THE STUDY WAS UNDERTAKEN TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THEORETICAL PRECEPTS OF JUVENILE PROTECTION AND ACTUAL PRACTICE, AND INVOLVED THE ADVICE AND COLLABORATION OF NUMEROUS JUDGES, LAWYERS, SOCIAL WORKERS, MEMBERS OF THE BELGIAN COMMITTEES FOR JUVENILE PROTECTION, PSYCHOLOGISTS, MEDICAL DOCTORS, PROSECUTORS, LOCAL POLITICIANS, AND LEGAL EXPERTS. FIVE COMMISSIONS REPORTED THEIR RESULTS TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JUVENILE JUDGES ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (1) BASIC OPTIONS IN JUVENILE PROTECTION, (2) SOCIAL PROTECTION AGENCIES, (3) REORGANIZATION OF THE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING FAMILY LAW, (4) LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF JUVENILES AND THEIR PARENTS, AND (5) JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS AND FOSTER HOMES. THE FIRST COMMISSION AGREED THAT SOME JUVENILE PROTECTION WAS NECESSARY, THOUGH EXISTING LEGISLATION IS FLAWED. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT, IF THE OFFENSEWAS COMMITTED BY A JUVENILE AT AGE 17, THE JUDGE MAY EXTEND JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL MEASURES FOR 1 YEAR BEYOND THE CURRENT LEGAL LIMIT OF 18 YEARS. THE SECOND COMMISSION EVALUATED ALL INSTITUTIONS OF JUVENILE PROTECTION AND PUBLISHED A REFORM PROPOSAL FOR THE LAW OF APRIL 8, 1965, WHICH CREATED THE JUVENILE COURTS AND THE COMMITTEES FOR JUVENILE PROTECTION. INSTEAD OF THE PRESENT DISPERSAL OF FAMILY AFFAIRS AMONG NUMEROUS AGENCIES, THE THIRD COMMISSION ADVOCATED A FAMILY COURT CONSISTING OF THREE JUDGES WHO ARE IN CHARGE OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS, JUVENILE PROTECTION, AND SPECIFIC CRIMINAL OFFENSES. THE FOURTH COMMISSION CRITICIZED THE ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF APPEAL PROCEDURES, THE INSUFFICIENT ORGANIZATION OF THE DEFENSE, AND THE DELAYED INVOLVEMENT OF DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. THE FIFTH COMMISSION DEMANDED IMPROVED JUVENILE CORRECTIONS PERSONNEL AND TREATMENT PROCEDURES, GREATER INSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM, AND MORE CONSIDERATION OF INDIVIDUAL FACTORS IN PLACING JUVENILES. THE REFORM PROPOSALS AND RELATED PUBLICATIONS ARE INCLUDED. --IN FRENCH.