Proposition 50K0106

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 53, alinéa 3, des lois relatives à la réparation des dommages résultant des maladies professionnelles, coordonnées le 3 juin 1970.

General information ¶

Author

N-VA Geert Bourgeois

Submission date

Sept. 23, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

occupational disease

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Voted to reject

Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) voted to adopt.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to adopt.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to adopt.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 9, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The proposal presented to you today was examined in the Social Affairs Committee on 26 January 2000. In his introductory speech, the author of the proposal, Mr. Geert Bourgeois, indicates the scope of the text which aims to correct a material error at the origin of the current drafting of article 53, paragraph 3, of the laws relating to the repair of damages resulting from occupational diseases, coordinated on 3 June 1970. This provision provides that in case of contestation before the Labour Court of decisions of the Occupational Disease Fund, the expenses are fully borne by the Fund, unless the claim of the victim or his rightful successors is timid or vexatory. Excuse me if I re-enter the terms of the report but it is such a technical matter that it is somewhat difficult to make the summary, but I will not be too long. However, it is apparent from the preparatory work of Article 55 of the Law of 30 December 1992 concerning social and various provisions, amending Article 53 of the aforementioned laws of 3 June 1970, that this provision is in fact aimed at temerary and vexatory requests, hence the importance of a small conjunction. The draft law submitted to the Senate contained, indeed, the words temerary and vexatory. The term temerary or vexatory suddenly appeared in the text adopted by the Senate committees, while the Senate Social Affairs Committee had not modified the text of the draft on this point. However, the intention of the legislator has been clarified in the House Social Affairs Committee. The Government has heard to restore in the aforementioned article 53 a provision which was originally found there but which had been erred by mistake by the law of 29 December 1990 concerning social provisions. However, Article 53 of the Coordination Decree of 3 June 1970 contained the words téméraire and vexatoire. The drafting of the coordination order did not make a mistake. Article 50, last subparagraph, of the law of 24 December 1963 relating to the repair of damages resulting from occupational diseases and the prevention of such damages contained the same wording. By comparison, the Labor Accidents Act of 10 April 1971, in its article 68, provides that unless the claim is timid and vexatory, the costs of all actions based on this law are borne by the insurer. This concept was established by the law of 20 March 1948. It complements, as regards the costs of proceedings, the Coordinated Laws of 1903 on occupational accidents. It was about humanising the right to social security to enable victims of work accidents to bring a lawsuit without fear of paying high court fees, including for experts and others, and being condemned to pay the costs. The judge can only condemn expenses when the person incorrectly claims to be a victim of a work accident, without finding that his request is timid and vexatory. In accordance with the letter of the Act of 3 June 1970, the victim of a occupational illness or the person who believes to be eligible for compensation under that law could therefore be condemned to the costs more quickly than the victim of a work accident, which appears to be incompatible with the principles of equality and non-discrimination (Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution). The proposed text therefore aims to replace the coordination conjunction or the coordination conjunction and Article 53 of the aforementioned coordinated laws of 3 June 1970 in the case of temerary and vexatory requests challenging the decisions of the Fund for Occupational Diseases in the field of occupational diseases. If this text is adopted, since it constitutes a procedure rule, since it relates to the imputation of judicial costs, it will come into force immediately and will therefore be applicable to ongoing proceedings, in accordance with Article 3 of the Judicial Code. I would like to pay tribute to the author of the text, Mr. and bourgeois. During the general discussion, the Minister of Social Affairs and Pensions endorsed the proposal. One of my colleagues, Mr. Peeters, asks to check whether, in the rule of application of court fees in the head of the beneficiary of social benefits, there is no distortion between the other regimes and the branch we are talking about. It should be recalled that in matters of social security, by derogation from the common procedure law, where the costs are borne by the deceased party, the judicial costs are borne by the bodies responsible for the enforcement of the regulation and not the beneficiaries of social benefits, except – we return to the terms of the proposal – in the case of a timid and vexatory request by the latter. Both articles were adopted unanimously. I will add a personal comment. We welcome this correction. Mr. Bourgeois, you have done useful work and the Parliament will ⁇ follow you since the text has been adopted by the commission. This proposal will restore equality between the procedures applicable in social law, those relating to occupational accidents and those relating to occupational diseases. Social and legal security will be greatly improved. Access to justice for victims will be facilitated. It is a matter of humanising the procedures, in particular with regard to social law. Our group will therefore adopt this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Speaker for delivering a very detailed, comprehensive and nuanced report. Actually, I do not need to add so much to this. I also thank Minister Vandenbroucke, who is represented here by his colleague Demotte, for his support in the committee. I would also like to thank my colleagues who unanimously approved this bill in the committee. Mr. Speaker, I know that you love remarkable matters in this hemisphere. This may be the shortest bill ever. In fact, it aims to replace two letters in the Law on Occupational Diseases. The word or is simply replaced by the word and. At first glance, this can be denigrating, but it is nevertheless an important bill. There was no other way to make this right than a law change. I would like to present this bill in bird flight. The former Code of Civil Procedure and the current Judicial Code provide that the costs of the court are borne by the losing party in a dispute. This was also the case for social matters and thus also in the Labor Accident Act of 1903. After World War II, for social reasons, the legislature rightly found that this was an excessive disability for victims of work accidents or people who consider themselves victims of a work accident. It was then included in the Labor Accident Act the provision that the costs are always borne by the employer or his insurer, except when the claim is delayed and reckless. In 1963, the same provision was entered into the Occupational Disease Act, which was normal and consistent. This law was coordinated in 1970. Later the fate struck. I have looked at what all happened to this article in the Occupational Disease Act and I dare not put the whole relay here because it would be a deterrent example of reverse quality of legislation. The legal evaluation and the quality of legislation we are currently working on must be implemented urgently. This famous article, which included a correct provision, suffered an accident as a result of an amendment through a program law in 1990. The whole provision has, of course, been removed. The warning legislator discovered this in 1992. The government wanted to correct this and has submitted a draft law in this regard. However, in the Senate, the text of this bill has been changed. They were then made of thirsty and reckless thirsty or reckless. The worst thing had not happened yet. I will save you the continuation. In successive publications, one has managed to change this famous phrase from article to article. As a result, the people of the Legistiek Service did not even know whether my bill was related to the third paragraph of Article 53 or to the second sentence of the second paragraph of Article 53. There is now more or less a consensus that it is about the third paragraph of Article 53. Let me explain why this is important. If it is stated in the law that only in the case of an undue or reckless case the costs are borne by the Occupational Disease Fund, then this constitutes a discrimination against the law on occupational accidents and against what we all want. In fact, we want that only when the claim is both due and reckless, the costs are to be borne by the plaintiff. Thirsty and reckless means that one must be truly malicious, that one must be faithful to evil. In the case of a claim that is incurring or reckless, the requirement is not so heavy. Anyone who acts in a light-sensitive manner, without thinking or against a advice, can then be condemned to the costs. These costs can be very high. This usually involves expert expenses. A person who has suffered from a occupational illness or believes to be the victim should be able to go to court under the same circumstances as a person who is the victim of an occupational accident. Despite the pericles that have occurred with this law, this has always been the intent of the legislator. I would like to thank you in advance for approving this very short bill.