The judgment of the Antwerp court of appeal where judge Raskin challenged, it must be broken. That has the public prosecutor general at the court of cassation on Tuesday claimed. According to the public prosecutor-general, the court of appeal is not answered to any of the arguments of the federal public prosecutor’s office and the judgment, therefore, is not properly motivated. The federal public prosecutor’s office had argued that the defence of referee Bart Vertenten the investigating judge had barred, in particular after they first had met with the same examining magistrate.
The Antwerp court of appeal had the wrakingsverzoek of referee Bart Vertenten is upheld because judge Raskin still was a member of the licensing committee of the Royal Belgian Football association (belgian football association) when the judicial investigation started. The first investigations occurred in november 2017, while Raskin only on march 17, 2018 resigned from the commission. He sat there since march 18, 2011.
According to the court, was by that years feature a band between Raskin and the belgian football association that “the public is an objective appearance of partiality can lead to”. The royal belgian football association also has an interest in the research, either directly as victims, or indirectly via some of its members who were mentioned in the study.
The federal public prosecutor’s office had argued that the defence of referee Bart Vertenten the investigating judge had barred. One of the lawyers of the referee had, after all, on 19 October, an interview had with judge Raskin, although the defense already knew that the magistrate had been a member of the licensing committee. That conversation showed, according to the federal public prosecutor’s office that the defense at that time and trust in the independence and objectivity of the examining magistrate. The Antwerp court of appeal would on that argument not have responded.
The judgment of the court of cassation falls later today.