No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Astreinte in Belgian Law
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 February 2019
Extract
Astreinte proceedings, a well known feature of the French law of civil procedure, has been recently introduced into the Belgian legal system. The introduction was brought about by statutory means, the Law of January 31, 1980, that actually introduced into Belgian law the provisions of a Benelux convention on astreinte to apply uniformly in Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg. The provisions are based on those of the Dutch law rather than French law so that what is taken over from the French law relates mainly to the fundamental concept of astreinte and its name.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1985 by International Association of Law Libraries
References
1. Law of January 31, 1980, approving the Benelux Convention concerning the Uniform Law on Astreinte and the Appendix, signed at the Hague, November 26, 1973 (Moniteur Beige, February 20, 1980, p. 2181).Google Scholar
2. For French law of astreinte see Encyclopédie Dalloz, 1 Répertoire de droit civil, Astreinte (Paris, Jurisprudence Générate Dalloz, 1970-). Up to 1972, the French law of astreinte was judge made and was intimately connected with damages (dommages-interets) from which it arose and only gradually developed into a more independent legal device. Its final separation from damages was statutory, by Law No. 72-626 of July 5, 1972 as amended by Law No. 75-596 of July 9, 1975 on astreinte. The statute made the astreinte independent of damages. Astreinte is provisional or definitive. The provisional may be modified or lifted by the judge whereas the definitive will be collected unless the debtor shows a case of force majeure. Astreinte is a means of indirect coercion. It presupposes a judgment order of which it attempts to assure execution by threatening the judgment debtor with the forfeiture of a sum of money if he does not comply. It is imposed in the discretion of the judge.Google Scholar
3. Cass., 24 janv. 1924, Pasicrisie beige (hereafter Pas.), I. 151; Cass., 22 nov. 1926, Pas., 1927, I. 92; Cass., 10 mars 1932, Pas., I. 98; Ypres, 30 octobre 1964, Rechtskundig Weekblad (hereafter R.W.), 1964-1965, 488.Google Scholar
4. Servais, J. and Mechelynck, E., 1 Les Codes Beiges 9 (Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1984).Google Scholar
5. Cass., 23 juin 1887, Pas., I. 322; Bruxelles, 30 juin 1934, Pas., II. 192; Cass., 27 octobre 1961, Pas., 1962, I. 218.Google Scholar
6. Infra note 7, I. Moreau-Margréve, at 13.Google Scholar
7. On astreinte in Belgian law, see Ballon, G.L., “De nieuwe wet op de dwangsom,” R.W., 1980, col. 2017-2036; Glansdorff, F., “La législation sur l'astreinte en droit beige: la Convention Benelux du 26 novembre 1973,” Journal des Tribunaux (hereafter J.T.), 1980, 312-313; Guldix, E., “De dwangsom eindelijk legaal, Journal des juges de paix,” 1980, 129-162; Storme, M., “Een revoluntionaire hervorming: de dwangsom,” Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht, 1980, 222-240; Dhoore, A.M., “Un an d'application de l'astreinte,” J.T., 1981, 529-535; Malengreau, X., “L'introduction de l'astreinte en droit beige,” Revue générale des assurances et des responsabilités, 1981, no. 10348; Moreau-Margrève, I., “L'astreinte,” 27 Annales de la Faculté de Droit, d'Economie et de Sciences sociales de Liége, 11-95 (1982).Google Scholar
8. Code Judiciaire, art. 1385bis.Google Scholar
9. Id. art. 1385ter.Google Scholar
10. Id.Google Scholar
11. Labor Court, Liège, June 3, 1983, Jurisprudence de Liège (hereafter J.L.), 1983, 500. In that case a worker demanded that he be paid his wages in cash and requested the imposition of an astreinte, although the employer was paying him by check. The court dismissed the action since it considered the payment of wages by check reasonable but held that an astreinte could be imposed in proper cases to enforce the payment of wages as it constituted a legal obligation on the part of the employer.Google Scholar
12. Code Judiciaire, art. 1385bis.Google Scholar
13. Id. art. 1385quater.Google Scholar
14. This is in contrast to the concept of the French provisional astreinte which may be converted into a definitive one in the so-called liquidation proceedings. The judgment debtor will be excused if he can show that the noncompliance with the astreinte order was not due to his fault without being required to show force majeure.Google Scholar
15. Code Judiciaire, art. 1385quinquies.Google Scholar
16. Id. art. 1385sexies.Google Scholar
17. Id. art. 1385septies.Google Scholar
18. Id. art. 1385octies.Google Scholar
19. Id. art. 1385nonies.Google Scholar
20. Judge of the Peace, Nivelles, February 11, 1981, J.T., 1981, 539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Civil Court, Liege (1st Chamber), June 10, 1981, J.T., 1981, 537.Google Scholar
22. Labor Court, Liege (4th Chamber), May 25, 1981, J.T., 1981, 539.Google Scholar
23. Civil Court, Huy (ref.), February 23, 1982, J.T., 1982, 546.Google Scholar
24. Commercial Court, Brussels, May 5, 1980, J.T., 1980, 538.Google Scholar
25. Court of Appeal, Brussels (1st Chamber bis), November 6, 1981, J.T., 1982, 428.Google Scholar
26. Civil Court, Liege (juge des saisies), November 2, 1983, J.L., 1983, 555; Court of Cassation, January 4, 1984, J.L., 1984, 105.Google Scholar
27. The application of astreinte to family matters was upheld by the Court of Justice Benelux in its decision in Wassenburg c. Petit of May 11, 1982, J.T., 1982, 679. The court held that the Uniform Law of Benelux on astreinte also applies in cases in which the judgment to which the astreinte is accessory has for its objective the execution of an obligation of family law.Google Scholar
28. Civil Court, Liège (réf.), September 8, 1981, J.T., 1981, 536.Google Scholar
29. Civil Court, Verviers, June 30, 1982, J.L., 1983, 51.Google Scholar
30. Childrens Court, Dinant, May 16, 1983, J.L., 1983, 378.Google Scholar
31. Supra note 24.Google Scholar
32. Commercial Court, Mons, May 16, 1980, Pas., III. 46.Google Scholar
33. A great number of cases applying astreinte and details of its application with respect to users, amounts and conditions imposed appear in A.M. Dhoore, supra note 7.Google Scholar
34. Code Judiciaire, arts. 1499-1528; Code Civil, arts. 1136-1141.Google Scholar
35. Code Civil, arts. 1142-1155.Google Scholar
36. Supra note 7, I. Moreau-Margrève at 66-68. It is interesting to note that an astreinte cannot be imposed in French law in these circumstances, e.g., to require a painter to paint a painting. Court of Appeal, Paris, December 2, 1897, Dalloz, Recueil périodique et critique mensuel, 1898. 2. 465, note de M. Planiol; and on petition for cassation, Civil Chamber, March 14, 1900, rapport de M. Le conseiller Rau et conclusions de M. l'avocat général Desjardins, Dalloz, Recueil périodique et critique mensuel, 1900. 1. 497.Google Scholar
37. Code Civil, art. 1142 reads: “Any obligation to do or not to do is discharged by the payment of damages and interest in case of the debtor's nonperformance.”Google Scholar
38. 5 Repertoire pratique du droit beige, Execution des jugements et des actes en matiere civile, Ch. 1, Execution forcee et definitive, No. 19, p. 43 (Bruxelles, Bruylant, 1950-).Google Scholar
39. Contrainte par corps was originally regulated by article 2065 of the Civil Code, and since 1859 by the Law of March 21, 1859. It was greatly limited by the Law of July 27, 1871. It consisted in the imprisonment of the debtor for the purpose of forcing him to pay his debts. The 1871 Law retained it chiefly in connection with criminal law to enforce payment of compensation, damages, interest and costs imposed in criminal proceedings. It was finally abolished by the Law of January 31, 1980, art. 4(4), supra note 1.Google Scholar
40. Code Judiciaire, arts. 1395, 1499-1528, 1560-1626.Google Scholar