However, in another version of the facts reported by an involved student, the educator would first have replied that it was a “joke” Invented by a comrade.
A duty of alert not respected according to WBE, disputed by the defense
WBE criticizes the educator for having failed in his alert duty, believing that these exchanges exceeded the professional framework and should have immediately been dressed in the hierarchy. The Belgian law fixes at 16 the age of the sexual majority, and considers to rape any act of penetration involving a minor under 14 years of age.
However, the file only reached management several days later, via an educator who wrote several behavioral reports. Police heard the director of the boarding school the next day.
The educator was dismissed from his functions quickly, then suspended preventively in March, a suspension renewed several times. In April, two of the young people were heard by a WBE jurist attaché, while the third will never be, his parents refusing the request.
A precedent is also found: in 2015, an internal sheet reproached the educator a Facebook conversation with a sexual connotation with a 15 -year -old internal student.
On May 6, 2024, the educator was officially summoned to respond to two grievances: not having immediately informed his hierarchy of serious facts involving minors under his surveillance, and having sent, the same day, messages of a character “Salave and sexualizing” to a 13 -year -old student, then deleted part of it at an official meeting.
After an internal procedure, the WBE recourse chamber confirms the cancellation sanction.
“The file is far from closed”
On April 18, 2025, the educator seized the Council of State, requesting the immediate suspension of the sanction pending judgment on the merits. For his defense, he invokes the violation of the presumption of innocence, believing that the investigation was not carried out “dependent and on discharge”as well as a lack of motivation and a decision based on incomplete elements.
Me Jean BOURTEMBOURG, his lawyer, recalls that “The file is far from being closed because it remains the request for cancellation and my client is determined to make his version of the story heard. According to him, he was informed of this story the day after the facts. He said he immediately sent the girl to the educator. We relying on the testimony of a young girl who is described by her parents of welcoming like someone” “who tells anything.” “
The Council of State, in its judgment of June 24, 2025, rejects the request. The judges recall that the presumption of innocence implies a balanced instruction, but believe that the internal investigation was serious, with “Many auditions” and a decision taking into account the favorable elements for defense.
The testimonies of the two students heard placed the information given to the educator the same day, whether in the swimming pool or later in the evening, while the Messenger exchanges corroborate these versions. Despite the absence of the third student testimony and some minor differences, the file contains according to the magistrates “Serious, precise and concordant clues.”
The written report of an educator colleague, transmitted on February 6, is considered coherent with the other elements and did not require formal hearing.
The cancellation of radiation therefore remains in force.
Me BOURTEMBOURG, however, stresses that “The procedure is not completed. My client maintains his cancellation request, which will this time bring the back of the file. He wishes to assert his version and obtain a just decision.”
The Council of State must now examine this recourse in cancellation “Probably next year. While waiting for my client still doesn’t work.”