The following is the English translation of a press release kindly provided to us by MCC Brussels.

MCC Brussels welcomes the ruling of the French-speaking Court of First Instance in Brussels, which unequivocally condemns the municipality of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Belgoum for its unlawful attempt to prevent the National Conservatism Conference (NatCon) from taking place on 16–17 April 2024.

This judgment follows two earlier decisions by the Council of State—Belgium’s highest administrative court—issued in 2024 under exceptional urgency and on the merits of the case. With today’s ruling, Belgium’s French- and Dutch-speaking judicial authorities have now spoken with one voice in defence of freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly—an unusual and significant institutional consensus within Belgium’s constitutional framework.

Clear and Thorough Rejection of Censorship

In a detailed 26-page judgment, the Court dismissed all procedural objections and formal arguments raised by the municipality, many of which were clearly intended to delay or avoid a ruling on the substance of the case. Following a thorough examination, the Court’s reasoning closely mirrors that of the Dutch-speaking chamber of the Council of State. The Court confirmed that public authorities not only have a duty to refrain from abusive or indirect restrictions on fundamental freedoms, but also a positive obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure their peaceful exercise—regardless of the ideas expressed at a lawful event.

The Court found that this obligation had not been met. Rather than assessing and deploying the resources necessary to maintain public order, the local authorities imposed a blanket ban without presenting any concrete evidence that safeguarding security was impossible. The decision therefore amounted to an unlawful interference with constitutional rights.

Responsibility Clearly Established

The Court concluded that the ban constituted a civil wrong (faute) directly attributable to the Mayor of Saint-Josse-ten-Noode, Emir Kir. The municipality was ordered to pay symbolic damages of €1, reflecting the moral harm caused by the violation of MCC’s fundamental rights, as well as the costs of the proceedings.

While the damages are symbolic, the legal finding is not. The Court explicitly acknowledged both the existence and the unlawfulness of the moral harm caused by the conduct in question. The judgment firmly establishes liability and sets a clear precedent for future cases.

No ‘Heckler’s Veto’ under Belgian Law

Crucially, the Court rejected the argument that potential protests or general security concerns could justify such a ban. In the absence of evidence indicating a violent character of the event, the authorities had a duty to protect the conference, not to suppress it. In doing so, the Court rejected the logic of the so-called ‘heckler’s veto’ and confirmed that the possibility of disruption by third parties cannot serve as a basis for silencing lawful speech in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.

A Decision with Lasting Impact

The attempt to censor NatCon attracted international attention and was widely criticized by the media, legal experts, and political leaders, including then-Prime Minister Alexander De Croo of Belgium. Today’s ruling confirms that these concerns were legally and constitutionally well-founded.

Commenting on the judgment, Director General of MCC Brussels Frank Füredi said:

‘This ruling is historic. It confirms that authorities have a duty not only to tolerate freedom of expression, but to actively protect it. What makes this decision particularly significant is that both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking courts in Belgium reached the same conclusion: censorship has no place in a democratic society governed by the rule of law, even when disguised as administrative necessity.’

Yohann Rimokh, lawyer for the Mathias Corvinus Collegium Foundation, added:

‘This decision is remarkably courageous and was delivered by a judge from a new generation of French-speaking magistrates. The Court examined the facts and arguments with great care. The conduct of the local authorities was unanimously condemned in a country where unanimity is rare. Belgium has not witnessed such a robust defence of freedom of expression and assembly in a long time. MCC deserves recognition for its courage and perseverance.’

MCC Brussels welcomes the clarification this case brings to Belgium’s institutional landscape. The message is unequivocal: restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly will be scrutinised and condemned—across both language communities and at all levels of the judiciary.

‘This ruling strengthens the rule of law in Belgium and sets an important precedent for the future,’ Füredi added. ‘It ensures that controversial ideas cannot be silenced simply because they provoke opposition.’

Related articles: