Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T04:51:14.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Regime Governing International Adoptions in Belgium

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

J. Erauw  and
F. Sarre
Get access

Extract

After many years of hard work by politicians and jurists the Belgian municipal law on legitimacy has finally been reformed. There was a protracted debate, but not on the question of international adoptions. The amendments concerning international adoptions were decided upon unusually speedily. Within four months of the submission of the bill, the Chamber of Representatives and the Senate had reached an agreement. Only problems of parliamentary procedure prevented the bill being passed earlier.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 1988 , pp. 117 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Erauw, J., ‘De nieuwe geplande regeling in België van de internationale adopties — een analyse’, Rechtskundig Weekblad (1987), 2066–2086Google Scholar, has been taken as the basis for this article. For the authors' translation of the new Belgian law see the Annex at the end of this article.

2. Part. Hand. Kamer (29 July 1986) p. 1779 (‘Parl. Hand. Kamer’ is a reference to the debates held in the Chamber of Representatives). Because of the political timetable the final vote was postponed until the spring of 1987.

3. For this viewpoint see Parl. St., Senaat (1985–86) no. 2, p. 13 where reference is made to Parl. St. Senaat, 954 (1976–1977) p. 82Google Scholar and where this political objective is mentioned on pp. 37, 49 and 55. (These references concern the documents relating to the proceedings in the Senate).

4. See Krause, H.D., International Encyclopaedia of Comparative Law, Vol. IV (1976) Ch. 6, p. 73Google Scholar.

5. See Delva, W., Overzicht van het burgerlijk recht en het burgerlijk procesrecht (1980) pp. 68–71Google Scholar.

6. See Part. St., Kamer, 489 (1985–1986) no. 3, p. 3Google Scholar. There is, however, uncertainty about these rules in Belgian private international law. For recent commentaries on the problems surrounding adoption, see in general: Lenaerts, K., in Personen- en familierecht, — Artikelsgewijze commentaar met overzicht van rechtspraak en rechtsleer, Part IV: ‘Internationaal Privaatrecht’ (1984)Google Scholar; and de Foer, L., ‘Overzicht van rechtspraak 1965–1984, internationaal privaatrecht — Adoptie’, Tijdschrift voor Privaatrecht (1984) p. 1412 et seq.Google Scholar

7. Possibilities of immigration would be offered through the device of ‘family reunion’ facilities on Belgian soil and by persons adopted by a Belgian national receiving Belgian nationality: Article 9 of the new Code of Nationality Law of 28 June 1984, applicable since 1 January 1985 — also retroactively for children not yet 18 on that date. It should be mentioned that adoptions contrived in such a manner are rather scarce.

Part. St., Senaat (1985–86) no. 2, p. 41 asserts that the relevant provisions in this respect make the law broader but ‘definitely not more complicated’ (sic).

8. Purl. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 36Google Scholar.

9. Ghent, , 11 May 1978, Rechtskundig Weekblad 1978–1979, 5051Google Scholar; Kortrijk, Jeugdrb., 4 April 1978, Rechtskundig Weekblad 1978–1979, 506Google Scholar.

10. See Foer, De, loc. cit. n 6, p. 1416Google Scholar.

11. Ibid., p. 1420 et seq.

12. Parl. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 47Google Scholar ‘in order to preserve the bond of affiliation with the family of origin in the child's favour’.

13. Part. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 21Google Scholar and the Government's amendment on p. 24. On p. 17, ‘The legislator must primarily enact rules for Belgium’. International harmony and the attitude of Third World countries is the reason for an imperative law on adoption in Belgium.

14. Part. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, pp. 25Google Scholar, 27 and 37.

15. See Brussel, Rb., 30 04 1970, Pasicrisie beige, 1970, III, 80Google Scholar. The approving judge looks at the earlier moment in time.

16. See Part. Hand. Senaat (27 May 1986) p. 1075 and p. 1082 in fine.

17. Part. Hand., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 40Google Scholar.

18. The initial introduction of the exception did not include this requirement: Part. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 24Google Scholar, but (with regard to the clear text) on pp. 29 and 30 of the same document reference is made to Belgian law on the same issue despite a member of the commission putting a question about a foreign case.

19. Cass., 7 November 1984, Rev. crit. 1985, 533, plus annotation by M. Simon-Depitre. See also a summary and annotation by Gaudemet-Tallon, H. in Clunet 1985, p. 434Google Scholar.

20. See Foer, De, loc.cit. n. 6, pp. 1419–1420Google Scholar. Mention was made of renvoi in Part. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 19Google Scholar.

21. Gessner, A.-F. and Mayer, G., ‘Adoption-Smsse”, Rev. int. dr. comp. (1985) p. 877Google Scholar.

22. For a study of recognition see Rigaux, F., Droit international privé, Book III — Droit positif Beige (1979) p. 194Google Scholar and p. 301 (R. Vanderelst, M. Weser); Jenard, P., Droit international privé beige et droit conventional international, Book 2 — Conflits de jurisdictions (1985) p. 453 et seq.Google Scholar; Erauw, J., Beginselen van internationaal privaatrecht (1985) p. 281 at p. 295Google Scholar; van Hecke, G. (with the cooperation of K. Lenaerts), Internationaal privaatrecht (1986) p. 87Google Scholar; and see in particular de Foer, L., ‘De erkenning en de gevolgen van buitenlandse adopties’, Tijdschrift voor Vreemdelingenrecht (1983) p. 3 et seq.Google Scholar

23. A document from CEPESS (Christian democratic advisory body) refers to this as an ‘absurd régime”: CEPESS document in Part. St., Senaat, 256 (1985–1986) no. 2, p. 42Google Scholar.

24. The second part of Art. 344 quater has adopted the old Art. 344(3) clause (b). The effects of such a foreign revocation used to fall under another law, that of the adopted child, but now the effects fall under the law which had to be respected as the ‘loi convenable’.

25. The second sentence of Art. 344 tertio concerns ‘the case covered by Art. 344(2)’ (concerning adopters of different nationality) and that relates to adoption in Belgium. One wonders if the effects of recognised foreign adoptions and foreign full adoptions (not ‘the case’ as stated above) — when adopted children older than 15 years of age are concerned — have to fall under Belgian law or under the law that has determined acceptability in the country of origin of the adoption act or decree. In our opinion judges can solve this problem.

26. See Foer, De, loc.cit. n 6, pp. 1436–1437Google Scholar. For a further insight into the institution of adoption in an historical context and a comparative analysis of adoption regimes in Europe and the rest of the world see: ‘L'adoption dans les principales législations Européennes’, Rev. int. dr. comp. (1985) pp. 511–884; Badan, D. Upperti, ‘L'adoption internationale’, Hague Recueil (1983) pp. 295–412Google Scholar.

27. Part. St., Kamer (1986–1987) no. 986/1.

28. See Erauw, J., ‘De gevolgen van de internationale adoptie — de wetgever loopt zichzelf voorbij’, Rechtskundig Weekblad (1988), 650Google Scholar.