Siegfried Bracke’s claim against Hedebouw and PVDA for ‘grabbing petition’ rejected: “No urgency” | Domestic

Bracke summoned the chairman of the far-left opposition party and the non-profit organization that receives and manages the party’s grant, to force them to take offline a petition with which they want to pressure him and former House Speaker Herman De Croo for their “thousands of euros in extra grab-and-go pensions.” , in addition to the legally established maximum pension, to be repaid in full. According to Bracke, that petition is a “digital pillory”.

The PVDA’s claims that the exit payment would be illegal because it would exceed the statutory pension ceiling were also manifestly incorrect, according to the lawyers of the former Speaker of the House, and the lawyers also believed that it was unacceptable that only Bracke was targeted by the petition. while dozens of civil servants general receive the same compensation and remain unmentioned.

On the other side, it was said that Bracke’s summary proceedings were an attack on freedom of expression and were also aimed at the wrong people. The non-profit organization had nothing to do with the petition, and it was not possible to summon the chairman of a political party, a de facto association, as the legal representative of all members.

“Siegfried Bracke tried to prevent us from challenging his pension privileges and from pronouncing the word ‘grabbing’ together with his name. He wants to silence us. But the court is now blowing his whistle back. Bracke has done his homework poorly. We will continue with our petition and the fight against the grabber policy in Belgium,” PVDA chairman Raoul Hedebouw responds.

The summary proceedings also came very late, the lawyers of Hedebouw and the non-profit organization argued. It turns out that the court proved them right on that point.

“The Brussels judge in summary proceedings acknowledges that it has been made plausible that the PVDA petition causes (moral) damage to Siegfried Bracke, but ultimately rejects his claim because there would be no urgency,” Bracke’s lawyers reported on Wednesday evening.

In his order, the summary proceedings judge indeed notes that the petition has been online since March 7, while Bracke only sent a notice of default at the end of August and only went to court on September 15, even though he was already confronted with hate messages and vandalism in March and April.

“For example, the judge no longer had to rule on the way in which the PVDA is conducting a campaign against the former Speaker of the House on the internet,” Siegfried Bracke’s lawyers respond. “That assessment, an easy solution, naturally requires little comment.”

According to Hedebouw, the judge did not rule on the merits of the case. “It’s about freedom of expression,” it sounds. “We are confident that if the judge had not had to correct Bracke in terms of procedure, we would have won the case on the merits. Because the publication ban that Bracke requested is a total mockery of the right to freedom of expression. A decision in accordance with Bracke’s wishes would have been a dangerous precedent,” Hedebouw concludes.