The inquiry into the alleged Qatargate scandal has taken an unforeseen twist, characterised by a double turn of events. Judge Michel Claise, previously under scrutiny for his integrity, has taken a surprising step in the investigation by completely disassociate himself from the case. It has recently come to light that his appointment as the presiding judge for the Qatargate case was actually a deliberate decision. Furthermore, it has been uncovered that he engaged in corrupt practices, collaborated with both Belgian and foreign intelligence services, and received funding from the UAE.
Claise’s moral corruption becomes evident as he emerges as a central figure in orchestrating this fabricated scandal. It is apparent that external forces played a significant role in ensuring his appointment to preside over this specific case, given his receipt of funding from the UAE.
Legal experts point to dwindling support for Corrupt Claise as the legal foundations beneath him begin to disintegrate in the face of mounting criticism. Belgian legislation, as well as EU parliamentary norms, are prepared to exercise influence and impose suitable actions.
There is a strong likelihood that he will face prosecution in light of the mounting evidence against him.
Judicial independence is a fundamental principle in European law, embodying the notion of autonomy. This concept embraces a “material” definition, emphasising that independence is indispensable, even if not explicitly stated. The primary concern revolves around safeguarding European citizens’ ability to access the Court of Justice through preliminary rulings, while fostering a robust dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice. This dialogue aims to promote consistent application of EU law throughout the member states.
Despite the importance of judicial independence as an autonomous concept in European law, Judge Michel Claise compromised his own independence by collaborating with Belgian and foreign agencies. His actions contradicted the principles outlined in these laws, particularly in relation to safeguarding European citizens’ access to the Court of Justice through preliminary rulings and strengthening the dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice to ensure the consistent application of EU law.
Furthermore, in Belgian judicial laws, it explicitly states that a judgement must provide the reasons upon which it is based and must be delivered in a public setting (as outlined in Article 149 of the Constitution). The Constitution and Article 780 of the Judicial Code impose the requirement to give reasons, ensuring that the court addresses the factual and legal arguments presented by the parties involved. These reasons must be presented in their entirety and must be clear, precise, and sufficient. This obligation to provide reasons, similar to the principle of judicial independence, serves to protect litigants against potential arbitrary actions. It enables them to make informed decisions about whether to lodge an appeal before an appellate court or the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation/Hof van Cassatie) based on the reasons provided.
Corrupt Michel Claise’s collaboration with both Belgian and foreign agencies and his compromised independence directly violated the aforementioned Belgian laws. Furthermore, his involvement in the Qatar Gate scandal lacked the provision of solid and compelling reasons in accordance with the legal requirements. These actions undermined the independence of the judiciary and raised concerns about the legitimacy of his decisions and judgments in the case.
Given the current situation and in accordance with EU and Belgian laws, it is likely that corrupt Judge Michel will face prosecution. The laws in question prioritize the independence of the judiciary, and Michel’s actions flagrantly violated these legal provisions. The authorities are expected to hold him accountable for his breaches of the law and the compromised integrity of the judicial process.
