Source: BELGIAN
—
In the Schild & Vrienden case, Hans Rieder, Van Langenhove’s lawyer, wants to see large parts of the investigation annulled because it was carried out by what he believes to be a biased investigating judge, who gave Van Langenhove “left-wing, silly conditions” such as a visit to the Dossin barracks. This became apparent at the hearing of the Ghent indictment chamber, which checks the regularity of the investigation.
The East Flanders Public Prosecutor’s Office had launched a criminal investigation in response to the Pano report on September 5, 2018. It showed that racist and anti-Semitic messages were shared in secret chat groups of Schild & Vrienden. In June 2019, Van Langenhove was officially placed under suspicion. The Schild & Vrienden founder was released under certain conditions and had, among other things, to follow a guided visit to the Dossin barracks in Mechelen. Meanwhile, Van Langenhove is a Member of Parliament, elected on a list of Vlaams Belang. The House plenary lifted its parliamentary immunity in March and followed the advice of the Prosecutions Committee.
READ ALSO. Dries Van Langenhove not present at the start of AI Ghent regularity investigation
The Ghent council chamber must decide whether Dries Van Langenhove and the other suspects should answer to the criminal court, but Van Langenhove’s defense filed a petition for additional investigative acts. The petition came after the decision of investigating judge Annemie Serlippens to withdraw after the challenge of Van Langenhove, who argued that Serlippens was biased.
“Left-wing, silly terms”
Rieder referred to tweets that Serlippens had liked, which allegedly showed she was biased against his client. According to the lawyer, the “elitist” investigating judge also made a mistake by imposing “left-wing, silly conditions” on his client, such as the visit to the Dossin barracks. According to Rieder, if the investigation of the investigating judge were to stand, it would mean “the death blow for the judicial authorities”.
The indictment chamber will continue to hear the parties on November 15 as it oversees the settlement of the proceedings. The procedure therefore causes months of delay in the file. After the AI’s decision, the case will normally return to the council chamber in Ghent, which must decide who must answer to the criminal court.
— .
