On Thursday afternoon, Pierre Reuland, the former commander of the Mobile Brigade, was handed a three-year suspended prison sentence and a €5,000 fine. All other defendants were acquitted. This includes former gendarmes Armand Schockweiler, Guy Stebens, and Marcel Weydert, as well as officer Aloyse Harpes and former public security investigator Guillaume Büchler. The compensation claims lodged by civil parties Marc Scheer and Jos Wilmes were also dismissed.
The court’s ruling fell short of the prison sentences, ranging from 18 months to five years, that the prosecution had requested. An acquittal had only been sought for Marcel Weydert. However, it became clear immediately after the verdicts were delivered that the legal proceedings are far from over. Pierre Reuland’s lawyer, Roland Assa, confirmed they would “absolutely” appeal the decision. He anticipates that the prosecution will likely follow suit, bringing all defendants back to court. Assa noted this would be “a shame” for those acquitted, who would be required to appear once again. The lawyer admitted the verdict did not catch him by surprise, stating it had been clear from the outset that a “pawn sacrifice” was necessary. He pointed out that an investigation spanning 40 years was unlikely to conclude with no convictions whatsoever.
Lawyers Maximilien Lehnen and Thierry Hirsch, representing the civil parties Marc Scheer and Jos Wilmes, expressed their disappointment. They had sought €580,000 in damages for each of their clients. Lehnen stated they entered the trial with the expectation that Scheer and Wilmes would be formally recognised as victims. Hirsch stressed that his clients have been in limbo for years, noting that Wednesday marked exactly 13 years since the main Bommeleeër trial began. “An end is still not in sight”, he lamented.
Unsurprisingly, the lawyers for the acquitted defendants expressed satisfaction with the outcome. However, Georges Pierret, lawyer for Guy Stebens, also voiced sadness over the ordeal his client has endured for the past 12 years. He criticised that his client was first accused of masterminding the bombings, and later faced charges of obstruction of justice and perjury.
The Bommeleeër II trial, which took place in late 2025, centered on allegations of perjury during the main Bommeleeër trial in 2013–14. The prosecution had accused the six defendants of withholding information, basing their case on partially contradictory statements and the belief that the defendants’ professional positions meant they should possess greater knowledge. In late 2025, the Deputy Prosecutor General described the events of the original trial as “a giant outrage”, asserting that the truth had been concealed from the judiciary.
During the trial, the defence argued in part that the inconsistencies in testimony were not a result of perjury, but of false memories. They noted that the bombings at the heart of the Bommeleeër case occurred 30 years prior to the trial. While the bombings themselves were not the focus of the Bommeleeër II proceedings, the main defendants from the 2013/14 trial, Marc Scheer and Jos Wilmes, remained central figures. In a move that surprised many, they appeared on the first day of the trial as civil parties, accompanied by their lawyers, and filed claims for damages. Their legal representatives argued that due to the alleged perjuries, a final verdict in the main Bommeleeër trial has been delayed, leaving their clients waiting for 12 years. During this time, their lawyers contended, the pair have continued to be publicly discredited as the perpetrators behind the original bombings.
Throughout the trial at the end of last year, investigators and the prosecution focused heavily on alleged perjury related to a specific incident from October 1985. On the surface, it appears that a surveillance operation targeting Ben Geiben, the founder of the Mobile Brigade, was abruptly terminated. At the time, Geiben had already left the Gendarmerie and was temporarily considered a suspect in the bombings. The reason for dropping the surveillance remains unclear.
In the view of the investigators and prosecution, most of the defendants should be able to provide clarity on this matter. However, none of their statements were deemed satisfactory by the prosecution.
