Fortis case: Schurmans component returns to the Court of Cassation – Finance
The Court of Cassation is due to issue a new verdict on Tuesday in the chapter on the conviction of Christine Schurmans, one of the three judges in the Fortis case, for breach of professional secrecy.
Last February, the European Court of Human Rights issued a decisionhe had not benefited from a fair criminal procedurebecause it is deprived of the right to contact a lawyer in the pre-trial phase.
The case dates back to the 2008 financial crisis. When Belgian authorities took steps to rescue Fortis, the country’s largest financial institution at the time, by deciding to sell it to French bank BNP Paribas.
Fortis shareholders took legal action to challenge these measures. Ms Schurmans was one of three judges of the Brussels Court of Appeal called to rule on the case. Two of his colleagues wanted to stop the sale of Fortis to let the shareholders decidebut he himself, sick, did not sign the judgment and condemned the aggression.
A criminal case has been opened for violation of professional secrecy
It was about the information sent to the prime minister’s office by the husband of Mrs. Schurmans during the time of Yves Leterme (CD&V), whose government will later be accused of pressure on the judicial system. Christine Schurmans was prosecuted for violating professional secrecy and discussing: he had e-mailed part of the draft decision to an emeritus graduate friend for investigation to improve the text linguistically.
Ms. Shurmans claimed that the criminal proceedings against her were not fair because she was denied access to a lawyer during pre-trial hearings and interrogations. Ruling in 2011, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument and reprimanded the magistrate, while also suspending his sentence for lack of intent to cause harm. The following year, the judge was unsuccessful in cassation, but he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights., which proved him right last February. Thus, the case is returned to the Court of Cassation.
Last February, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the magistrate did not benefit from a fair criminal procedure because he was indeed denied access to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage. The case comes in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, when Belgian authorities stepped in to rescue Fortis, the country’s largest financial institution at the time, by deciding to break it up and sell it to France’s BNP Paribas bank. Fortis shareholders took legal action to challenge these measures. Ms Schurmans was one of three judges of the Brussels Court of Appeal called to rule on the case. Two of his colleagues wanted to stop the sale of Fortis to let the shareholders decide, but he did not sign the order because he was ill himself and denounced the pressure. It was about the information sent to the prime minister’s office by the husband of Mrs. Schurmans during the time of Yves Leterme (CD&V), whose government will later be accused of pressure on the judicial system. Christine Schurmans was prosecuted for breach of professional confidentiality and discussion: she emailed an emeritus graduate friend to edit part of the draft decision to improve the text linguistically. fair, because he was denied the right to meet with a lawyer during pre-trial hearings and interrogations. Ruling in 2011, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument and reprimanded the magistrate, while also suspending his sentence for lack of intent to cause harm. The following year, he was unsuccessful in the magisterial cassation, but he appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in his favor last February. Thus, the case is returned to the Court of Cassation.
