Peeters directive

Last updated

The Peeters directive (Dutch : Omzendbrief-Peeters, French : Circulaire Peeters), officially Circular BA 97/22 of 16 December 1997 concerning the use of languages in municipal councils of the Dutch language area, [1] is a circulaire of the Flemish government regulating the use of languages in municipal councils in the Flemish Region (Belgium), where the sole official language is Dutch. The directive is more in particular aimed at the municipalities with language facilities bordering the Brussels Capital-Region. It stipulates that each and every time French-speakers deal with the government, they must explicitly ask for their documents to be in French. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

The circular caused national political commotion and reflects the conflicting perception of language facilities in Dutch and French-speaking public opinion. [5] The non-appointment of three mayors of municipalities with language facilities – refused by the Flemish government because they repeatedly ignored the Peeters (and Keulen) directives – was a highly mediatised issue during the 2007–2008 Belgian government formation. [6] It attracted international attention when the mayors took their case to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. [7]

History

The municipalities with language facilities in Belgium. Those in Flanders, where the Peeters directive applies, are in red. Faciliteitengemeenten en.png
The municipalities with language facilities in Belgium. Those in Flanders, where the Peeters directive applies, are in red.
The "rim municipalities" with language facilities, around Brussels. Arrondissement Brussels-Periphery Belgium Map.PNG
The "rim municipalities" with language facilities, around Brussels.

With the territoriality principle as the basic guideline of Belgian language politics, [8] the language law of 28 June 1932 divided the country in the Dutch-speaking region, the French-speaking region and the German-speaking region. [9] Brussels received a bilingual Dutch-French status. [3] The law further stipulated that municipalities along the language border and around Brussels had to ensure a bilingual service when the minority language population exceeded 30% (so-called language facilities) [9] [10] and that the language of administration would be changed when this "minority" exceeded 50%. [11] In order to estimate the number of speakers of each language, a decennial language census was established, [12] of which the results were often contested by the Flemish. [13] [14] [15]

The consensus in contemporary historical and political literature is that the results of the language census have to be interpreted with caution. [16] [17] [18] [15] The questions were alternatively on "known" languages or on the "usual" language, the most often spoken. [17] Some considered this to refer to their mother tongue, while for others it referred to the prestigious and ubiquitous language that was French. [16] [17] Moreover, the censuses of 1920 and 1947 were performed in a post-war climate. Dutch, being closely related with German, was discredited due to collaborationism of certain wings of the Flemish Movement with the German occupation. [15] French on the other hand enjoyed the status of the language of victory. [15] Finally, given that the results had political consequences, inviting for manipulation in some cases, the census had more of a referendum on the language status of the municipality than of a sociological inquiry. [16] [15] In the 1947 census, more than 30% declared to speak French "exclusively or most frequently" in Wemmel, Kraainem, Drogenbos and Linkebeek, which meant that the French-speaking population of these municipalities received language facilities, [19] whereby citizens can request to communicate with the municipal services in the language of their choice, while the official language remained the same. [20] [21]

The language laws of 1962–63, constitutionally entrenched [22] in 1970, abolished the language census and fixed the language border between the language areas. [3] All Belgian municipalities belong to one of these territories. Some municipalities went from one region to another, while others retained or were given a system of language facilities. Wezembeek-Oppem and Sint-Genesius-Rode became municipalities with language facilities. The last census in 1947 showed that the French minority in these towns was 18% and 16% respectively, but that 35% and 27% spoke French most frequently.

According to art. 7 of the 1966 law on the use of languages in the administration, the six municipalities situated in the Brussels periphery, namely Drogenbos, Kraainem, Linkebeek, Sint-Genesius-Rode, Wemmel and Wezembeek-Oppem, enjoy a "special treatment" and are called "rim municipalities". As part of the wider Francization of Brussels and a process of urbanisation, [10] these formerly Dutch-speaking municipalities became majority French-speaking in the second half of the 20th century. [19] [23] [24] This phenomenon, known in Flanders as the "oil slick", [25] is, together with the future of Brussels, [26] one of the most controversial topics in all of Belgian politics. [17] [27] [28] All other municipalities with facilities, except for those in the German language area, plus Malmedy and Waimes, are grouped together as "language border municipalities" (art. 8). [29]

According to a 1986 ruling of the Constitutional Court, the division in language regions entails "a restriction on the ability of legislators to regulate the use of languages and so forms the constitutional guarantee of the priority of the language of the unilingual area". [30] The 1988 revision of the constitution (art. 129, §1) confirms that the parliaments of the French Community and the Flemish Community determine through decrees, each for their respective territory, the use of languages in administrative matters, the education system, for social contacts between the employer and his employees, and for official documents in business. [31] However, the constitution (art. 129, §2) makes an exception for municipalities with language facilities, stating that in those municipalities the law on the use of languages for situations listed in §1 can only be changed by a law adopted by a majority in both language groups. [32] [33]

The Standing Commission for Linguistic Supervision [34] is a federal institution responsible for collecting and reporting language complaints. [3] It can give its opinion to the responsible public authorities, but its opinions are not binding. [3] In its recommendations 26.125A, 26.033 and 23.062 (all published in 1994), the agency argued that language facilities should not lead to a generalised system of bilingualism of public services in which both languages would hold equal status. [35] [36] Only the regional governments can provide a supreme binding political interpretation for the language laws and the application of language facilities, which can only be annulled by the Council of State. [3]

As a general rule, the federal government communicates with citizens in the language of the region, not in their individual language. Only in municipalities with facilities, another language can be used when so requested. [37]

Contents

Underlying ideas

The Peeters directive's recommendations for municipalities with language facilities bordering the Brussels Capital-Region and the language border, where to some extent the French-speaking population has the right to relate with the local and federal administration in French, have triggered political commotion. It stipulates these facilities, being "an exception to the rule of unilingualism of the official language areas", should be interpreted "strictly", [38] considering their "exceptional" and "temporary" character. [1]

The language facilities constitute the exception on the unilingualism of a language area; consequently, they thus have to be interpreted strictly. This implies that this interpretation has to be in conformity with the Constitution at all times. Therefore, the facilities cannot be interpreted that broadly that they would detract the priority of the language of the region and lead to a generalised bilingualism of administration in the municipalities with language facilities. [39]

The directive argues language facilities have an "integrative function", meaning that, "per definition", "for the concerned individual", they have an "extinguishing character". [40] It reads further: "The interpretation of language facilities has to take into account the possibility that a French-speaking inhabitant, who previously made use of these facilities, meanwhile knows the language of the region well enough and consequently no longer wishes to invoke the facilities". [41] In this sense, facilities are temporary in character, and because they are temporary, they have to be applied "restrictively", implying that French-speakers have to make a new request each and every time they wish to use French in official affairs. [2] [20] The directive claims the "spirit in which the language laws of 1962-63 were established" is reflected in the end report of the Harmel Centre: [42]

The Walloon community and the Flemish community have to be homogeneous. The Flemings who settle in Wallonia and the Walloons who settle in Flanders have to be absorbed by the environment. The personal element is thus sacrificed to the advantage of the territorial element. Therefore, the cultural system has to be French in Wallonia and Flemish in Flanders. [43]

According to the directive, this quote clearly shows that the language facilities were intended to ease the transition of the minority language inhabitants to the Community to which their municipality would belong from that moment onwards. [44]

Tangible changes of the existing practice

The most important rule introduced by the Peeters directive is that all official documents have to be sent to the citizens in Dutch. Afterwards, French-speakers can request a French translation for each separate document, on their own initiative. As for the application of documents in the town hall, all these documents have to be issued in Dutch in the municipalities along the language border, after which a translation can be requested. For the "rim municipalities" (those bordering Brussels), a French translation can be requested beforehand. [20] Such a restrictive meaning went against the existing practice, whereby citizens had to declare their preferred language only once. [3] [21]

Another issue is that the Peeters directive stipulates that the language of administration and local public services should at all times be Dutch, the only official language of the concerned municipalities. It is obligatory to speak Dutch in meetings of the municipal council and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen. [20]

On the internal language of administration

On the initiative of the municipality of Linkebeek, the Constitutional Court of Belgium was asked for an opinion on the constitutionality of article 23 of the law of 18 July 1966 that stipulates that the internal language of administration in the rim municipalities has to be Dutch. [45] In its ruling 98/26 of 10 March 1998, the Court ruled this was not in violation with articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution of Belgium [46] and that the mayor and aldermen do indeed not have the right to speak in another language than Dutch during council meetings. [47] The Court further specified that the language facilities do not alter the principle of Dutch unilingualism of the concerned municipalities and that the Constitution guarantees the primacy of Dutch. [48]

On the annulment of the circular

On 27 February 1998, the French Community of Belgium and the Walloon Region, together with a French-speaking inhabitant of one of the concerned rim municipalities, challenged the legitimacy of the directive before the Council of State. On 27 March 2001, the court argued that two first plaintiffs did not have any powers within the territory of the Flemish Region, and dismissed the appeal on those grounds. The case of the French-speaking inhabitant was forwarded to a Dutch-speaking chamber (since the other two plaintiffs were removed from the case, the competetent chamber changed) and debates were reopened. [49] On 25 February 1998, the municipality of Kraainem (in the periphery of Brussels, with a French-speaking majority) had initiated another case, also requesting annulment of the directive. On 28 May, Wemmel and Wezembeek-Oppem filed for intervention, [50] joined by Drogenbos on 28 July 2008. [51] The municipalities (and a number of French-speaking inhabitants) claimed that the directive introduced new rules, [52] and thus conflicted with art. 129, §2 of the Constitution. [53]

On 23 December 2004, the Council of State decided not to nullify the directive. [4] It argued that although the directive may have changed existing practice, [54] it did not change the legal situation [55] and was only to reverse the habit of municipal administrations of addressing a citizen in French without an explicit repeated request, [56] and that the directive did not impede the use of French when wished. [57] The court followed ruling 98/26 of the Constitutional Court, [58] stating that the interpretation of the language law had to match the priority of Dutch; that the interpretation of the language facilities put forward by the plaintiffs did thus not apply, but would on the contrary lead to "a factual state of bilinguism whereby the language preference would even be stocked in files". [59]

The Court's decision was received with derision by the French-speaking political parties. [20] [60] In a reaction of 13 January 2005, the Front Démocratique des Francophones (FDF) wrote:

The ruling of the Flemish chamber of the Council of State reveals the systematic questioning of institutional agreements sealed in the most solemn way between the two large communities of the Belgian state. [61]

On 25 January 2005, the parliament of the French Community of Belgium ratified a "Resolution aimed to reaffirm the unswerving link between the French Community and the French-speakers of the [Brussels] periphery and Voeren":

It is in that context, in which the Flemish demands, enforced by the latest contestable rulings of the Council of State, are menacing both to the electoral district as to the status of the municipalities with facilities, that this [...] resolution to reaffirm the support and solidarity between the French-speakers of Wallonia, Brussels and those of its wider periphery and Voeren takes all its acuity. [62]

On the priority of Dutch

On 13 October 2003, the municipality of Wezembeek-Oppem summoned the Flemish Region for its decision of 13 August 2003 to nullify its decision of 21 January 2001 to send out invitation letters for the 2003 federal elections in French to those who it assumed were French-speaking. [63] According to the Peeters directive, these had to be issued in Dutch first after which a French translation could be requested. [64] On 19 July 2008, the Council of State referred back to its rulings of 23 December 2004 and ruled that the Peeters directive was the only correct interpretation of the language law concerning the six rim municipalities. It argued only the Flemish government was in place of interpreting the law, that the interpretation of the Peeters directive was in conformity with the general principles of the law and that no other interpretation held legal authority. [65] The Court refuted the argument of the plaintiff that the advice of the Standing Commission for Linguistic Supervision (to stock the language preference of citizens and directly addressing them in that language, which was explicitly forbidden by the Keulen directive [66] ) should be followed, arguing the commission had no legal authority. [67] The Court repeated that the interpretation put forward by the municipality of Wezembeek-Oppem would in practice result in a situation of bilingualism that would be in contradiction with the priority of Dutch and the fundamental Dutch unilingualism of these municipalities. [68]

On 16 December 1997 the directive was sent to the governors of the five Flemish provinces by the then Flemish minister of Internal Affairs, Leo Peeters. [20] It was amended by the Martens directive of 5 May 1998 [69] that prescribed a similar arrangement for the social services. [4] Both directives were reconfirmed and specified by the Keulen directive of 8 July 2005, [66] which was not well received by the French-speaking press and politicians. [70]

Non-appointment of mayors

The municipal councils of Sint-Genesius-Rode, Linkebeek, Wezembeek-Oppem and Kraainem sent out convocation letters for the 2006 provincial and municipal elections in French to the citizens of which they assumed were French-speaking. [71] This was contrary to the Peeters directive ordering municipalities to send out documents in Dutch first, after which a French translation can be requested [1] and the Keulen directive, prohibiting the stocking of language preference. [66] In Flanders (contrary to Wallonia), mayors are not directly elected. Instead, after the elections, the town council nominates a candidate-mayor, who then has to be appointed by the Flemish Minister of the Interior. Marino Keulen, then minister, delayed the appointment of the four proposed mayors because they did not apply language legislation. [71] Three of the four mayors repeated their actions for the 2007 federal elections. On 14 November 2007, the appointment of Arnold d'Oreye de Lantremange (FDF, for Kraainem), François van Hoobrouck d'Aspre (UF, for Wezembeek-Oppem) and Damien Thiéry (FDF, for Linkebeek) was officially rejected. [72] The mayor of Sint-Genesius-Rode, Myriam Delacroix-Rolin (CDH), was appointed since she applied the language laws. [71]

Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe

Instead of challenging their non-appointment before the Council of State, the three mayors chose to bring it before the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. On 13 and 14 May 2008, the Congress sent a fact-finding mission to Belgium to look into the situation. [73] The delegation was led by a Frenchman and consisted further of a Serbian representative, a German expert, and two other French members of the Congress. [74] The Council of Europe can make recommendations to its 47 member states, but it cannot impose sanctions on them for non-compliance [75] and its conclusions are not legally binding. The mayors allowed that French was spoken during council meetings and refused to apply the recommendations of the Flemish directives. [7] [76] This went against the stipulations of language laws and lead to their non-appointment. [73] Michel Guégan, president of the delegation, found that the sanction of non-appointment was disproportionate to the infractions. [7] According to him, it hindered the normal functioning of the municipality. He also questioned why the regional authority had to appoint "democratically elected mayors". [7] He also said that in towns with French-speaking majorities, participation of the inhabitants in local politics is complicated when the official language of administration is Dutch. [7] The decisions of the delegation were considered ridiculous in Flanders. [77] The Flemish Interior Minister, Marino Keulen, said they were "absurd" because they did not take into account the language legislation, the grounds on which their nomination was refused. [75] In the European Parliament, Frieda Brepoels (N-VA) decounced "the arrogance and thoughtlessness" of the delegation. [78] The Flemish government ignored the resolutions of the fact-finding mission, Keulen saying the acting mayors should take their case to the Council of State rather than to the Council of Europe. [79] On 2 December 2008, the Congress voting a resolution on the issue. Of all 46 members entitled to vote, 16 were present: 14 voted in favour, the only Flemish representative voted against, and the only Dutch member abstained from voting. [80] In the adopted resolution, the Congress urged the Belgian state to appoint the mayors and to review the language legislation in the concerned municipalities.

The Congress [...] recommends that the Belgian authorities [...] review the language laws and, in particular, the way in which they are applied in municipalities with so-called special language arrangements, to allow the use of both French and Dutch by municipal councillors and by the mayor and aldermen at the meetings of the municipal council. [81]

Minister Keulen "took notice" of the Congress's recommendations but stressed that only the Council of State was competent to undo his decision. [82] For the 2009 regional elections, the three acting mayors sent out French documents again. [83] Sint-Genesius-Rode sent out convocation letters in Dutch to all citizens, accompanied by a French translation for those considered to be French-speaking. [84]

As of February 2010, the three acting mayors are still not appointed and the Peeters, Martens and Keulen directives are still in force.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wilhelmus</span> National anthem of the Netherlands

"Wilhelmus van Nassouwe", usually known just as "Wilhelmus", is the national anthem of both the Netherlands and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It dates back to at least 1572, making it the oldest national anthem in use today, provided that the latter is defined as consisting of both a melody and lyrics. Although "Wilhelmus" was not recognized as the official national anthem until 1932, it has always been popular with parts of the Dutch population and resurfaced on several occasions in the course of Dutch history before gaining its present status. It was also the anthem of the Netherlands Antilles from 1954 to 1964.

This article outlines the grammar of the Dutch language, which shares strong similarities with German grammar and also, to a lesser degree, with English grammar.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Municipalities with language facilities</span> Municipalities in Belgium with language facilities

There are 27 municipalities with language facilities in Belgium which must offer linguistic services to residents in Dutch, French, or German in addition to their single official languages. All other municipalities – with the exception of those in the bilingual Brussels region – are monolingual and only offer services in their official languages, either Dutch or French.

Negerhollands ('Negro-Dutch') was a Dutch-based creole language that was spoken in the Danish West Indies, now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands. Dutch was its superstrate language with Danish, English, French, Spanish, and African elements incorporated. Notwithstanding its name, Negerhollands drew primarily from the Zeelandic rather than the Hollandic dialect of Dutch.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dimitri Verhulst</span> Belgian writer and poet

Dimitri Verhulst is a Belgian writer and poet. He is best known for his novels Problemski Hotel and The Misfortunates.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Halima Chehaima</span> Belgian beauty queen

Halima Chehaima is a Belgian beauty queen who won the title of Miss Brussels 2007. She also won the Miss International Tourism contest in 2007 in Portugal and represented Belgium in Miss World 2007 in China.

Brusselian is a near-extinct dialect native to Brussels, Belgium. It is essentially a heavily-Francisized Brabantian Dutch dialect that incorporates a sprinkle of Spanish loanwords dating back to the rule of the Low Countries by the Habsburgs (1519–1713).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Francization of Brussels</span> Post-1700s shift from Dutch to French in the Belgian capital

The Francization of Brussels refers to the evolution, over the past two centuries, of this historically Dutch-speaking city into one where French has become the majority language and lingua franca. The main cause of this transition was the rapid, yet compulsory assimilation of the Flemish population, amplified by immigration from France and Wallonia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Liliane Saint-Pierre</span> Belgian singer

Liliane Saint-Pierre is a Belgian pop singer. Hailing from Flanders, she sings mostly in Dutch. She competed at Eurovision Song Contest 1987 with the song "Soldiers of Love".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Municipal council (Netherlands)</span> Elected assembly of a municipality in the Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the municipal council is the elected assembly of the municipality. Its main role is laying down the guidelines for the policy of the municipal executive and exercising control over its execution by the mayor and aldermen.

Joey Godee is a Dutch footballer who plays for Dutch Vierde Klasse club HVC Amersfoort.

Willem Philippe Maria "Wim" Zaal was a Dutch journalist, essayist, translator and literary critic. He was literary editor of Elsevier for years.

Robine Tanya van der Meer is a Dutch actress and model. She is best known as Meike Griffioen in Goede tijden, slechte tijden and for hosting the TV-show Model in 1 dag.

The subjunctive in Dutch is a verb mood typically used in dependent clauses to express a wish, command, emotion, possibility, uncertainty, doubt, judgment, opinion, necessity, or action that has not yet occurred.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flemish people</span> Germanic ethnic group native to Flanders, Belgium

The Flemish or Flemings are a Germanic ethnic group native to Flanders, Belgium, who speak Dutch. Flemish people make up the majority of Belgians, at about 60%.

Anthony van der Eb was a Dutch civil servant, who made a career in the administration on the Dutch Gold Coast.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Omroep Zeeland</span> Dutch regional television station

Omroep Zeeland is a public broadcaster located in Zeeland, Netherlands. Founded in 1988, the media organization is active in television, radio, and internet. The audience is on average slightly older than that of the other Dutch regional broadcasters.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">We Are Here (collective)</span> Human rights campaign of migrants in Amsterdam

We Are Here is a collective of migrants based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, which campaigns for human rights for its members and all undocumented migrants. The asylum seekers have in many cases had their applications to remain in the Netherlands denied but they either cannot go back or refuse to return to their country of origin. They ask for access to social services such as medical care and housing. The group formed in 2012 and by 2015 contained over 200 migrants from around 15 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tabakspanden</span> Buildings in central Amsterdam, squatted until 2015 and now redeveloped

The Tabakspanden are a group of buildings standing on the Spuistraat in central Amsterdam, adjacent to the Keizerrijk and Wijdesteeg alleyways. Named after a former owner, the speculator Hendrik Tabak, they were mostly squatted from 1983 onwards, although the artist Peter Klashorst also rented an apartment and gallery space. The best known building was Spuistraat 199, known as the Slangenpand (Snakehouse) because of the large mural which covered the front exterior. In 2015, the squatters were evicted and the buildings were mostly demolished prior to redevelopment. The new project is known as De Keizer and has 69 apartments, a restaurant and a gallery. Two of the buildings are registered as rijksmonumenten.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ubica</span> Hotel and former squat in Utrecht

The Ubica buildings are two adjacent buildings standing at 24 and 26 Ganzenmarkt, in central Utrecht, the Netherlands. Number 24 is a rijksmonument. The first recorded mention of the buildings is from 1319. After centuries of residential use, the buildings were bought by the Ubica mattress company in 1913 and used until a devastating fire in 1989. The buildings were then squatted for 21 years, before being redeveloped into a hotel and café-restaurant in 2014.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Omzendbrief BA 97/22 van 16 december 1997 betreffende het taalgebruik in gemeentebesturen van het Nederlandse taalgebied". Regelgeving – Omzendbrieven (in Dutch). Flemish government. 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
  2. 1 2 "Omzendbrief BA 97/22 van 16 december 1997 betreffende het taalgebruik in gemeentebesturen van het Nederlandse taalgebied". Regelgeving – Omzendbrieven (in Dutch). Flemish government. 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    "De faciliteiten die de S.W.T. verleent, moeten echter restrictief worden toegepast, hetgeen impliceert dat de particulier telkens uitdrukkelijk moet verzoeken om het Frans te gebruiken. Uiteindelijk werden de faciliteiten ingesteld om de integratie van Franstaligen in het Nederlandse taalgebied te bevorderen."
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Wilfried Swenden (2002–2003). Personality versus Territoriality: Belgium and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. European Yearbook of Minority Issues: 2002-2003. European Centre for Minority Issues. pp. 331–356. ISBN   9004138390 . Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  4. 1 2 3 Wolters Kluwer Belgium NV (2007). Statutenzakboekje overheidspersoneel 2007 (in Dutch). Kluwer. p. 37. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
  5. ↑ Stefaan Huysentruyt; Mark Deweerdt (29 December 2004). "Raad van State beperkt toepassing faciliteiten in randgemeenten" (PDF) (in Dutch). De Tijd. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 December 2008. Retrieved 16 January 2009.
  6. ↑ "Keulen weigert benoeming van drie burgemeesters" (in Dutch). Gazet van Antwerpen. 24 November 2008. Retrieved 16 January 2009.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 "Discours de Michel Guégan, chef de délégation de la mission d'enquête en Belgique (France)" (in French). Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. 27 May 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  8. ↑ Will Kymlicka, Alan Patten (2003). Language rights and political theory. Oxford University Press. p. 29. ISBN   978-0-19-926290-8 . Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  9. 1 2 Johannes Kramer (1984). Zweisprachigkeit in den Benelux-ländern (in German). Buske Verlag. ISBN   3-87118-597-3 . Retrieved 4 March 2009.
  10. 1 2 Els Witte; Alain Meynen; et al. (2006). De Geschiedenis van België na 1945 (in Dutch). Antwerp: Standaard Uitgeverij. p. 576. ISBN   978-90-02-21963-4.
  11. ↑ Els Witte; Harry Van Velthoven (1998). "Taal en politiek: De Belgische casus in een historisch perspectief" (PDF) (in Dutch). VUBPress (Vrije Universiteit Brussel). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 September 2011. Retrieved 10 March 2009.
  12. ↑ Nico Wouters (2003). Groot-Brussel tijdens WOII (1940-1944) [57-81]. Les dix-neuf communes bruxelloises et le modèle bruxellois (in Dutch). Brussels, Ghent: De Boeck & Larcier. p. 754. ISBN   2-8044-1216-4.
  13. ↑ "De Belgische troebelen" (in Dutch). Knack. 12 November 2007. Archived from the original on 27 March 2008. Retrieved 16 January 2009.
  14. ↑ Rudi Janssens (1999). Aspecten van het taalgebruik in Brussel [283-306]. Het statuut van Brussel / Bruxelles et son statut (in Dutch). Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier. p. 817. ISBN   2-8044-0525-7.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 Luc Sieben (1986). "De talentelling van 1920. De waarde en de betekenis van deze cijfers voor Brussel" (PDF). Taal en Sociale Integratie, 8 (in Dutch). Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). pp. 461–481. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 August 2011. Retrieved 27 February 2009.
  16. 1 2 3 Eliane Gubin (1978). "La situation des langues à Bruxelles au 19ième siècle à la lumière d'un examen critique des statistiques" (PDF). Taal en Sociale Integratie, I (in French). Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). pp. 33–80. Retrieved 16 January 2009.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Catherine Capron; Marc Debuisson; Thierry Eggerickx; Michel Poulin (2000). Association internationale des demographes de langue francaise (ed.). La dualité démographique de la Belgique : mythe ou réalité?. Régimes démographiques et territoires : les frontières en question : colloque international de La Rochelle, 22-26 september 1998 (in French). INED. pp. 255–278. ISBN   2-9509356-8-0 . Retrieved 22 September 2009.
  18. ↑ Sera de Vriendt (2005). Brussels. Taal in stad en land (in Dutch). Lannoo Uitgeverij. ISBN   90-209-5857-7 . Retrieved 4 March 2009.
  19. 1 2 Leen Depré (2001). Els Witte; Ann Mares (eds.). Tien jaar persberichtgeving over de faciliteitenproblematiek in de Brusselse Rand. Een inhoudsanalystisch onderzoek (PDF). 19 keer Brussel; Brusselse Thema's (7) (in Dutch). VUBPress (Vrije Universiteit Brussel). pp. 281–336. ISBN   90-5487-292-6 . Retrieved 28 January 2009.
  20. 1 2 3 4 5 6 "Omzendbrief Peeters". De Vlaamse Rand – documentatiecentrum (in Dutch). Flemish government. 2009. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
    English translation also available [ permanent dead link ].
  21. 1 2 Sascha Dubbeld (2002). "National minorities and linguistic issues: the Flemish perception" (PDF). Human Rights Without Frontiers. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
  22. ↑ "Article 4 of the Belgian Constitution" (in French). Senate of Belgium. 4 March 2009. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  23. ↑ Eric Ponette (2 March 2002). "Kort historisch overzicht van het OVV" (in Dutch). Overlegcentrum van Vlaamse Verenigingen. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  24. ↑ Jean-Pierre Stroobants (21 October 2007). "Bisbilles dans le Grand Bruxelles". Le Monde (in French). Retrieved 21 October 2007.
  25. ↑ Johan Slembrouck (2 August 2007). "Sint-Stevens-Woluwe: een unicum in de Belgische geschiedenis" (in Dutch). Overlegcentrum van Vlaamse Verenigingen. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  26. ↑ André-Paul Frognier (1999). Les interactions stratégiques dans la problématique communautaire et la question bruxelloise. Het statuut van Brussel / Bruxelles et son statut (in French). Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier. pp. 705–720. ISBN   2-8044-0525-7.
  27. ↑ Louis Verniers; Theo Jozef Hermans (2009). "Brussels". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 12 August 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2009.
  28. ↑ "Bruxelles dans l'œil du cyclone" (in French). France 2. 14 November 2007. Archived from the original on 1 February 2009. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  29. ↑ "Wetten op het gebruik van de talen in bestuurszaken" (in Dutch). Senate of Belgium. 18 July 1966. Archived from the original on 12 December 2007. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    Also available in French Archived 12 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine .
  30. ↑ "Ruling no. 17 of 26 March 1986: In zake : het beroep tot vernietiging van het decreet van de Franse Gemeenschap van 26 juni 1984 "assurant la protection de l'usage de la langue française pour les mandataires publics d'expression française" (tot verzekering van de bescherming van het Franse taalgebruik voor de franstalige overheidsmandatarissen), ingesteld door de Vlaamse Executieve op 12 oktober 1984" (PDF) (in Dutch). Constitutional Court of Belgium. 26 March 1984. p. 11. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
    "Artikel 3bis van de Grondwet behelst tevens een beperking van de bevoegdheid van de wetgevers inzake taalgebruik en vormt aldus de grondwettelijke waarborg van de voorrang van de taal van het eentalige gebied of van het tweetalige karakter van het gebied."
  31. ↑ "Article 129 of the Belgian Constitution" (in French). Senate of Belgium. 4 March 2009. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
    "Art. 129 (modification de la terminologie): § 1er. Les Parlements de la Communauté française et de la Communauté flamande, chacun pour ce qui le concerne, règlent par décret, à l'exclusion du législateur fédéral, l'emploi des langues pour : 1° les matières administratives; 2° l'enseignement dans les établissements créés, subventionnés ou reconnus par les pouvoirs publics; 3° les relations sociales entre les employeurs et leur personnel, ainsi que les actes et documents des entreprises imposés par la loi et les règlements."
  32. ↑ Clair Ysebaert (2008). Politiek zakboekje – Structuren 2008 (in Dutch). Kluwer. p. 315. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
  33. ↑ "Article 129 of the Belgian Constitution" (in French). Senate of Belgium. 4 March 2009. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
    "Art. 129 (modification de la terminologie): § 2. Ces décrets ont force de loi respectivement dans la région de langue française et dans la région de langue néerlandaise, excepté en ce qui concerne : les communes ou groupes de communes contigus à une autre région linguistique et où la loi prescrit ou permet l'emploi d'une autre langue que celle de la région dans laquelle ils sont situés. Pour ces communes, une modification aux règles sur l'emploi des langues dans les matières visées au § 1er ne peut être apportée que par une loi adoptée à la majorité prévue à l'article 4, dernier alinéa; (...)"
  34. ↑ "Commission permanente de contrôle linguistique Archived 12 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine " in French, "Vaste Commissie voor Taaltoezicht Archived 12 November 2008 at the Wayback Machine " in Dutch.
  35. ↑ "Vraag nr. 2 van 4 oktober 2002 van de heer Christian Van Eyken" (PDF) (in Dutch). Flemish Parliament. 2002. pp. 1–2. Retrieved 22 September 2009.[ permanent dead link ]
    "In adviezen van 31 maart, 22 september, 27 oktober en 8 december 1994 (o.a. nummers 26.125A, 26.033 en 23.062) en ook in het door de Vlaamse volksvertegenwoordiger aangehaalde advies nr. 32.509 bevestigde de VCT dat het stelsel van taalfaciliteiten nooit tot gevolg kan hebben dat aan openbare diensten een veralgemeende tweetaligheid wordt opgelegd waarbij de twee talen op strikte voet van gelijkheid worden geplaatst."
  36. ↑ "Jaarverslag van de Vaste Commissie voor Taaltoezicht (VCT) over het jaar 2002" (PDF) (in Dutch). Vaste Commissie voor Taaltoezicht. 2003. p. 43. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    "De wetteksten en de voorbereidende werkzaamheden brengen duidelijk tot uitdrukking dat het stelsel van de taaifaciliteiten niet tot gevolg heeft dat aan de openbare diensten een veralgemeende tweetaligheid wordt opgelegd waarbij de twee talen op strikte voet van gelijkheid worden geplaatst."
  37. ↑ Ludo Beheydt (1995). The linguistic situation in the new Belgium. Languages in contact and conflict: contrasting experiences in the Netherlands and Belgium. Current Issues in Language and Society (Vol. 1; No. 2). pp. 48–64. ISBN   9781853592782 . Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  38. ↑ "De faciliteiten vormen de uitzondering op de eentaligheid van een taalgebied; bijgevolg moeten zij strikt geïnterpreteerd worden."
  39. ↑ "Omzendbrief BA 97/22 van 16 december 1997 betreffende het taalgebruik in gemeentebesturen van het Nederlandse taalgebied". Regelgeving – Omzendbrieven (in Dutch). Flemish government. 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    Section I.1.: "De faciliteiten vormen de uitzondering op de eentaligheid van een taalgebied; bijgevolg moeten zij strikt geïnterpreteerd worden. Dit impliceert dat deze interpretatie in ieder geval conform de Grondwet moet zijn. De faciliteiten mogen dan ook niet dermate ruim geïnterpreteerd worden dat zij afbreuk doen aan de voorrang van de taal van het gebied en dat zij tot een veralgemeende tweetaligheid van het bestuur in de faciliteitengemeenten zouden leiden."
  40. ↑ "Omzendbrief BA 97/22 van 16 december 1997 betreffende het taalgebruik in gemeentebesturen van het Nederlandse taalgebied". Regelgeving – Omzendbrieven (in Dutch). Flemish government. 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    Section I.3.: "De faciliteiten zijn bedoeld als integratiebevorderende maatregel; dit houdt in dat zij per definitie, voor de individuele betrokkenen, een uitdovend karakter hebben. (...)"
  41. ↑ "Omzendbrief BA 97/22 van 16 december 1997 betreffende het taalgebruik in gemeentebesturen van het Nederlandse taalgebied". Regelgeving – Omzendbrieven (in Dutch). Flemish government. 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    Section I.3.: " (...) Bij de interpretatie van de faciliteiten moet rekening gehouden worden met de mogelijkheid dat een Franstalige inwoner, die voorheen een beroep heeft gedaan op deze faciliteiten, inmiddels de taal van het gebied voldoende kent en bijgevolg zich niet meer op de faciliteiten wenst te beroepen."
  42. ↑ "Harmel Centre" is the nickname for the Centre de recherche pour la solution nationale des problèmes sociaux, politiques et juridiques des diverses régions du pays (in French) or Centrum van onderzoek voor de nationale oplossing van de maatschappelijke, Politieke en Rechtskundige vraagstukken van de verschillende gewesten van het land (in Dutch) – both meaning "Centre for research on a national solution for the social, political and juridical problems of the diverse regions of the country" —; it was an advisory body for the Chamber of Representatives and is widely considered to have a had a considerable impact on post-war Belgian politics.
  43. ↑ Harmel Centre (25 April 1958). "Final Report of the Centre for research on a national solution for the social, political and juridical problems of the diverse regions of the country" (PDF). Documenten van de Kamer van Volksvertegenwoordigers, werkjaar 1957–1958, stuk 940 (in French and Dutch). Chamber of Representatives. p. 310. Retrieved 24 September 2009.
    "De Waalse gemeenschap en de Vlaamse gemeenschap moeten gaaf zijn. De Vlamingen die zich in Wallonië en de Walen die zich in Vlaanderen vestigen moeten door het milieu opgeslorpt worden. Aldus wordt het personeelselement ten voordele van het territoriaal element opgeofferd. Dus moet het cultureel stelsel Frans zijn in Wallonië en Vlaams in Vlaanderen."
  44. ↑ "Omzendbrief BA 97/22 van 16 december 1997 betreffende het taalgebruik in gemeentebesturen van het Nederlandse taalgebied". Regelgeving – Omzendbrieven (in Dutch). Flemish government. 1997. Retrieved 22 September 2009.
    Section I.3.: "Dit citaat geeft duidelijk de geest weer waarin de taalwetten van '62 en '63 tot stand zijn gekomen. De parlementaire debatten die gevoerd werden bij de totstandkoming van de wetten van 8 november 1962 en 2 augustus 1963 tonen aan dat de faciliteiten bedoeld waren om voor anderstaligen de overgang te vergemakkelijken naar de Gemeenschap waartoe de gemeente waarin ze woonden voortaan zou behoren."
  45. ↑ Juridat.be Archived 12 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  46. ↑ Court of Arbitration (present-day Constitutional Court of Belgium) (10 March 1998). "Ruling 98/26 of 10 March 1998" (PDF) (in Dutch). Constitutional Court of Belgium. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2003. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section B.4.6.: "Artikel 23 van de bij koninklijk besluit van 18 juli 1966 gecoördineerde wetten op het gebruik van de talen in bestuurszaken schendt niet de artikelen 10 en 11 van de Grondwet, in de interpretatie dat het de burgemeester of een ander lid van het college van burgemeester en schepenen van een in die bepaling beoogde gemeente verbiedt een agendapunt van de gemeenteraadszitting in te leiden of toe te lichten in een andere taal dan het Nederlands of in een dergelijke taal te antwoorden op interventies van gemeenteraadsleden."
  47. ↑ Court of Arbitration (present-day Constitutional Court of Belgium) (10 March 1998). "Ruling 98/26 of 10 March 1998" (PDF) (in Dutch). Constitutional Court of Belgium. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2003. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section B.3.2.: "In de interpretatie van het verwijzende rechtscollege volgt uit artikel 23 van de gecoördineerde wetten op het gebruik van de talen in bestuurszaken dat de burgemeester en de andere leden van het college van burgemeester en schepenen van een gemeente bedoeld in die bepaling uitsluitend het Nederlands dienen te gebruiken bij het inleiden of het toelichten van een agendapunt van de gemeenteraadszitting en bij het beantwoorden van interventies van gemeenteraadsleden. Doen zij zulks niet, dan stellen zij zich bloot aan tuchtsancties (...)"
  48. ↑ Court of Arbitration (present-day Constitutional Court of Belgium) (10 March 1998). "Ruling 98/26 of 10 March 1998" (PDF) (in Dutch). Constitutional Court of Belgium. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2003. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section B.4.1.: "Hoewel de gecoördineerde wetten op het gebruik van de talen in bestuurszaken ten behoeve van Franstalige inwoners in de randgemeenten in een bijzondere regeling voorzien die hen toestaat hun betrekkingen met de plaatselijke diensten in het Frans te voeren en die aan die diensten de verplichting opleggen om in bepaalde in die wetten nader omschreven omstandigheden het Frans te gebruiken, doet die regeling geen afbreuk aan het principieel eentalig karakter van het Nederlandse taalgebied, waartoe die gemeenten behoren. Zulks impliceert dat de taal die er in bestuurszaken moet worden gebruikt in beginsel het Nederlands is en dat bepalingen die het gebruik van een andere taal toestaan niet tot gevolg mogen hebben dat afbreuk wordt gedaan aan de door artikel 4 van de Grondwet gewaarborgde voorrang van het Nederlands."
  49. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (27 March 2001). "Ruling 94.345 of 27 March 2001" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    More in particular sections 3.2.3.3, 3.2.3.5 and 3.2.4 (conclusion).
  50. ↑ A procedure whereby the beneficiaries of the contested acts and any person who establishes an interest in the case have the possibility to intervene in these cases.
  51. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
  52. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 4.1.1.: "Het kan moeilijk ontkend worden dat het de bedoeling is van de Vlaamse Minister van Binnenlandse Aangelegenheden, Stedelijk Beleid en Huisvesting om onder meer in de betrekkingen met de particulieren nieuwe regels op te leggen aan de plaatselijke diensten uit de rand- en faciliteitengemeenten, daar waar de bestreden omzendbrief bepaalt dat elke plaatselijke dienst uit zulke gemeente in zijn betrekkingen met inwoners uit bedoelde gemeenten het Nederlands moet gebruiken en enkel wanneer een inwoner uit een rand- of taalgrensgemeente daar telkens uitdrukkelijk om verzoekt het Frans wordt gebruikt. Het gaat hier ontegensprekelijk om een dwingende regel, uitgevaardigd met de bedoeling dat hij daadwerkelijk wordt nageleefd, een regel die rechtstreekse werking heeft omdat hij als dusdanig toepasbaar is."
  53. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 4.4.: "Overwegende dat in verband met die interpretaties, de verzoekende en de tussenkomende partijen er blijkbaar wel van uitgaan, dat de door hen voorgestane interpretatie en de daarop steunende bestuurspraktijk op een dergelijke wijze zijn vastgelegd door artikel 129, § 2, eerste streepje, van de Grondwet, dat deze in het geheel zelfs niet meer mogen worden gewijzigd, tenzij met een wet die met de in artikel 4, laatste lid, van de Grondwet bepaalde meerderheid wordt aangenomen; (...)"
  54. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 4.2.:"(...) dat er echter te dezen blijkbaar reeds geruime tijd ook een andere interpretatie van de bestuurstaalwet voorhanden was en een daarop steunende praktijk; dat een wijziging in interpretatie een dermate radicale ommekeer kan inhouden dat die wijziging kan overkomen als een wijziging van de betrokken regel zelf; dat de verzoekende partij beweert dat dergelijke "nieuwe regels" door de omzendbrief zijn ingevoerd; dat echter, indien zou blijken dat de vroegere interpretatie en de bestuurspraktijk die op deze interpretatie steunde, niet rechtmatig waren, de omzendbrief in die bijzondere omstandigheden niet geacht mag worden de rechtstoestand te wijzigen, ofschoon hij wellicht wel de feitelijke situatie wijzigt van de betrokkenen; dat het, om de exceptie te kunnen beoordelen, bijgevolg nodig is de voornoemde interpretaties te onderzoeken;"
  55. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 4.2.: "(...) dat de aangehaalde grondwetsbepaling enkel gewag maakt van de "bepalingen" betreffende het gebruik van de talen in bestuurszaken waarin geen wijziging kan worden aangebracht dan bij een wet aangenomen met de in artikel 4, laatste lid, van de Grondwet bepaalde meerderheid; dat niet wordt ingezien om welke reden deze grondwetsbepaling, die duidelijk is in haar bewoordingen, ook toepasselijk zou moeten zijn op een bepaalde interpretatie van die "bepalingen", ongeacht de vraag of deze interpretatie en de daarop steunende praktijk wel zo eenduidig zijn als door de verzoekende en de tussenkomende partijen wordt voorgesteld; dat in elk geval niet blijkt en ook niet wordt betoogd door die partijen, dat de omzendbrief tot doel had de tekst zelf van de bestuurstaalwet te veranderen; dat de stelling van de verzoekende en de tussenkomende partijen dus niet kan worden onderschreven; (...)"
  56. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 4.5.:"Overwegende dat de bestreden omzendbrief aldus enkel de praktijk blijkt te willen keren die inhoudt dat besturen, aan de hand van een of andere vorm van registratie, bestendig het Frans gebruiken ten opzichte van bepaalde rechtsonderhorigen zonder dat voor het gebruik van die taal een uitdrukkelijk herhaald verzoek is uitgebracht; (...)"
  57. ↑ Council of State – Department of Administration (23 December 2004). "Ruling 138.860 of 23 December 2004" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 4.5.: "(...) dat daarentegen de omzendbrief niet blijkt te willen verhinderen dat een gemeentebestuur op een Franstalige brief een antwoord geeft in het Frans of een tengevolge van die brief geopend dossier in het Frans behandelt en afhandelt; (...)"
  58. ↑ Court of Arbitration (present-day Constitutional Court of Belgium) (10 March 1998). "Ruling 98/26 of 10 March 1998" (PDF) (in Dutch). Constitutional Court of Belgium. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2003. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
  59. ↑ Rulings 138.860, 13.8861, 138.862, 138.863 and 138.864 of the Council of State of 23 December 2004. (in Dutch)
    Section 4.5.: "Overwegende dat het Arbitragehof in zijn arrest nr. 26/98 van 10 maart 1998 omtrent die taalregeling stelde hetgeen volgt : (...) dat hieruit blijkt dat, teneinde grondwetsconform te zijn, de interpretatie van de rechten van wie in de randgemeenten in het Frans wil worden bestuurd, moet stroken met de voorrangsstatus van het Nederlands in die gemeenten; dat derhalve de hierboven geschetste, ruime interpretatie van die rechten, gehuldigd door de verzoekende partij en de tussenkomende partijen, die dergelijke randgemeenten zijn, daar niet mee strookt; dat die interpretatie en de blijkbaar daarop gestoelde aangehaalde bestuurspraktijk immers in wezen leiden tot een stelsel van tweetaligheid, waarbij de taalvoorkeur van personen zelfs in bestanden wordt vastgelegd; (...)"
  60. ↑ "Dans l'arsenal, les limites de Bruxelles" (in French). La Libre Belgique. 14 January 2005. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  61. ↑ FDF (13 January 2005). "Circulaire Peeters : Arrêt du Conseil d'Etat – Les réponses juridiques et politiques du FDF" (in French). Front Démocratique des Francophones . Retrieved 25 January 2009.
    "L’arrêt de la chambre flamande du Conseil d’Etat est révélateur de la remise en cause systématique des accords institutionnels scellés de la manière la plus solennelle entre les deux grandes communautés de l’Etat belge."
  62. ↑ "Proposition de résolution visant à réaffirmer le lien indéfectible entre la Communauté française et les Francophones de la périphérie et des Fourons" (in French). French Community of Belgium. 25 January 2005. Retrieved 25 January 2009.
    "C’est dans ce contexte où les revendications flamandes, renforcées par les derniers arrêts contestables du Conseil d’Etat, se font menaçantes à la fois quant à l’arrondissement électoral et quant au statut des communes à facilités, que la présente proposition de résolution visant à réaffirmer le soutien et la solidarité entre les Francophones de Wallonie, de Bruxelles et ceux de sa large périphérie et des Fourons prend toute son acuité."
  63. ↑ Marino Keulen (11 July 2008). "Raad van State bevestigt rondzendbrief-Peeters" (in Dutch). Retrieved 23 January 2009.
  64. ↑ Council of State – Department of Jurisdiction of Administration (19 June 2008). "Ruling 184.353 of 19 June 2008" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
  65. ↑ Belga (13 November 2008). "Le Conseil d'Etat avalise la circulaire Peeters" (in French). Le Soir . Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  66. 1 2 3 "Omzendbrief BA-2005/03 van het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeeschap van 8 juli 2005 betreffende het taalgebruik in de gemeente- en OCMW-besturen en in de intergemeentelijke samenwerkingsverbanden ("omzendbrief-Keulen")" (PDF). Belgian Official Journal (in Dutch). Flemish government. 8 July 2005. pp. 34485–34492. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  67. ↑ Council of State – Department of Jurisdiction of Administration (19 June 2008). "Ruling 184.353 of 19 June 2008" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 21.: " (...) In tegenstelling tot hetgeen de verzoekende partij in haar tweede middel betoogt, is de interpretatie die de bestreden beslissing aan artikel 25 van de bestuurstaalwet geeft dan ook niet onwettig en is zij op dat vlak afdoende gemotiveerd, ook al wijkt die interpretatie af van "de vaste rechtspraak van de vaste Commissie voor Taaltoezicht". Op geen enkele wijze toont de verzoekende partij immers aan waarom een interpretatie die afwijkt van de adviezen van de Commissie -adviezen die geen bindende kracht hebben en geen jurisdictionele beslissingen zijn- de bestuurlijke beslissingen die op die afwijkende interpretatie steunen onwettig zou maken. De verzoekende partij noemt de Commissie immers ten onrechte "het enige administratieve orgaan dat bevoegd is om de wetgeving betreffende het taalgebruik in administratieve zaken te interpreteren" : zij dicht aldus de Commissie een bevoegdheid tot authentieke interpretatie van de wetten toe en gaat daarmee voorbij aan artikel 84 van de Grondwet, luidens welke bepaling alleen de wet een authentieke uitlegging van de wetten mag geven. Zij zou ook dwalen mocht zij daarmee hebben bedoeld dat alle rechtscolleges, de Raad van State inbegrepen, aan wie het toevalt in voorkomend geval de betrokken wetgeving te interpreteren, de adviezen van de Commissie zouden moeten volgen."
  68. ↑ Council of State – Department of Jurisdiction of Administration (19 June 2008). "Ruling 184.353 of 19 June 2008" (PDF) (in Dutch). Council of State. Retrieved 22 January 2009.
    Section 21.: " (...) dat een interpretatie die inhoudt dat de randgemeenten het Frans dienen te gebruiken van zodra de overheid de taal van de particulier kent en deze taal het Frans is, of nog, dat particulieren die eens het gebruik van het Frans hebben gevraagd later automatisch in het Frans worden aangeschreven, daar niet mee strookt, vermits die interpretatie en de daarop gestoelde bestuurspraktijk in wezen leiden tot een stelsel van tweetaligheid, waarbij de taalvoorkeur van personen zelfs in bestanden wordt vastgelegd; (...) dat, tegen de achtergrond van een noodzakelijk restrictieve interpretatie van het recht om het bestuur het Frans in plaats van het Nederlands te laten gebruiken in het betrokken ééntalig gebied, de interpretatie, zoals uitgedrukt in de omzendbrief, dat het verzoek om het Frans te gebruiken uitdrukkelijk moet worden herhaald, wel degelijk verenigbaar is met de bestuurstaalwet."
  69. ↑ "Omzendbrief BA-98/03 van het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap van 5 mei 1998 betreffende de herschikking van de taken administratief toezicht t.a.v. de OCMW's tussen de Administratie Gezin en Maatschappelijk Welzijn en de Administratie Binnenlandse Aangelegenheden ("omzendbrief-Martens")" (PDF). Belgian Official Journal (in Dutch). Flemish government. 5 May 1998. pp. 17139–17141. Retrieved 21 September 2009.
  70. ↑ Christian Laporte (8 July 2005). "La circulaire Keulen, plus fine, est plutôt dure" (in French). La Libre Belgique . Retrieved 25 January 2009.
  71. 1 2 3 "Keulen benoemt burgemeesters niet" (in Dutch). Knack. 14 November 2007. Archived from the original on 27 March 2008. Retrieved 26 January 2009.
  72. ↑ Pierre Bouillon; Martine Vandemeulebroucke (16 November 2007). "Ils voulaient l'apaisement ? Keulen leur déclare la guerre" (in French). Le Soir . Retrieved 26 January 2009.
  73. 1 2 "Delegatie Raad van Europa onderzoekt niet-benoeming burgemeesters" (in Dutch). De Tijd. 15 April 2008. Retrieved 16 January 2009.
  74. ↑ "Onderzoeksmissie naar Rand" (in Dutch). Knack. 15 April 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  75. 1 2 "Council of Europe to open Belgium monitoring procedure". EuroActiv. 4 November 2008. Retrieved 26 January 2009.
  76. ↑ "Woelige raden in faciliteitengemeenten" (in Dutch). Knack. 22 October 2007. Archived from the original on 10 November 2007. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  77. ↑ "Vlaanderen lacht met Rand-rapport" (in Dutch). Het Nieuwsblad. 15 May 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  78. ↑ "Conseil de l'Europe : fin de mission" (in French). RTBF. 15 May 2008. Archived from the original on 15 January 2013. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  79. ↑ "Europa kritisch voor niet-benoeming burgemeesters" (in Dutch). De Morgen. 14 May 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2009.
  80. ↑ "Europa: "Keulen moet burgemeesters benoemen"" (in Dutch). De Morgen. 2 December 2008. Retrieved 26 January 2009.
  81. ↑ "The Congress / resolution 276(2008) / 02 December 2008: Local democracy in Belgium: non-appointment by the Flemish authorities of three mayors". Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. 2 December 2008. Retrieved 25 September 2009.
  82. ↑ Marino Keulen (2 December 2008). "Keulen neemt akte van aanbevelingen Raad van Europa" (in Dutch). Marino Keulen . Retrieved 26 January 2009.
  83. ↑ "Burgemeesters sturen opnieuw Franstalige oproepingsbrieven" (in Dutch). Knack. 20 May 2009. Archived from the original on 23 May 2009. Retrieved 26 January 2009.
  84. ↑ "Tweetalige oproepingsbrieven in Rode" (in Dutch). Knack. 25 May 2009. Archived from the original on 28 May 2009. Retrieved 26 January 2009.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.