Diest Tennis player Yanina Wickmayer (29) and her father, Marc (65) escape to a fine of 420,000 euro and a prison sentence. The two were in court for the second time to answer to bouwovertredingen to their villa in Diest. But again blundered the Leuven public prosecutor with the subpoena. The court referred the case to the trash.
The first verdict in favor of the Wickmayers dates back to april 10, 2017. Then, the court ruled that the writ of summons null and void, because not properly all parties involved were informed. Yanina and her father were never officially informed. With subpoenas for bouwmisdrijven one must also pass a mortgage registry pass and that was only the case for the company. A forgetfulness of the public prosecutor. That decided not to appeal not to lose time, but to a new criminal procedure. And that’s according to the right now again the problem lies.
The new summons of the public prosecutor, by the accused will be served on may 15, 2017, but Yanina and her father signed six days earlier, an appeal against the first judgment. And that was the public prosecutor not take it into account. Given the right to appeal, there is as yet no ruling had done, that new summons now also be forfeited. “The jurisdiction was not yet exhausted,” said the judge. So escaped the family again to a fine. The first time went to them, together with their company, a fine of 900,000 euro. In the second case, demanded the public prosecutor a fine of 420,000 euro, and a substantial prison sentence for the alleged bouwovertredingen.
Biesthoeve
The domain along the Meilrijk in Diest was by papa Wickmayer in the early 2000s purchased by the company nv Biesthoeve in which the man until 2008 was managing director. Then took Yanina the helm. In the second half of 2012, there were a few alterations to the building done. That work occurred without authorisation, because the authorisation was never delivered. The regularisatieaanvraag of Wickmayer was in 2013 afgeketst, partly on the advice of the Nature and Forest Agency. The green spatial planning would be more compromised. In the meantime, there was an existing outbuilding enlarged, there were three garage doors installed, and was a kasseiverharding constructed. Urban development instituted a civil party in the case and asked the judge to alterations to make. For them it was not to a breakdown. But the defense denied always insists that there works were carried out without a permit. “The conscious building dates back to 1890. That building has always been there. Originally, that was 140 square metres, today, that is 106 square metres. It is smaller than for the introduction of the gewestplannen. Here is nothing at all.” In principle, the public prosecutor’s office a third time, a criminal procedure setting.