Belgium / Constitutional Court / 26/2023

Jens Hermans, Karin Verelst and C.U.; and others Association without lucrative purpose «Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités» Versus The Flemish Government; The United College oCommon Community Commissionf the
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/02/2023
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:BE:GHCC:2023:ARR.026
  • Belgium / Constitutional Court / 26/2023

    Key facts of the case:

    The SARS-CoV-2 virus outbreak in March 2020 triggered pandemic containment measures at various levels. The contested decrees and ordinance were implemented to complement existing measures aimed at controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. The Flemish Community and the Common Community Commission in Brussels (i.e. the body in charge of community competences of the Flemish-speaking and French-speaking Communities in the Brussels Region) took measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19, such as isolation, testing, and contact detection. The decree of 10 July 2020 extended the isolation scope, while the decree of 18 December 2020 introduced mandatory self-isolation and regulated the organisation of contact detection and data processing. The 17 July 2020 ordinance amended the communicable disease regime, with mandatory testing and quarantine for returning persons from "red zones" or with a high-risk profile. In January 2021, citizens filed an action for annulment in the Court against the Decree of the Flemish Community of 10 July 2020 and the Decree of 18 December 2020 on preventive health policy and COVID-19 notification obligation, arguing that the Decree violated Article 187 of the Constitution, read together with articles 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 22 and 23 of the Constitution, Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 7, 9, 15 and 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Articles 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 47 of the EU Charter. They also sought the suspension of the decree of 18 December 2020, but this was rejected in judgment No 88/2021 of 10 June 2021 because the applicants failed to show that they would be seriously and irreparably harmed by the immediate application of these provisions. In January and June 2021, additional actions to annul were filed by citizens and the non-profit organisation "Association de Promotion des Droits Humains et des Minorités" on similar grounds. The cases were merged..

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    As the Court merged several cases on the same topic together, there is a variety of legal questions raised. First, a dispute revolves around the question of jurisdiction. Some contend that the authority to enact measures related to isolation, medical examination, testing and criminalisation should rest with the federal government, challenging the jurisdiction of the communities. Furthermore, there is a question raised regarding the procedural aspects of the Decree of 18 December 2022. It is argued that the lawmakers should have sought the opinion of the Federal Data Protection Authority beforehand, according to the GDPR. Next, a constitutional dimension is introduced, with several parties asserting that the challenged measures infringe Article 187 of the Constitution. This claim suggests that these measures, by potentially suspending certain constitutional provisions, run afoul of the constitutional framework. It is also claimed that the possibility of isolation and self-isolation for infected persons and those at high risk could be considered a "deprivation of liberty" under the European Convention on Human Rights, without adequate safeguards including appropriate judicial oversight. The claimants refer, in this context to equivalent protection provided by Article 9 of the International Treaty and Civil and Political Rights, Articles 6, 7 and 47 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights and Article 12 of the Belgian Constitution. The legality of the measures is also questioned on the grounds of vagueness in defining punishable behaviour. Specifically, terms like "increased risk," "high-risk area," and "red zone" are criticized for lacking precision, thereby potentially violating the legality principle in criminal cases. Lastly, the matter of data privacy is raised, asserting that the Flemish decree infringes upon the right to privacy. The concern centres around the sharing of medical data with various entities, including the central contact centre, field investigators, local contact centres, and COVID-19 teams, raising significant questions about data processing practices and the protection of individual privacy rights.

    Outcome of the case:

    Firstly, the Court noted that the disputed measures do fall within the competence of the communities, especially in the area of preventive health care. A second issue concerned the consultation of the federal Data Protection Authority. The Court found that although the Flemish Community has established a supervisory authority, because it had not been notified to the European Union as required by the GDPR, its opinion could not count as consultation under the GDPR. The Court upheld this plea. The Court then assessed the claim that the challenged measure violated the Constitution. This claim was rejected because, although the measures were intended to address an emergency, they did not amount to suspending the Constitution. On the legal question with regards to the obligation of isolation and self-isolation, the Court ruled that despite the intrusive nature of these measures, judicial remedies were available. The Court noted that the Flemish Community provided for an independent appeal court, and that appeals could be lodged with courts of appeal, including interlocutory proceedings. Consequently, there is no unlawful detention as in Article 5 of the ECHR. Finally, with regard to the principle of legality in criminal matters, the Court concluded that the concept of “increased risk” was clear, but found that the concepts of “high-risk area” and “red zone” had not been defined rightly, resulting in a violation of the principle of legality. Regarding data processing, the Court ruled that subject to the legal obligation of confidentiality, sharing medical personal data with different actors did not violate the right to respect for private life. The Court firstly annulled Articles 2 and 7 to 15 of the Decree of December 18, 2020 that relate to data processing. However, to avoid the legal uncertainty that would result from that annulment, it maintained the effects of those provisions until the entry into force of a regulation adopted after compliance with the requirements of the AVG and, at the latest, until 31 December 2023. The Court further annulled the provision of the same decree with respect to the term " high-risk area" and the words "any person who arrives in the territory of the bilingual region of Brussels-Capital, coming from a city, municipality, district, region or country which the federal public service Foreign Affairs designated as a red zone in the context of that pandemic" in the ordinance of 17 July 2020. Finally, the Court dismissed the reminder of the appeals.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    - B42.6: Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also provides for a right to an effective remedy. The same scope should be given to that provision as to Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECJ, Grand Chamber, November 19, 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 and C-625/18, A. K. v. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa and CP and DO v. Sąd Najwyższy, ECLI:EU:C:2019:982, para. 117).

    - B.72.3. According to Article 52(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, when that Charter contains rights corresponding to rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, " its content and scope shall be the same as those attributed to it by the said Convention." That provision aligns the content and scope of the rights guaranteed by the Charter with the corresponding rights guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court of Justice of the European Union recalls in that connection that " Article 7 of the Charter, on respect for private and family life, contains rights corresponding to those guaranteed by Article 8(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights] and, in accordance with Article 52, paragraph 3 of the Charter, the same content and scope must therefore be attributed to that Article 7 as those attributed to Article 8(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights], as interpreted in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights " (ECJ, 17 December 2015, C-419/14, WebMindLicenses Kft. , ECLI:EU:C:2015:832, para. 70; Feb. 14, 2019, C-345/17, Buivids, ECLI:EU:C:2019:122, para. 65). With regard to Article 8 of the Charter, the Court of Justice held that, as expressly provided for in the second sentence of Article 52(3) thereof, Union law may provide wider protection than the European Convention on Human Rights, and that Article 8 of the Charter refers to a fundamental right other than the fundamental right formulated in Article 7 of the Charter, which has no equivalent in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECJ, Grand Chamber, 21 December 2016, C-203/15 and C-698/15, Tele2 Sverige AB, ECLI: EU:C:2016:970, para. 129).

    - B.72.4. It follows from the foregoing that, within the scope of Union law, Article 22 of the Constitution, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union guarantee analogous fundamental rights, while Article 8 of that Charter envisages specific legal protection concerning personal data.

    - B73. 2 (…) In accordance with Article 52(1), first sentence, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, any limitations on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized therein, including in particular the right to respect for private life guaranteed by Article 7 and the right to the protection of personal data enshrined in Article 8 thereof are provided for by law, respect the essence of those rights and, subject to the principle of proportionality, are necessary and genuinely meet an objective of general interest or the requirements of protecting the rights and freedoms of others (ECJ, Grand Chamber, October 6, 2020, C-623/17, Privacy International, ECLI: EU:C:2020:790, para. 64). In the same vein, according to Article 23 of the AVG, restrictions on certain obligations of data controllers and data subjects' rights contained therein must be established by law, must not affect the essential content of fundamental rights and freedoms, must be a necessary and proportionate measure in a democratic society to achieve the aim pursued, and must comply with the specific requirements set out in the second paragraph (ECJ, Grand Chamber, October 6, 2020, C-511/18, C-512/18 and C-520/18, La Quadrature du Net, ECLI: EU:C:2020:791, paragraphs 209-210; December 10, 2020, C-620/19, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1011, paragraph 46).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    - B42.6: Artikel 47 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie voorziet eveneens in een recht op een doeltreffende voorziening. Aan die bepaling dient dezelfde draagwijdte te worden gegeven als aan de artikelen 6 en 13 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens (HvJ, grote kamer, 19 november 2019, C-585/18, C-624/18 en C-625/18, A. K./Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa en CP en DO/Sąd Najwyższy, ECLI:EU:C:2019:982, punt 117).

    - B.72.3. Krachtens artikel 52, lid 3, van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie zijn, wanneer dat Handvest rechten bevat die corresponderen met rechten die zijn gewaarborgd door het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens, « de inhoud en reikwijdte ervan dezelfde als die welke er door genoemd verdrag aan worden toegekend ». Die bepaling stemt de inhoud en reikwijdte van de door het Handvest gewaarborgde rechten af op de corresponderende rechten die worden gewaarborgd door het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens. In de toelichtingen bij het Handvest (2007/C 303/02), bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad van 14 december 2007, wordt aangegeven dat, onder de artikelen met dezelfde inhoud en reikwijdte als de daarmee corresponderende artikelen van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens, artikel 7 van het Handvest correspondeert met artikel 8 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens. Het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie herinnert in dat verband eraan dat « artikel 7 van het Handvest, inzake de eerbiediging van het privéleven en van het familie- en gezinsleven, rechten bevat die corresponderen met de door artikel 8, lid 1, van het [Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens] gegarandeerde rechten en dat, overeenkomstig artikel 52, lid 3, van het Handvest, aan dat artikel 7 dus dezelfde inhoud en reikwijdte moeten worden toegekend als die welke aan artikel 8, lid 1, van het [Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens] worden toegekend, zoals uitgelegd in de rechtspraak van het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens » (HvJ, 17 december 2015, C-419/14, WebMindLicenses Kft., ECLI:EU:C:2015:832, punt 70; 14 februari 2019, C-345/17, Buivids, ECLI:EU:C:2019:122, punt 65). Wat artikel 8 van het Handvest betreft, oordeelt het Hof van Justitie dat, zoals in artikel 52, lid 3, tweede zin, daarvan uitdrukkelijk wordt bepaald, het Unierecht een ruimere bescherming kan bieden dan het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens, en dat artikel 8 van het Handvest betrekking heeft op een ander grondrecht dan het in artikel 7 van het Handvest geformuleerde grondrecht, dat geen equivalent heeft in het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens (HvJ, grote kamer, 21 december 2016, C-203/15 en C-698/15, Tele2 Sverige AB, ECLI:EU:C:2016:970, punt 129).

    - B.72.4. Uit het voorgaande volgt dat, binnen de werkingssfeer van het Unierecht, artikel 22 van de Grondwet, artikel 8 van het Europees Verdrag voor de rechten van de mens en artikel 7 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie analoge grondrechten waarborgen, terwijl artikel 8 van dat Handvest een specifieke rechtsbescherming betreffende persoonsgegevens beoogt.

    - B73.2 (...) Overeenkomstig artikel 52, lid 1, eerste zin, van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie moeten beperkingen op de uitoefening van de daarin erkende rechten en vrijheden, waaronder met name het door artikel 7 gewaarborgde recht op eerbiediging van het privéleven en het in artikel 8 ervan neergelegde recht op bescherming van persoonsgegevens, bij wet worden gesteld, de wezenlijke inhoud van die rechten eerbiedigen en, met inachtneming van het evenredigheidsbeginsel, noodzakelijk zijn en daadwerkelijk beantwoorden aan een doelstelling van algemeen belang of aan de eisen van de bescherming van de rechten en vrijheden van anderen (HvJ, grote kamer, 6 oktober 2020, C-623/17, Privacy International, ECLI:EU:C:2020:790, punt 64). In diezelfde zin moeten overeenkomstig artikel 23 van de AVG beperkingen van bepaalde daarin opgenomen verplichtingen van de verwerkingsverantwoordelijken en de rechten van de betrokkenen worden ingesteld bij wet, de wezenlijke inhoud van de grondrechten en fundamentele vrijheden onverlet laten, in een democratische samenleving een noodzakelijke en evenredige maatregel zijn ter verwezenlijking van het nagestreefde doel, en de in het tweede lid geformuleerde specifieke vereisten naleven (HvJ, grote kamer, 6 oktober 2020, C-511/18, C-512/18 en C-520/18, La Quadrature du Net, ECLI:EU:C:2020:791, punten 209-210; 10 december 2020, C-620/19, Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, ECLI:EU:C:2020:1011, punt 46).