Peeters directive
[2][3][4] The circular caused national political commotion and reflects the conflicting perception of language facilities in Dutch and French-speaking public opinion.
[6] It attracted international attention when the mayors took their case to the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe.
[13][14][15] The consensus in contemporary historical and political literature is that the results of the language census have to be interpreted with caution.
[15] Finally, given that the results had political consequences, inviting for manipulation in some cases, the census had more of a referendum on the language status of the municipality than of a sociological inquiry.
As part of the wider Francization of Brussels and a process of urbanisation,[10] these formerly Dutch-speaking municipalities became majority French-speaking in the second half of the 20th century.
[19][23][24] This phenomenon, known in Flanders as the "oil slick",[25] is, together with the future of Brussels,[26] one of the most controversial topics in all of Belgian politics.
[32][33] The Standing Commission for Linguistic Supervision[34] is a federal institution responsible for collecting and reporting language complaints.
[39]The directive argues language facilities have an "integrative function", meaning that, "per definition", "for the concerned individual", they have an "extinguishing character".
[48] On 27 February 1998, the French Community of Belgium and the Walloon Region, together with a French-speaking inhabitant of one of the concerned rim municipalities, challenged the legitimacy of the directive before the Council of State.
On 27 March 2001, the court argued that two first plaintiffs did not have any powers within the territory of the Flemish Region, and dismissed the appeal on those grounds.
[49] On 25 February 1998, the municipality of Kraainem (in the periphery of Brussels, with a French-speaking majority) had initiated another case, also requesting annulment of the directive.
[51] The municipalities (and a number of French-speaking inhabitants) claimed that the directive introduced new rules,[52] and thus conflicted with art.
[61]On 25 January 2005, the parliament of the French Community of Belgium ratified a "Resolution aimed to reaffirm the unswerving link between the French Community and the French-speakers of the [Brussels] periphery and Voeren": It is in that context, in which the Flemish demands, enforced by the latest contestable rulings of the Council of State, are menacing both to the electoral district as to the status of the municipalities with facilities, that this [...] resolution to reaffirm the support and solidarity between the French-speakers of Wallonia, Brussels and those of its wider periphery and Voeren takes all its acuity.
[65] The Court refuted the argument of the plaintiff that the advice of the Standing Commission for Linguistic Supervision (to stock the language preference of citizens and directly addressing them in that language, which was explicitly forbidden by the Keulen directive[66]) should be followed, arguing the commission had no legal authority.
Marino Keulen, then minister, delayed the appointment of the four proposed mayors because they did not apply language legislation.
[73] The delegation was led by a Frenchman and consisted further of a Serbian representative, a German expert, and two other French members of the Congress.
[74] The Council of Europe can make recommendations to its 47 member states, but it cannot impose sanctions on them for non-compliance[75] and its conclusions are not legally binding.
The mayors allowed that French was spoken during council meetings and refused to apply the recommendations of the Flemish directives.
[7] He also said that in towns with French-speaking majorities, participation of the inhabitants in local politics is complicated when the official language of administration is Dutch.
[77] The Flemish Interior Minister, Marino Keulen, said they were "absurd" because they did not take into account the language legislation, the grounds on which their nomination was refused.
[80] In the adopted resolution, the Congress urged the Belgian state to appoint the mayors and to review the language legislation in the concerned municipalities.
[81]Minister Keulen "took notice" of the Congress's recommendations but stressed that only the Council of State was competent to undo his decision.
[83] Sint-Genesius-Rode sent out convocation letters in Dutch to all citizens, accompanied by a French translation for those considered to be French-speaking.
