These notes concern the European dimension of cases decided by the Belgian courts: what Strasbourg requires once the highest domestic courts have ruled, and how recent Belgian case-law and independent monitoring bear on Convention complaints.
Convention arguments are regularly raised before the Belgian courts. The question these notes address is a different one: whether a case still has a Convention dimension once the Belgian proceedings have ended, and how that dimension must be brought before the European Court of Human Rights.
Just Rights Europe does not replace the lawyers conducting the domestic proceedings; it works on the Convention dimension alone, in cases that have reached the highest domestic level.
In 2025, 232 of the 255 applications concerning Belgium dealt with by the European Court were declared inadmissible or struck out. Strasbourg is not a continuation of the Belgian proceedings: exhaustion, the time limit and the framing of the complaint decide whether the merits are ever examined.
The lesson of Chaaban and Others v. Belgium: a cassation appeal that cannot provide redress for the particular Convention complaint does not necessarily postpone the time limit. A case can still be pending in Belgium while the Strasbourg clock is running.
Convention arguments are regularly raised before the Belgian courts, yet many cases stop when the domestic proceedings end. A Convention argument rejected in Belgium is not necessarily a Convention case without prospects.
On 18 August 2026 the Court of Cassation held that where a toilet in a shared cell is separated only by a curtain, the judge must examine whether other conditions of detention have a reinforcing or cumulative effect. Detention conditions cannot be examined in fragments.
The CPT report published on 8 September 2026 describes worsening overcrowding, prisoners sleeping on the floor and serious gaps in healthcare. It does not establish an Article 3 violation by itself, but it can be powerful objective evidence.
These notes are general information on Convention law; they do not constitute legal advice and do not create a lawyer-client relationship.
After the final decision of the highest national court, a case may be submitted to us directly, by the client or by national counsel.