27th Session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

Speaking notes by Henrik HAMMAR (Sweden, EPP/CCE), Rapporteur

Local and regional democracy in Belgium

Dear colleagues,

My colleague Urs WUTTRICH PELLOLI and I have participated in both monitoring visits to Belgium which took place in October 2013 in Brussels and Tervuren, then inFebruary 2014 in Brussels.

As always during those visits, our delegation met the Belgian official representatives elected at both the central level and at the regional level. We met, at the same time, representatives  from the Flemish Region, from the Walloon Region, as well as from the Brussels-Capital Region, but also the representatives of the three Communities: French, Flemish and German speaking. We also met representatives at the local level, and more particularly the magistrates of Brussels, Tervuren, Linkebeek, Kraainem and Wezembeek-Oppem. 

It is the first time that Belgium is the subject of a monitoring visit and we would like to thank warmly the authorities whom have welcomed us.

The Kingdom of Belgium ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government on 24^th August 2004. During the ratification, Belgian authorities declared themselves non-bound by the provisions of the Article 3.2, of the Article 8.2, and of the Article 9 paragraphs 2, 6 and 7. In accordance with the Article 13 of the Charter, the Kingdom of Belgium has sought to limit the impact of the Charter to the provinces and to the municipalities, and the provisions of the Charter do not apply to the “Centres Publics d’Aide Sociale” (CPAS) inside the Brussels-Capital Region’s territory. 

It is relevant to underline first of all that Belgium is currently characterised by numerous of transformations that result from the Sixth Reform, convened on October 2011. This reform results from the political and institutional crisis which affected the country in 2010, and which had been characterised by the absence of a government for 541 days. Taking into account the institutional and administrative organisation of Belgium, we felt it best to focus on each Region successively in this report.

Firstly, concerning Flanders, we have noted with satisfaction that the constitutional and legal basis of self-governance is respected. Flanders local-governments have the effective capacity to solve and manage, under the law, under their own responsibility and in favor of its population, a substantial share of public affairs. Nevertheless, improvements are still possible.

It is obvious that the Sixth Reform has contributed to increase the local self-government significance and we encourage Flemish authorities to reinforce the dialogue between the region, the communities and the municipalities.

We also welcome the protection of territorial limits as well as the conditions in which local representatives’ responsibilities are exerted. Finally the right of association is respected and the communities receive a legal protection.

However, we noticed different points which set off some concerns.

First of all, communal structures are facing important financial difficulties bound to the expenses constituted by the agents’ pensions. We invite the Belgian federal government to address this issue and we insist upon the necessity to reduce the expenses of financing and to increase the incomes.

Another concern is the administrative control of local-governments’ acts. Indeed, it seems that the a posteriori actions for an annulment of the taken decisions lead to a slowing down in the treatment of cases files and therefore to a slowing down of investments.

As for the principle of dual guardianship which aims to control both legality and an adequacy control of acts, it is a principle written in the Belgian Constitution and so, we understand the non-ratification of the Article 8.2’s provision due to the difficulty to reform it.  

One of the major concerns is related to the procedure of the magistrates’ nomination. Contrary to the Walloon Region, the Flemish Region (nor actually the Brussels-Capital Region) have not taken into account the Congress position adopted in 2003 and in 2008 in favor of a modification of this procedure which appears as a significant local self-government limiting. It is a fundamental element of the local self-government, and the Congress has to be very clear about this subject as it was for Ukraine or Russia with Regional Governors and the principle of the dual guardianship.

We are well aware that it is a long-term process because it requires a constitutional revision, but we think that it should be implemented.  This is a point which merits an in-depth study, which is why we didn’t mention it in the current recommendation. I talked about it to the Belgian delegation and if you appreciate that it has to be added in the recommendation, personally I am ready to do it.

The last topic of concern is related to the communities’ financial resources, which, like in many European countries, are facing the consequences of the economic and financial crisis. We would like to pay tribute to the initiative of the Flemish Government to examine the non-ratified provisions related to this matter. We therefore encourage the Flemish Government to ratify the non-ratified provisions, in the same way as the Walloon Region and the Brussels-Capital Region have done.

I am now giving the floor to my co-rapporteur colleague, Urs WUTTHRICH PELLOLI, who will continue with the presentation of this report.