Special law

As special laws or by special majority those laws are designated in Belgium, the special majority required only in the legislative process in the Federal Parliament ( two-thirds of total and a simple majority in each language group ). Special laws are only adopted if it expressly provides for the constitution. In most cases, the cases are concerned, in which the Belgian state structure should be changed in the broadest sense.

Thus, the basic features of the federal system enshrined in the Constitution itself, while the construction details are recorded in relation to the institutions, responsibilities and funding of member States in a number of special laws in the Belgian federalism. Even if the special laws do not belong to the constitution in the formal sense, they are part of the Constitution in " substantive " sense.

Origin

Before the special laws were created already existed, the mechanism of the qualified majority in the Belgian law. For example, need to be resolved since 1831 constitutional amendments by a two -thirds majority (see below). Also known as universal suffrage for men was enrolled into the Constitution in 1920, they stipulated that this option could (and not by a new constitutional amendment ) be extended to women by an ordinary law with a two-thirds majority. Such a law was adopted on 27 March 1948.

The special laws were introduced in the first state reform (1968 to 1971). The procedure for the adoption of special laws had according to former Prime Minister Gaston Eyskens a following origin: required for the application of laws of state reform ( the future special laws ) proposed the Catholic- Socialist government originally provided that you importing laws for which a simple majority in both linguistic groups would ( without additional two-thirds majority ). In order to make this system applicable, but first had to be amended the Constitution. For this purpose, known to be a two-thirds majority was needed on the former coalition but did not have. So they asked the Liberals, also adopt this system. The offer of the majority was not innocent, because the Liberals have given their consent, the application of laws had been passed without them ( because a simple majority in both linguistic groups available to the coalition ). Since the Liberals, however, wanted to secure another say, they gave their consent to the constitutional amendment only under the condition that in addition to simple majority in both linguistic groups, a two-thirds majority was needed in total for the special law procedures. The special legislative procedure in its present form was raised by this compromise of baptism.

Special legislative procedure

Special laws are passed by the Federal Parliament under the forced two-chamber method. This means that both the Chamber of Deputies and Senate must vote on the draft. Each of the two chambers shall have the right to submit amendments, and only when both chambers have approved the same (or rather identical) design, the legal text can be presented to the king. As long as this is not the case, circulated the draft from one chamber to the other.

The adoption of a special law differs from ordinary laws, which are subject to the forced two-chamber method, as it requires that special presence as well as majorities in both chambers. In fact, the Constitution provides in this case to not only a majority at the level of the entire chamber, but also at the level of language groups ( Dutch and French ), in both the Chamber of Deputies and Senate are divided. For the Senate, the size of the language groups is set out in the Constitution, in the Chamber of Deputies, the ratio due to the real population numbers vary beginning of the legislative period.

• Quorum: at least a simple majority ( half plus one ) in each language group. Chamber of Deputies: Dutch language group: at least 45 MPs (currently )
• French language group: at least 32 Members (currently )

• Dutch language group: at least 21 MPs
• French language group: at least 15 MPs

• Deputies: at least 101 votes in total Dutch language group: at least 45 votes (currently )
• French language group: at least 32 votes (currently )

• Dutch language group: at least 21 votes
• French language group: at least 15 votes

It is interesting to note that these majority requirements are more stringent than those that are required to revise the Constitution. In fact enough - as already mentioned - at a constitutional revision a simple two-thirds majority, without special majority in the language groups. On the other hand, must at a constitutional revision mandatory elections between the explanation for the revision and the effective constitutional amendment to take place, which is not the case with special laws.

The situation of a single senator of the German community deserves special attention. This is one that is according to the constitution of either of the two language groups in the Senate. So one of his voice neither in the quorum, where only a majority is required by the language groups, nor in the majority in the language groups. The question asked in 2001 was whether his vote counts a total of at least the two-thirds or not. In the Constitution literally says: "(...) so far reached the total number of votes in favor of both language groups two-thirds of the votes cast ." A text- accurate interpretation would lead to the voice of the German Senators will not be included here in the bill. Thus he would have no influence on the coordination of special laws. The then- majority in the Senate was this interpretation, however, not followed and recovered the voice of the Senators, both in the calculation of the quorum and in the calculation of the two-thirds majority in the Senate. This approach was challenged by the opposition before the Constitutional Court (former Court of Arbitration ), but this ruled that this question "in principle" does not fall within its remit. The question of the legality of this calculation thus remains unanswered. This unfavorable situation for the only German-speaking senator was criticized by constitutional lawyers.

In addition, it should be mentioned that the Flemish Region, the Flemish Community, the French Community and the Walloon Region have the so-called " constitutive autonomy" since the fourth state reform of 1993. This means that these authorities may deviate from certain provisions of special laws to make parts of their internal organization ( such as the election of the parliaments and the composition and functioning of parliaments and governments ) under conditions themselves. This requires the adoption of so-called " special decrees " necessary, ie Decrees, which were adopted by a two -thirds majority.

Applications

A special law is exclusively and only adopted if it expressly provides for the constitution. The Constitutional Court to determine whether this condition has been complied with.

Existing special laws

Since its creation, there have been numerous special laws and amendments by special laws. Four of them are particularly noteworthy.

Institutional Reform

The best known special law of Belgium is the Special Law of 8 August 1980 on institutional reforms, which has the Regions launched in the second state reform (1980 ) to life and transformed the cultural communities in communities. Although since 1980 have greatly expanded the powers of the individual states, presented this bill is an important step in the direction of " federal state of Belgium " Represents the Special Act of 8 August 1980 has been changed to this day about 35 times.

It is noteworthy that in this special law, neither the talk of the German-speaking Community in Brussels -Capital nor of the region. The latter is governed by a special law of 1989 ( see below). With regard to the German -speaking Community, the Constitution does not provide for the adoption of a special law, but that of a simple law. Therefore, the German -speaking Community has been caused by an ordinary Act of December 31, 1983 to life.

Brussels institutions

For the special case of Brussels no compromise could in 1980 at the second state reform be found. Since the language laws of the 1960s, it was in fact not easy to find a new balance between the Flemings, who viewed Brussels in spite of the ongoing " Frenchification " as a Flemish city, and the French-speakers, based on the predominant use of the French language based in the capital, to want to make their own region. Only at the third state reform it to negotiate their own legislation for the bilingual region of Brussels -Capital succeeded.

The special law of 12 January 1989 takes over the main contents of the Special Law of 1980, but also contains numerous Brussels typical peculiarities.

Financing of the member States

The creation of communities and regions, and the exercise of the powers they were entrusted with and is associated with financial transfers. The member states must obtain financial resources to shape their policies and remunerates their civil servants. The sensitive issue of the allocation of financial resources between the Federal State, the Communities and Regions is held in a special law of 16 January 1989 concerning the financing of the Communities and Regions.

The financing of the German-speaking Community is not regulated in a special law but in the ordinary law of December 31, 1983 ( see above). However, it is referred to at various points on the special law on the financing of the Communities and Regions.

Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court was created by a constitutional amendment in 1980 under the name " Arbitration " in life. The other modalities were initially governed by an ordinary Act of 28 June 1983. After the third state reform, in which the Court's competences were extended, the special legislature had to intervene so that today applies the Special Law of 6 January 1989 on the Constitutional Court as a fundamental law.

Outstanding special laws

Not in all cases where the Constitution provides for the intervention of the special legislature, this has also become active (partly also because they are politically very sensitive ).

So here is mainly the Article 35 of the Constitution to mention. This Article lays down since the fourth state reform of 1993, who will receive the so-called " residual power " in the Belgian federalism, ie who has all those powers not expressly assigned to a local authority. Currently, these residual competence belongs to the federal government, while the communities and regions has only those powers that are explicitly zuerteilen the special laws (especially the Special Act of 8 August 1980) them. The same Article 35 provides, however, that the Communities or Regions ( who exactly is not specified ) can assume this residual power, if on the one hand in the Constitution extensively and exhaustively the powers of the federal government are enumerated and on the other hand specifies in a special Act sets out the conditions and modalities be. Such a special law has still not been adopted to date.

Even with the language legislation little activity of the special legislature is recorded. For example, has never resorted to the possibility to move from the " Gilson laws " of 1962-63 existing language barrier was " concrete " in the first state reform in the constitution.