Proposition 50K0383

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 1409, 1409bis, 1410 et 1411 du Code judiciaire, en vue d'adapter la quotité non cessible ou non saisissable de la rémunération.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

June 2, 1998

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

seizure of goods civil procedure family benefit pay

Voting ¶

Voted to reject

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

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.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 17, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Social Affairs Committee dealt with this bill in its meeting of 2 February 2000. The committee had to deal with this bill in the absence of the competent minister who had to be present in the Senate. The Social Affairs Committee regretted this absence, but decided, majority and opposition together, given the importance of this bill for the unfortunately growing group of stakeholders, to deal with this bill and vote on it. The present bill recalls the bill submitted during the previous legislature by CVPsenator Bea Cantillon. This bill was approved by the Senate in the previous legislature and thus exempted from expiration. The draft law aims to increase the minimum, maximum and intermediate thresholds applicable under Article 1409 of the Judicial Code on wage confiscation by 2 000 francs per child in charge. All the commissioners who participated in this debate emphasized the importance of this draft law because it adapts the legislation on seizure to the changing society and because this draft is an important element in the fight against the so-called unemployment flaps. After all, an unemployed person who is subject to seizure is unlikely to accept employment as his additional income from employment threatens to be eradicated through seizure. At the request of Mr. Jean-Jacques Viseur, the Deputy Minister confirmed Mr. Viseur’s interpretation that as a seizure relates to the salary of the genuinely divorced parents who jointly exercise the guardianship, each parent has the right to an increase of the non-seizable part in the amount of the original amount increased by the 2000 francs per child to be borne, as envisaged in this bill. Given the passage of time between the consideration of this bill in the Senate and the current consideration in this Chamber, Article 2, 2° paragraph 2 had to be amended. As a result, the initial index figure is the one of the month of publication in the Belgian Staatsblad. This amendment was made through an amendment. The Social Affairs Committee agreed to implement this amendment through a government amendment instead of the amendment originally submitted by CVP and PSC. The entire draft law, as amended, was unanimously adopted in the Social Affairs Committee on 2 February 2000.

Meanwhile, the social partners have also taken up this issue. In this context, however, they have called for the adoption of another amendment which contains an improvement because it adjusts the percentages in a favorable way. In those circumstances, I would like to ask for the draft law – even if it has been unanimously approved – to be sent back to the committee to have the amendment discussed. This can happen in the short term. After that, this bill can be finalised.

Meanwhile, the social partners have reached an agreement that significantly improves the draft law. I take note that the Minister has prepared an amendment based on the agreement of the social partners. I propose that this amendment of the government be discussed in the committee next week. It can be voted in the same week.

If the committee is around this, we may be able to work with an oral report.

There will be an oral report.

As a journalist, I have tried to be as objective as possible. We discussed this bill in the absence of the minister and the meeting of the social partners dates back some time ago. It would have been more interesting if we had the amendment today. After all, there is already some time between the social partners meeting and today’s discussion. Our group agreed against the normal rules to deal with the draft law in the absence of the minister, this in the interest of the parties concerned. If my group supports me, because all this happens quite à l'improviste, I would agree to treat this next week. Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you to ensure that this issue can be voted without any further loss of time. On behalf of my group, I would like to point out that this affects somewhat the parliamentary work of violence. However, we want to give the interests of the data subjects priority over our statutes and rules, even in very high exceptions.

There is an amendment from the government that is sent to the committee. The committee will do its work with competent urgency. The draft law is then returned to the plenary session with an oral report. If necessary, we can vote within eight days.

I hope this is not an anticipation of the highway law.

If it can be done within a week, it is good.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the Committee on Finance and Budget discussed this proposal at its meeting of 1 February 2000. In his presentation, the applicant of the proposal referred to the end of the previous legislature, where a virtually identical proposal of his hand was unanimously approved by the then Committee on Finance and Budget. However, this bill was no longer discussed in the plenary session. The applicant pointed out that two procedures may be followed in the case of expropriation. Nowadays, however, the emergency procedure has almost become the rule. In this case, the peace judge grants a first provisional compensation to the expropriator. After that, a review procedure may be submitted to the Court of First Instance. An appeal may also be submitted to the Cassation. Due to the delay faced by the courts, the normal course of proceedings cannot be followed.

I would like to point out that this is a bill that is not essentially insignificant. Please listen to the rapporteur.

Thank you, Mr President. If the definitive compensation is subsequently much lower than the originally granted compensation, the expropriator must reimburse the difference. Additionally, the statutory interest rates - which are high, now 7% and in the past even 10% to 12% - so that a large difference can arise from what was originally received and the expropriator in certain cases has to repay even more than he has received. The speaker even gave the example of a family that had initially received a provisional compensation of 200 000 francs. At the end of the proceedings, after twenty years, the heirs of the expropriators had to refund an amount of more than 1 million francs. The applicant argued that such situations contradict the sense of fairness. Hence the bill. According to the proposal, interest should still be paid on the amount received too much, but the interest rate used is lower than the statutory interest. It is, in fact, the interest rate of the deposit and consignation cash for the period in which the funds remained consigned there and the interest rate for the basis of the financing transactions of the European Central Bank, which currently amounts to about 3% from the moment of their withdrawal. The same regime applies to expropriations which are carried out under the other procedure, the Act of 14 April 1835, through the adaptation of Article 18 of this Act. During the discussion, the proposal was supported by a member of the committee and the Minister of Finance. The Minister submitted an amendment to introduce a transitional provision in response to a comment from the State Council. The amendment and the amended proposal were unanimously adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the reporter and colleagues for their cooperation in the committee. It solves only a fragment of the entire expropriation problem, but I would like to point out to the Minister of Finance that the law will only come into force for the judgments and decisions that are not yet in force of consecration. However, no law prevents him, in the cases where there is a judgment or judgment in force of sacredness and where no arrangement has yet been made between expropriator and expropriator, to act in the spirit and letter of this proposal.

Feb. 24, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in my report at the plenary session of last week, 17 February 2000, of the discussion of Bill No. 383, I could communicate that the Social Affairs Committee had unanimously approved this bill. This bill, based on the bill proposed by CVP Senator Bea Cantillon, increases the limits of the wage eligible for seizure by 2 000 francs per child in charge, thus eliminating a not insignificant unemployment drop. Immediately after my report, the Minister of Justice announced that, through an amendment to this bill, he intended to implement a part of the agreement concluded with the social partners relating to wage confiscation. Mr. Speaker, on your proposal it was decided to send this bill back to the Social Affairs Committee. As a result of this decision, the committee held a meeting on 22 February 2000. Four government amendments were submitted. Acceptance of the main mandate no. 1, the three other amendments regulate the conformity of the articles of the Judicial Code. The main mandate of the Government, amendment no. 1, was intended to replace the second paragraph of § 1 of Article 2 of the bill and thus gives execution to the aforementioned agreement with the social partners, thereby increasing the part of the wage from labour exempt from seizure. Following the adoption of this amended bill, only 30% of the salary from labour for the income scheme between 29 000 and 32 000 francs will be subject to seizure in the future instead of the current 40%. The seizure of one fifth for the income scheme between 27 000 francs and 29 000 francs and the seizure of 40% for the income scheme between 32 000 francs and 35 000 francs shall continue, as well as the seizure of income below 27 000 francs and the seizure of 100% of income above 35 000 francs. There are difficulties in interpreting all these figures. The social partners used indexed amounts in their proposals, while the government amendment required the use of de-executed amounts in order to register those amounts in Article 1409 of the Judicial Code. The complicated mechanism of indexation and deindexation justified the conversion of the amount of 38 000 francs proposed by the social partners into 32 000 francs in Article 1409. In response to a question from your rapporteur on the application of the formulas of indexation and deindexation to the used income discs, the Minister has confirmed that the used income discs are not the full translation of the agreement concluded with the social partners. The Government has decided to take into account only the average of the percentages proposed by the social partners, so that these percentages could be adapted to Article 1409. This article should not work with forks, which the social partners had initially done. Mr. Speaker, as a rapporteur to the members of the committee and upon reading the provisional report, I would like to extend my congratulations to the members of the Secretariat of the Committee on Social Affairs, who have prepared this provisional report. They have succeeded in converting the wirwar of indexation and deindexation into a language understandable to the committee members. In this preliminary report, they provide comparable material between indexed and deindexed figures. Those who have experienced the discussions in the Social Affairs Committee know that some committee members had somewhat more difficulty than others to find their way between indexation and deindexation. Congratulations to you, Mr. President. With the same amendment number 1, the government added a paragraph 1bis, allowing income from other activities - which should be understood as substitute income - to remain subject to the current rules of seizure, both in terms of income discs and in terms of percentages. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, I must also mention that before the meeting of 22 February 2000, the Commissioners of the Committee on Social Affairs received a letter containing attached documents from Mr. Vanheukelen, President of the National Chamber of Court Enforcement Officers. That Chamber declares to be in favour of the fact that, in determining the income that is taken into account for wage seizure, the persons in charge are also taken into account. However, Mr Vanheukelen expresses the desire, on behalf of the National Chamber of Judicial Executives, to be able to review the problem of non-confiscable income globally in the short term. Thus, the Social Affairs Committee unanimously approved the amended bill and, as agreed last week, I would present an oral report today in the plenary session and we would vote this afternoon on this bill, as amended on 22 February. That would have been too quick and too efficient. After all, at the beginning of this plenary session, you asked us, Mr. Speaker, to meet again with the Social Affairs Committee, because a new amendment had been submitted. Your committee met at 14.30 pm, under the chairmanship of Mr. Wauters. Two amendments were submitted by Mr Wauters. With those amendments, the applicant intends to build the assurance that the origin of this bill – namely Senator Cantillon’s proposal to increase the income exempt from seizure by 2 000 francs per person charged – will be applied without discussion to the replacement income. The submitted amendments and the thus amended bill were approved by the Social Affairs Committee this afternoon with unanimous vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the project we are discussing today is part of a family policy for low incomes. In our time, the expenses of families are increasingly heavy to bear. First-needed consumer goods (food, housing, heating, health) take up a large part of the household budget. In addition, the education of children requires significant additional resources. That is why this project wants to take into account family situations. When adversity strikes a household, and seizure or transfer of remuneration or income occurs, it is not uncommon to see it shift into precariousness, even poverty, with all the social consequences that it implies. The increase of 2,000 francs per child in charge of the non-seizable or non-transferable salary quota of the remuneration is ⁇ not a panacea. Further corrective measures will be needed in the future. In addition, this project also encounters the problem of employment traps and professional reintegration of persons affected by these provisions, people who are hardly encouraged to resume work if it is to be seized a significant part of their remuneration. This inevitably causes a perverse effect. Amendments by the Government and Mr. Wauters, which have been adopted, translate the agreements reached between the social partners and join in this direction. As Ms. D'Hondt said, they were adopted unanimously. We will vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the CVP is extremely pleased that this bill can be approved today and that for two reasons. First, it affirms continuity in policy and, secondly, it shows that in all constellations, governments and majorities there are people willing to defend the family and those with the lowest income. We are proud to be at the foundation of this bill and we are also extremely grateful to the social partners for raising in their agreement the income limits for seizure and the percentages. This is not only a huge step forward in eliminating unemployment but also in poverty reduction. We are pleased that families and children are again given a little more attention, in part due to the bill that was at the basis of the bill. By securing a certain income, every family and every family can participate in society in a dignified way.