Article
English
ID: <
2268/206886>
Abstract
This long article compares the Belgian and Quebec legal regimes on the issue of civil liability for misconduct by judges in the exercise of the judiciary. Although the solutions adopted on both sides of the Atlantic seem to differ a priori — absolute and relativisation of the immunity of the judge in Quebec — a more detailed examination reveals that the practical implications are not so radically opposed. It is true that the Belgian State may incur civil liability in the event of fault on the part of the court, which cannot be accepted in Quebec, but the details of the civil action which Belgian case-law has adopted (in particular the condition of admissibility and the concept of serious misconduct) severely limit the scope of the dispute in this area. Moreover, in Quebec, there is a — purely theoretical — shift from the principle of absolute immunity in the context of his personal civil liability, since there is no specific case in which the court has been held liable under civil law at present, where he is acting without jurisdiction, knowing that he has no jurisdiction to do so.