Bayefsky.com

The United Nations Human Rights Treaties

Jurisprudence

CCPR - Belgium

Complete list of decisions

Case Name Comm Number Date Articles Outcome
De Clippele v. Belgium 1082/2002 28 March 2003   Inadmissible
Van Marcke v. Belgium 904/2000 07 July 2004 14(1) No Violation
Guido Jacobs v. Belgium 943/2000 07 July 2004 2, 3, 25(c), 26 No Violation
J.O. et al. v. Belgium 1417/2005 28 October 2005   Inadmissible
Lassâad Aouf v. Belgium 1010/2001 17 March 2006 14(1, 3 e) No Violation
Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium 1472/2006 22 October 2008 2(3)(a), 12, 14(1,2, 3), 15, 17 Violation
M. v. Belgium 2176/2012 30 March 2015 2, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 22 Inadmissible
S.R. et al. v. Belgium 1895/2009 02 November 2015 2 (1), 3, 7, 16, 23 (1), 24, 26 Inadmissible
M.A.K. v. Belgium 2148/2012 28 March 2017 14, 15, 17, 3 Inadmissible
M. A. K. v. Belgium 2148/2012 28 March 2017 14, 15, 17 Inadmissible

Information in this section of Bayefsky.com is as of May 2018. To update use the UN website search engine here.

CERD, CCPR, CESCR, CEDAW, CAT, CRC, CMW, CRPD and CED all have optional complaint mechanisms, whereby an individual may complain to the respective treaty body that his or her rights under the treaty have been violated. The CMW complaint mechanism is not yet in force.

Included in this section are:

  1. requests made by the treaty body for interim measures
  2. decisions to deal jointly with cases
  3. admissibility decisions (normally decisions determining a complaint is admissible are not issued separately and hence this category involves decisions in which complaints are found to be inadmissible)
  4. final views.

Information on follow-up of final Views where a violation has been found is included in the section entitled "Follow-up: Jurisprudence".