 2015, nr. 230.037.

  8. 8.

    CoS 8 August 1997, nr. 67.691.

  9. 9.

    Cos 17 March 1981, nr. 21.037; 7 April 1981, nr. 21.094; 8 June 2015, nr. 231.462.

  10. 10.

    CoS 21 April 2008, nr. 182.185.

  11. 11.

    CoS 26 May 2015, nr. 231.330; 6 October 2015, nr. 232.435.

  12. 12.

    CoS 15 June 2004, nr. 132.404; 22 January 2015, nr. 229.956.

  13. 13.

    CoS 6 October 2015, nr. 232.440.

  14. 14.

    CoS 20 February 1990, nr. 34.108.

  15. 15.

    See Mast et al. (2017, p. 1270).

  16. 16.

    CoS 3 June 1997, nr. 66.519.

  17. 17.

    CoS 19 January 1995, nr. 51.211: the Council of State found that an administration which decided on the inadmissibility of an appeal after 15 months exceeded a “reasonable deadline”; in another case, the “reasonable deadline” was deemed to be exceeded after 2 months, see CoS 8 February 2001, nr. 93.156.

  18. 18.

    CoS 19 June 2014, nr. 227.766.

  19. 19.

    Article 32, §2 Flemish Decree of 24 April 2014 on environmental permits, further referred to as the 2014 Environment Decree

  20. 20.

    Article 110/24, §1 Codex Secondary Education.

  21. 21.

    SeeOpdebeek (1992, p. 79) and Van Hoorick (2011, p. 57).

  22. 22.

    CoS 17 December 2014, nr. 209.855; CoS 24 October 2011, nr. 215.967.

  23. 23.

    Opdebeek (2015, p. 159).

  24. 24.

    Lust (2003, p. 859).

  25. 25.

    Opdebeek (1992, p. 79).

  26. 26.

    CoS 12 November 2008, nr. 187.846; CoS 7 February 2013, nr. 222.423.

  27. 27.

    Maes (2015, p. 134).

  28. 28.

    Flemish Decree of 24 April 2014 on environmental permits, further referred to as the 2014 Environment Decree.

  29. 29.

    Marneffe et al. (2011, p. 10).

  30. 30.

    De Taeye (2002, p. 172).

  31. 31.

    Opdebeek (1992, pp. 110–111).

  32. 32.

    CoS 29 March 2016, nr. 234.284.

  33. 33.

    Art. 4.7.18 §2 Flemish Code of environment planning; art. 32 §4 2014 Environment Decree.

  34. 34.

    See Denys (2015, pp. 280–283); CoS 17 March 2015, nr. 230.559, nv Imbos.

  35. 35.

    CPL 13 December 2016, nr. RvVb/A/1617/0402; CPL 30 August 2016, nr. RvVb/A/1516/1491.

  36. 36.

    CoS 18 March 2004, nr. 129.417, Salaets e.a.

  37. 37.

    See Pieters (2010, p. 746).

  38. 38.

    See Opdebeek (1992, p. 222).

  39. 39.

    CoS 27 May 2003, nr. 120.004; 27 June 2002, nr. 108.523.

  40. 40.

    Referred to before as the Law act of 3 June 1971, actually incorporated as article 14, §3 in the CoS coordinated laws.

  41. 41.

    Opdebeek (2006, p. 13).

  42. 42.

    See, e.g., CoS 25 November 2003, nr. 125.670.

  43. 43.

    CoS 16 January 2014, nr. 226.105; TBP 2014, 475; T.Gem. 2014, 145.

  44. 44.

    Cf. supra, nr. 3.2.

  45. 45.

    Cf. supra, nr. 3.3.

  46. 46.

    E.g.: MHCC/M/1617/0015, 31 January 2017: In which the administrative court found that although the regional administrative entity could act outside the given deadline the fact that the administration had acted so unreasonably late (23 months after the deadline) was reason for significantly reducing the administrative fine the administration had issued. See also: MHCC/M/1718/0021, 17 October 2017.

  47. 47.

    Cf. supra, nr. 2.3.

  48. 48.

    Decree Flemish Parliament of 6 February 2004 (Official Gazette 20 February 2004, 2nd edition).

  49. 49.

    CPL 14 February 2012, nr. A/2012/0052, 8.

  50. 50.

    Larmuseau et al. (2012, p. 276).

  51. 51.

    CPL 8 August 2017, nr. RvVb/A/1617/1110; CPL 28 April 2015, nr. A/2015/0270.

  52. 52.

    Cass. 10 April 2014, C.11.0796.N.; see also Haentjens (2016).

  53. 53.

    Test Aankoop (2010).

  54. 54.

    UNIZO-studiedienst (2011).

  55. 55.

    https://www.ruimtelijkeordening.be/Portals/108/201709_SV_beroepen_rapport.pdf.

  56. 56.

    See DBRC, Annual Report 2017–2018, Brussels, 2018, pp. 28–35.

  57. 57.

    See www.handicap.belgium.be.

  58. 58.

    Earlier case law reports (2002 and 2012) revealed 0 or 1 case a year for exceeding the deadline; actual data—a fact check carried out in March 2019 by Exello, the union of General directors of Flemish municipalities—show that more than 90% of the decisions is taken within 30 days after applying for support.

  59. 59.

    Art. 93, 2014 Environment Decree.

  60. 60.

    Art. 11, §7, Law on Commercial Enterprises 2004.

  61. 61.

    See art. 93, 2014 Environment Decree.

  62. 62.

    Parl. Doc., Flemish Parliament, 767 (2015–2016), nr. 6.

  63. 63.

    Article 11 §5 Law act of 13 August 2004.

  64. 64.

    Article 11 §7 Law act of 13 August 2004.

  65. 65.

    See CoS 15 January 2016, nr. 233.486; CoS 30 June 2016, nr. 235.278.

  66. 66.

    Const. Court, 25 June 2015, nr. 93/2015.

  67. 67.

    Senate, Session 2006–2007, Question nr. 3-6505 by Mr. Steverlynck dd. 28 December 2006 (N).

  68. 68.

    UNIZO-Studiedienst (2007).

  69. 69.

    https://www.detailhandelvlaanderen.be/wetgeving/tijdige-betekening-van-beslissingen-inzake-socio-economische-vergunning.

  70. 70.

    CoS 18 April 2005, nr. 143.267; 29 May 1998, nr. 73.931.

  71. 71.

    See art. 32, §4, 2014 Environment Decree.

  72. 72.

    Art. 66, §3, 2, of the 2014 Environment Decree; PCSW Law, Social Benefits Law, etc.

  73. 73.

    https://www.presscenter.org/nl/pressrelease/20170221/reactie-van-de-fod-sociale-zekerheid-naar-aanleiding-van-de-stakingsactie-van-.

  74. 74.

    https://www.lachambre.be/kvvcr; answer to question by MP V. Yüksel, nr. 0667—Session: 54.

  75. 75.

    See Mast et al. (2014, p. 948).

  76. 76.

    See Wouters (2008, p. 251).

  77. 77.

    CoS 10 May 1995, nr. 53.223; Veny and De Munck (2011, p. 278).

  78. 78.

    See Mast et al. (2009, p. 948).

  79. 79.

    See De Roy (2003, p. 8).

  80. 80.

    CoS 13 November 1995, nr. 56.211; T.Gem. 1996, p. 101.

  81. 81.

    See Goris (2007, pp. 189–194).

  82. 82.

    Article II.48, §1 Flemish Government Decree.

  83. 83.

    Article II.50, §1 Flemish Government Decree.

  84. 84.

    Article 66 Flemish Decree on environmental permits.

  85. 85.

    E.g., the deadline of 30 days after request to decide on social support, see article 10 Social Security Charter, article 62bis, §1, PCSW Law Act of 8 July 1976, and article 21, §3 Social Integration Law Act of 26 May 2002.

  86. 86.

    CPL 17 October 2017, nr. RvVb/A/1718/0145; CPL 8 May 2018, nr. RvVb/A/1718/0814.

  87. 87.

    Court of Appeal Brussels, 10 June 2010 http://jure.juridat.just.fgov.be.

  88. 88.

    Justice of Peace, Aalst, 27 February 2017, AR 16/1153.

  89. 89.

    CoS 12 December 2002, nr. 113.571.

  90. 90.

    CPL 17 October 2017, nr. RvVb/A/1718/0145, case nr. 1516/RvVb/0386/A.

  91. 91.

    See: Art. 71, PCSW-Law 8 July 1976.

  92. 92.

    Cass. 5 November 1920, Pas., 1920, I, 193–240.

  93. 93.

    Cass. 7 March 1963, Pas. 1963, I, 744; Cass. 26 April 1963, Pas. 1963, I, 905; Cass. 16 December 1965, Pas. 1966, I, 513.

  94. 94.

    Annual Report 2017 Flemish Ombudsman, p. 20.

  95. 95.

    Federal Ombudsman, Annual Report 2017, p. 140.

  96. 96.

    Flemish Parliament, Commission meeting, Commission for environment, urban planning, nature, energy and animals’ welfare, Tuesday 12 April 2016, question by MP Lydia Peeters to minister Joke Schauvliege, nr. 1677 (2015–2016).

  97. 97.

    Art. 32, §1, 2014 Environment Decree.

  98. 98.

    Art. 32, §2, 2014 Environment Decree.

  99. 99.

    Art. 66, §3, 2, of the 2014 Environment Decree stipulates that the silence of the Deputation (or the Flemish government), not treating in due time administrative appeal can lead to a silent rejection of this appeal.

  100. 100.

    DBRC Annual Report 2017–2018, pp. 30–36.

  101. 101.

    Annual Report 2017 Flemish Ombudsman, p. 21.

  102. 102.

    Opdebeek (1988), Bolt (1988), and Opdebeek (1992); see also more recently: De Coninck (2016).

  103. 103.

    Cf. supra nr. 7.2.

References

  • Bolt, H. (1988). Het inactieve bestuur, administratiefrechtelijke bescherming tegen stilzitten van de overheid. RW 1988–1989, 1137–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Coninck, L. (2016). Le silence de l’administration: décision implicite d’accord ou de rejet?. Louvain: Université catholique de Louvain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denys, S. (2015). Rechtskarakter van de beslissingstermijnen bevolen door de Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen. T.Gem., afl. 4, 280–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Roy, C. (2003). Het georganiseerd administratief beroep. Mechelen: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Taeye, S. (2002). Het rechtszekerheidsbeginsel en het vertrouwensbeginsel. In B. Hubeau & P. Popelier (Eds.), Behoorlijk ruimtelijk ordenen. Brugge: die Keure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goris, J. (2007). Het georganiseerd bestuurlijk beroep en het algemeen bestuurlijk toezicht: de soms vage scheidingslijn wordt steeds vager. T.Gem., afl. 3, 189–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haentjens, F. (2016). Aansprakelijkheid bij overschrijding ordetermijn. TOO, nr. 3, 433–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larmuseau, I., et al. (2012). Stilzwijgend geweigerd, onwettigheid verzekerd. TOO, nr. 4, 276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lust, S. (2003). De aansprakelijkheid van de Overheid voor het niet in acht nemen van een beslissingstermijn (noot onder Cass. 8 November 2002). RABG, afl. 15, 859.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maes, A. (2015). Dwingende beslissingstermijnen in de VCRO. Of toch niet (altijd)? TOO, afl. 1, 134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marneffe, W., Ooms, A., & Vereeck, L. (2011). Rechtseconomische analyse van het beginsel van de redelijke termijn bij vergunningen. TVW, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mast, A., Dujardin, J., et al. (2009). Overzicht van het Belgisch administratief recht. Mechelen: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mast, A., Dujardin, J., et al. (2014). Overzicht van het Belgisch administratief recht. Mechelen: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mast, A., Dujardin, J., et al. (2017). Overzicht van het Belgisch administratief recht. Mechelen: Wolters Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdebeek, I. (1988). Het inactieve bestuur. Administratiefrechtelijke rechtsbescherming tegen stilzitten van de overheid in België. Zwolle: Tjeenk Willink.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdebeek, I. (1992). Rechtsbescherming tegen het stilzitten van het bestuur. Brugge: die Keure.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdebeek, I. (2006). Artikel 14, §3, RvS-Wet. In Publiek Procesrecht, Artikelsgewijze commentaar met overzicht van rechtspraak en rechtsleer (p. 13). Mechelen: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdebeek, I. (2015). De sanctie voor schending van de redelijke termijn bij het opleggen van bestuurlijke boetes in het milieurecht: geen zwart-witverhaal, maar wel een verhaal van 50 tinten grijs… (noot onder Milieuhandhavingscollege 13 June 2014, MHHC-14/38-K2). MER, 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieters, E. (2010). La loi du 28 mars 2010 sur les services. TBH, nr. 8, 746.

    Google Scholar 

  • Test Aankoop. (2010). Stedenbouwkundige vergunning: de overheid neemt een loopje met de termijnen.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNIZO-Studiedienst. (2007). Handelsvestigingenbeleid ontspoort. Unizo-analyse van enkele belangrijke distributie-indicatoren, Brussel.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNIZO-Studiedienst. (2011). Investeringsprojecten van ondernemers, snel en efficiënt vergunnen. Brussel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Damme, M. (2001). The Council of State: Institution on the Junction of the Three Traditional Powers of State. In J. Vande Lanotte (Red.), The Principle of Equality: A South African and Belgian Perspective (p. 74). Antwerpen and Apeldoorn: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hoorick, G. (2011). Handboek Ruimtelijk bestuursrecht. Intersentia: Antwerpen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veny, L., & De Munck, E. (2011). Effectiveness of Administrative Appeals Within the Framework of Administrative Justice in Belgium. TRAS, 278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, K. (2008). Het administratief beroep. Antwerpen: Maklu.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

    Bengt Verbeeck

  2. Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Ivo Carlens, Jurgen Neuts & Ludo M. Veny

Authors
  1. Bengt Verbeeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ivo Carlens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jurgen Neuts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ludo M. Veny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bengt Verbeeck .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Good Governance Studies, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Dacian C. Dragos

  2. Faculty of Public Administration, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Polonca Kovač

  3. Faculty of Law, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Hanna D. Tolsma

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Verbeeck, B., Carlens, I., Neuts, J., Veny, L.M. (2020). Legal Instruments to Confront Administrative Inaction in Belgium: A Gift for the Citizen but a Curse for the Government?. In: Dragos, D., Kovač, P., Tolsma, H. (eds) The Sound of Silence in European Administrative Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45227-8_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation