Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU) entitles people to “good administration”. What does that mean exactly – you might ask. It is up to every administration to define what that means. The EU has their own “European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour” but that is just for EU agencies (i.e. excluding member states).

Belgium has a standards of good administrative behaviour just for Belgian administrations at the federal level.

I see that Germany answered a survey about good administration. It’a a good sign. But what do they have? A German agency ignored my request for standards of good administration that they are expected to adhere to. Ignoring that request in itself likely undermines the right to good administration.

So, my question: can anyone point to a code of good administrative conduct for German administrations? Preferably in English if it exists but of course I would be satisfied with German if needed.

SNCB has a discount club called “Train+”. Membership gives discounted prices on off-peak travel. Found this in the terms and conditions:

9. Reimbursement of Train+

• Refund is possible if you have become Train+ via sncb.be or in the SNCB app, and provided you have not yet used Train+. The refund application must be submitted in writing to the Customer Service within 14 calendar days of purchase.
• In any other case, Train+ is not refundable.

The app is exclusively limited to people with smartphones and a will to lick the boots of either Google or Apple. The website is also exclusive due to shitty anti-bot challenges and deceptive gatekeeping (e.g. Tor users perpetually get a false error msg: “website under maintenance”).

Is it legal?

EU Regulation 2021⧸782 has this:

“In light of the development of online platforms selling passenger transport tickets, Member States should pay special attention to ensuring that no discrimination occurs during the process of accessing online interfaces or purchasing tickets.”

That is written in a recital, not an enactment. So IIUC it has no force. It’s merely the sentiment of the lawmakers.

SNCB has converted into a privatised profit-driven corporation that no longer receives government subsidies (supposedly). There is apparently less pressure on them to be fair and free from various forms of discrimination, so they can take the piss. It’s all about the bottom line.

Someone told me banks are considered an “essential service”, and that essential services must give they serve two ways of operating. They cannot force you to use their app or website. They must either give you a way to get service over the phone, over the counter, or by mail.

The guy was talking a bit vaguely. Does a phone app and web app count as two different methods? Where is this law written?

I mentioned that some banks are breaking this law. He said: actually, you can change banks. I’m like, wtf, what if I don’t? That makes the law a bit useless, no? He said so long as there exists ONE bank that offers two access methods, other banks can do what they want.

Is the law really written that way? It means that one bank affects the legal compliance of another. Who wants to be the last bank to offer two access methods, considering they would then be trapped? So it seems to create a race condition for banks to simplify down to one means of access, which is perhaps the opposite effect of the lawmakers’ intent.

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1306984

Yes, it is batshit crazy that this happened, and that municipalities actually stripped people of Belgian nationality that they already acquired.

Even more puzzling is how flimsy Belgian nationality is – that you can lose Belgian nationality so easily and without even any kind of wrong-doing.

The Federal Ombudsman says the “Immigration Office is exceeding its powers.” But AFAICT the immigration office is just making a request – one that can and should be ignored.

Very bizarre that the municipality has these powers. Sure, the muni has the power to grant nationality. Fair enough. But I find it a bit disturbing that the muni has power to strip nationality. Such a serious assault on someone’s human right to self-determinism should be a federal procedure, no?

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1289285

I think I may have found a gem here:

EN (machine translation, emphasis mine):

Article 3/5.[¹ The communication of federal administrative authorities is clear and recognizable. Federal administrative bodies communicate in a politically and commercially neutral manner. The obligation to communicate in a politically neutral manner shall not apply to the administrative bodies referred to in the second paragraph of Article 1(f). ]¹

What about that exception? We have:

1°[¹ administrative instance:
…
(f) the federal government’s strategic bodies referred to in the Royal Decree of 19 July 2001 on the installation of the federal public services strategic bodies and relating to the personnel of the federal public services designated to form part of the cabinet of a member of a government or a college of a Community or Region; ]¹

I’m not going on a chase to dig that up. But I would like to know if this means all “SPF …” agencies (SPF Economy, SPF Mobility, SPF Finances, SPF Foreign Afairs, etc) are exempt from commercial neutrality.

I also wonder if this apparently accidental legal effect is also accidentally nullified by this clause:

Art. 9. Where the application for advertising relates to an administrative document of an administrative [¹ instance]¹ [² …]² including a work protected by copyright, the authorization of the author or of the person to whom the rights of the author were transferred is not required to authorize the on-site consultation of the document or to provide explanations about it.

Because I suspect that shitty corps like Facebook have a clause that transfers copyright to Facebook, in which case a request to liberate FB publications by a public service can be brushed off. But then that raises another question. In Belgium, copyright holders cannot transfer their copyright (which is actually to protect the human creator). E.g. the creator of the Smurfs cartoon retains copyright ownership. But then if my understanding is true, does that mean Belgian law is catoring just for the corner case of copyright being transferred outside of Belgium?

cross-posted from: https://belgae.social/post/1289254

This is the 2024 update to the “Law of 11.04.1994”:

EN (machine translation):

Art.3/1.[¹ Federal administrative bodies inform citizens of federal regulations and, in particular, of the rights and obligations arising therefrom. This information includes at least the federal legislative and regulatory standards for the jurisdiction of the administrative body concerned. It is at least published on the website of the administrative body. ]¹

---

(1 Inserted by L 2024-05-12/18, art. 5, 007; Effective: 15-07-2024)

FR (original):

Art.3/1.[¹ Les instances administratives fédérales informent les citoyens de la réglementation fédérale et en particulier des droits et obligations qui en découlent. Cette information porte au moins sur les normes législatives et réglementaires fédérales relatives aux compétences de l’instance administrative concernée. Elle est à tout le moins publiée sur le site internet de l’instance administrative.]¹

---

(1 Inséré par L 2024-05-12/18, art. 5, 007; En vigueur : 15-07-2024)

The official website for federal statutes is https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/, which is an access restricted website that blocks people on the Tor network.