Here too, an extremely urgent request for suspension was submitted to the Council of State, by the parents of a 17-year-old who will not be able to leave his home.
The auditor of the Council of State has already given his opinion on the two files. And this Monday evening, the Council of State has just confirmed at least the case of Anderlecht: the ban is indeed maintained, the body thus following the opinion of the auditor. It was also announced earlier in the day that it would continue its work this Tuesday on the Antwerp case. Where Bart De Wever will reprofile not his decision but the way he motivates it.
Anderlecht: the Council of State does not revoke the “illegal” decision
In the case of Cureghem, the auditor of the Council of State considers that the decision taken by Mayor Cumps is illegal and even contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The mayor presents his decision as a protective measure, particularly for the minors themselves. Fireworks, banned until March in Brussels, could be used and above all “misused“, with the risk of injury that this manipulation could cause. “This is a youth protection measureexplained Fabrice Cumps. We realize that every year, despite the ban on fireworks, very young children throw firecrackers. And not just any models: sometimes Cobra 8 models deemed to be very dangerous.“
Last weekend, the Brussels-South police seized more than 5,000 illegal fireworks from Germany during a check in Cureghem.
The auditor of the Council of State issued an opinion that was both loaded and… ineffective. And the Council of State followed, the decision fell a little before 9:30 p.m.
First, considers the listener, the mayor cannot make this type of decision alone. This is the responsibility of the municipal council, as long as the matter is foreseeable. Indeed, if the mayor’s fears of seeing things go wrong on New Year’s Eve are based on the incidents of 2022 and 2023, it happens that New Year’s Eve takes place on the same date every year. As a result, a municipal council could perfectly decide on this curfew, since it was not taken by surprise.
But even in this scenario, there is a problem, notes the auditor: the police are called to arrest any minor not accompanied by an adult (parent or guardian) on the night of December 31, period, that is All. However, the Convention on the Rights of the Child only authorizes this type of order measure against a minor if there is no other solution. Which is not the case, analyzes the listener.
gullThe Council of State considers that the applicants do not concretely demonstrate the existence of harm to them that is sufficiently serious to justify a suspension of this order.
However, despite all this, the auditor does not follow the emergency suspension request. The decision of the mayor of Anderlecht would have had to irremediably harm the applicant family and they would have had to be able to demonstrate this. The damage is not irremediable, analyzes the auditor. The parents will just have to manage to accompany their 15-year-old son that evening.
This is therefore also the meaning of the decision taken this evening by the Council of State: “The Council of State considers that the applicants do not concretely demonstrate the existence of harm to them that is sufficiently serious to justify a suspension of this order.“In other words,”the presence in certain public spaces of the municipality of minors under sixteen years of age unaccompanied by a legal guardian, from December 31, 2024 at 7 p.m. to January 1, 2025 at 5 a.m.” remains prohibited in Anderlecht and more precisely in the Cureghem district.
Suspension in Antwerp: we decide this Tuesday
In Antwerp, the auditor’s opinion did not follow the same trajectory. The measure of order is also not entirely comparable. The N-VA mayor Bart De Wever has already made the same decision in 2022 and 2023: we preventively prohibit a series of minors (there are 47 this year) from leaving their homes and we send the police there to check that no one ‘went to the wall.
According to Bart De Wever, the idea is to “be able to create a New Year’s Eve party without fear”. There is no question here of youth protection arguments.
The auditor of the Council of State agrees with the request for suspension filed by the parents of a 17-year-old boy stuck at home: there is good reason to suspend because, as the requesting party points out, “the reasons given to justify the mayor’s decision are disproportionate to the serious consequences of the latter“. Serious argument, remembered the listener.
But after having read this opinion, Bart De Wever is in the process of reworking his arguments, while maintaining the decision of house arrest which, in itself, is not directly called into question. It is the reasons given that are problematic. The Council of State will therefore examine the Antwerp file this Tuesday, after hearing the different parties.
We will see if the suspension is confirmed or not.
