Proposition 50K0641

Proposition de loi complétant l'article 33, § 1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 20 juillet 1990 relative à la détention préventive.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Thierry Giet, Karine Lalieux

Submission date

May 10, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

judicial investigation criminal procedure detention before trial

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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 ¶

June 27, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The draft law amending Article 1168... Mr. Speaker, I apologize, but I think I brought the wrong documents to the speaker’s office. I would like to get the right documents in my bank.

Did you get the wrong report? It can be! Otherwise, you have enough records on your bank. You are quite occupied, but now you are somewhat defeated.

The reporter does not speak. He therefore refers to the written report and we can simply continue to work.

and no. Mr. Verherstraeten will be brief.

Mr. Stirling, I can help you. It is a very thin report. It covers two pages.

On 7 June 2002, the Justice Committee discussed the bill proposed by colleague Giet te Hertoginnendal.

The proposal is intended to supplement Article 33, §1, first paragraph, of the Act of 20 July 1990 on provisional detention. That bill was explained by its applicant, colleague Giet.

It aims to clarify the legal status of the accused or accused person released in temporary detention. Article 33, § 1, first paragraph, of the Act of 20 July 1990 on provisional detention unambiguously stipulates that the defendant or defendant who is acquitted, sentenced with delay or only to a fine shall be immediately released. In practice, however, the person concerned is constantly bound to be brought back to prison. That is just a practical measure that should allow him to collect his personal possessions. This use is, according to colleague Giet, contrary to the law. Since it is a custom, it must be explicitly stipulated in the law that it is forbidden to anyone who has been released to do the handbags. Therefore, the proposers of the bill under discussion propose to supplement Article 33, § 1, first paragraph, of the law on interim detention, so that the use of any means of coercion against the persons referred to in that provision is excluded.

The Minister of Justice approves the bill.

During the discussions, commission chairman, colleague Erdman, asks himself whether the term "handbugs" is not more recommended than the term "compulsory means", as provided in the bill proposed by colleague Giet. He asks himself whether the use does not want women not to use handbags. That use is most likely based on a law or regulation. The term “handbags” must be used explicitly. The submitters could use this as a precedent to incorporate that term into their text without difficulty.

The speaker also refers to the writings of eminent specialists in criminal law who explicitly use the term "handbags". Who are these? H is La manifestation de la vérité dans le procès pénal, Brussels, 1972, p. 241 and 242 and M. Franchimont and A. Jacobs and A. Masset in Manuel de procédure pénale, Luik, 1989, p. and 245.

Mr Thierry Giet does not know whether such a text exists. He prefers the current wording of the bill, which can therefore be applied to other means of coercion than handbags. Their

Then the voting took place. Article 1 was unanimously adopted. Subsequently, Article 2 was also unanimously approved and finally the entire bill was unanimously approved, without any amendment or amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the rapporteur for his ⁇ comprehensive and detailed speech. I thought it was necessary during this plenary session.

Furthermore, if I ask the House to vote on this bill, it is because I believe that if a democracy must guarantee itself against organized crime and serious economic and financial crime, it must simultaneously guarantee respect for the individual rights and freedoms inscribed in its Constitution. The freedom to go and come is probably the most important freedom. by

The modest bill that is submitted to you tends to reaffirm what seems to be self-evident, namely that one who is acquitted, sentenced with suspension, or condemned to a simple fine must be free to leave the hearing. Despite two ministerial circles, this was still not the case. This is obviously unacceptable. by

This text was initially inspired by my professional practice, but it was also created through a doctrine article written by Master Christophe Meunier, a young lawyer at the Barreau de Liège. Today, I want to dedicate this law to him since he left us a few months ago, victim of a tragic aviation accident.