Antwerp (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – The Antwerp criminal court awarded PM Bart De Wever €5,000 in damages after a foiled 2023 attack, marking a key ruling in the high-profile security case.
He was still Antwerp’s mayor at the time. Indeed though De Wever claimed as a public person that he hadn’t been concerned or scarified, the judge set up that he’d incurred moral damages as a private individual.
The Court of Appeal set up four men and one woman guilty of organizing an attack on Bart De Wever in 2023 before this time. He was still Antwerp’s mayor at the time. Captivity terms of over to six years were assessed on the offenders.
De Wever did not initially seek compensation since he had not yet filed a civil lawsuit. Later on, he did so. Four of the condemned offenders refused to pay €1,500, although one has since done so.
Because De Wever often claimed in the media that he had not been scared or concerned, their attorneys contended that he had not experienced any harm.
Walter Damen, Bart De Wever’s attorney, had a different opinion. He maintained that De Wever must not be frightened and must maintain his strength as a public figure. However, Damen claims that the incidents did affect him personally.
The judge adopted that line of thinking. He decided that the guilty parties had to reimburse De Wever €5,000. One of them had already made a €1,500 payment. The remaining parties now have to pay an extra €3,500.
De Wever’s main goal in seeking compensation was to make it very evident that the act was unacceptable and that he would not allow it to occur. He had earlier declared that he would manage the money in a “socially appropriate manner” but that he didn’t want to keep it himself.
What legal basis supported the judge’s award of moral damages?
The Antwerp felonious court’s award of €5,000 in moral damages to Bart De Wever reckoned on Belgian civil liability vittles under Composition 1382 of the Civil law (now Article 6162 of the new Civil law), allowing compensation fornon-pecuniary detriment stemming from an unlawful act.
As a civil party in the felonious proceedings, De Wever claimed under Articles 63 and 1382- 1383, proving cerebral torture from the terrorist medication despite his public adaptability; Belgian law presumes similar detriment in serious pitfalls, independent of public part.
The judge assessed gravity of the plot (e.g., armament plans), particular impact as a private existence, and proportionality, reducing the €6,000 claim to €5,000 while rejecting advanced quantities for lack of quantified suffering substantiation.
