Proposition 50K0800

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions en vue de créer une assemblée générale des juges de paix et des juges au tribunal de police.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

May 18, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Jan. 10, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would also like to enjoy the elevated stage. It offers a completely different view.

Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this draft, which was transmitted to us by the colleagues from the Senate, was submitted by Senator Vandenberghe. The draft law aims to establish a general assembly for peace judges and judges in police courts. The draft was prepared by the Royal Alliance of Peace Judges and Judges in Police Courts. A general meeting of the peacekeepers and the judges of the police courts, organized at the level of the Court of Appeal, will be charged with the appointment of the assessors of the members of that meeting. For example, the peace judges and the judges in the police courts will be judged by equals.

The draft that was discussed in the Senate has caused little fundamental discussion in the House. A number of adjustments were imposed by the period that had expired between the vote on the draft in the Senate and the discussion in the Chamber. The date of entry into force was therefore completely overlooked. Furthermore, in his wisdom, the Chairman of the Committee noted that a number of transitional measures were necessary, otherwise the appointment procedures that had already been initiated before the entry into force of these new provisions would have to be resumed. Finally, during the general discussion, questions were raised as to the possibility of organising this general meeting of peacekeepers and judges in police courts at the level of the Court of Appeal and not per judicial district.

In his replica, the Minister of Justice pointed out that the draft was largely based on the wishes expressed by the parties concerned in this regard. The Minister acknowledged that problems would arise in connection with the entry into force of the draft. Furthermore, he felt obliged to point out to the committee that additional difficulties could arise, in particular the entry into force of the Act of 25 March 1999 on the reform of the judicial cantons. Their

This law resulted in approximately 15 seats of peacekeepers being vacated at this time. Their appointment had to be made possible by a number of amendments.

In addition to the problem of evaluating the members of the general assembly, the Minister also noted that there are other tasks entrusted to the members of this assembly. It will also assume all the tasks that a general assembly normally performs, including the formation and support of the members and the establishment of general deontological rules.

During the general discussion, the problem of organizing the general meeting of the peacekeepers and police judges of the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in Brussels was briefly addressed. This general meeting is divided in the draft while this does not occur before the general meeting of the judges of the court of first instance organized at the same level.

After a brief general discussion, the committee passed to the article-by-article discussion. A number of amendments, submitted by the colleagues, concerned the fact that the peacekeepers are not part of a corps in the strict sense of the word. They work as autonomous judges with specific functions and assignments. Since they are not part of a corps, as was the reasoning of some colleagues, it would be legal wrong to assign them a corps chief. A number of amendments aimed to correct one and another. The chairman of the committee drew attention to a number of technical improvements to the text, made by the legal services of the Chamber.

In the course of the discussion, the Government, after consulting the parties concerned, submitted a global amendment to which, in essence, together with a number of sub-amendments, the whole of the original draft was replaced. The Minister proposed that the President of the Court of First Instance be retained as Chief of Corps, but not with regard to the evaluation of the peacekeepers and the judges in the police courts. This would make it easier to avoid problems with the appointment and appointment procedures of the judges concerned. Contrary to the original draft, the chairman of the general assembly was no longer granted the capacity of corps commander. After all, as the Minister stated, the concept of corpses has a number of well-defined and far-reaching consequences. This goes beyond the problem of evaluation. By giving the chairman of the general assembly that authority of chief of the corps, one does not only go much further than was intended, moreover, a whole series of almost insurmountable problems are created in other fields. The Minister therefore announced that by its amendment and following the adaptation of the Act establishing the Advisory Council of the Magistrates, this was also used to adapt this law in order to end a contradiction with regard to the magistrates of the Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Cassation.

On the basis of this global amendment, the committee then resumed its work. Amendments were submitted again. These aimed, among other things, to ensure that both the peace judges and the judges of the police courts were balanced in decision-making and in the responsible positions within the general assembly.

A number of amendments concerned the composition of the evaluation committees.

In extremis, the Government submitted another amendment aiming to have the procedures for filling vacancies of chief of corps and those of holders of an adjunct mandate which were initiated before 2 August 2000 and which would not have been completed on 1 February 2001 ab initio resumed, in accordance with the provisions of the Judicial Code in force at that time.

This amendment was heavily criticized by the various members of the committee. It was pointed out that this provision does not actually have any substantial connection with the provisions aimed at organising a general meeting of peacekeepers and judges in the police court. The Minister has called this. He defended the amendment by pointing out that the bill gave the opportunity to remove a number of anomalies related to the recent legislation on the depolitization of the appointments in the magistrate. The direct cause of the amendment was a preliminary question to the Arbitration Court concerning the applicability of the new appointment procedure to the appointment in a mandate.

Subsequently, according to the minister, an adaptation of the transitional provisions of the original Octopus Act was required. In the past it was customary that, in order to provide the appointing authority with an opportunity to objectivize and justify its decision, the proposals of the chief of the corps were supported by a collegial opinion of the chief of the corps. This collegial opinion is now being challenged because it would apparently be contrary to the separation of powers. Specifically, the Minister argued, a situation has now been created in which, according to the old procedure, it is not possible to proceed to a appointment in a mandate position without the risks of a comment from the State Council. After all, as the Minister stated, it is common in the old procedure that an opinion is given. In some cases, these advice are no longer provided.

After this discussion, the vote was passed. The government’s global amendment replaced the lion’s share of the original provisions in the bill. The entire bill was adopted with nine votes in favour and six abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I want to thank Mr. Vandeurzen for his excellent report. The quality of the house is well known. We can only rejoice in the confirmation of our conviction. I will be very short. You understand that the reform of the Bar Association is the main breakdown of the agenda of this afternoon. However, I could not allow myself to take the floor following the discussion of this draft law. Per ⁇ some of you know the post that appears in certain magazines and informs about the state of persons who have recently disappeared from interest. You may remember the article in Humo a few weeks ago titled "How would it be with Pierre Chevalier?". The Minister will undoubtedly remember this article.

Following the discussion of this bill, I was asked how it really is with Didier Reynders’s sister. You know; the sister of the Minister of Finance who was appointed president of the court of first instance in Luik in December 1999. Colleague Giet, this file is undoubtedly known to you. The Council of State issued a decree of destruction in March 2000. What about Didier Reynders’s sister? To our surprise colleagues, we find the answer to this question in the bill establishing a general assembly of peace judges and judges in the police court.

You will undoubtedly tell me that I am still in New Year’s vote but nothing is less true. In this bill we find the answer to the question of how it really is with Didier Reynders’s sister. At the end of the discussion of this bill in the committee, the Minister of Justice submitted a so-called technical amendment number 19. This amendment aims to introduce a new Article 20. Mr Vandeurzen referred to this amendment. It is a very technical, hardly comprehensible amendment, I quote: “The procedures for filling vacancies of chiefs of corps and those of holders of an adjunct mandate, which were initiated before 2 August 2000 and which have not yet been completed on 1 February 2001, will be taken ab initio in accordance with the provisions of the Judicial Code which are in force at that time for all places which were vacant before 2 August 2000 and which, in the absence of candidates after 1 February 2001, are again published in the Belgian Official Gazette, the appointment or appointment will be made in accordance with the provisions of the Judicial Code which are in force at that time.” However, if one takes a closer look and translates it into ordinary human language, it turns out that this purely technical amendment actually applies only to two cases, namely the appointment of the president of the court of first instance in Liège and the appointment of a general lawyer in Mons. What is the intention?

It is intended that these two files would no longer be subject to the old procedure – which involves that the Minister of Justice appoints – but rather the new procedure. According to the Octopus Act, it is here that the High Council for Justice appoints.

Colleagues, Mr. Bacquelaine, through this purely technical amendment of the government it is that the Minister of Justice is getting rid of two appointment files in which the political pressure of the PRL on the Minister of Justice must have been ⁇ great. The first is about the president of the court of first instance in Liège, where the sister of the Minister of Finance is a candidate; the second is about the lawyer-general at the Court of Appeal in Mons, where investigative judge Leys is a candidate.

What are we fixing? In the draft law concerning the establishment of the general assembly of the peacemakers and the police judges, the Minister of Justice wipes those two delicate political appointment files under the mat; he casts them out before himself and removes these two concrete files.In fact, we can only rejoice over this, because the tendency to objectivize these files can actually vote positively with Justice.

However, we have some observations about the conduct in this of our Minister of Justice. First, Mr. Speaker and colleagues members of the Justice Committee, this is a legalistic dragon. Colleague Giet, this is a legistic dragon when one is going to arrange two specific appointment files in a bill that relates to the general meeting of the peace judges and police judges. It’s only about those two files and only those two issues that caused political difficulties are resolved.Colleges, this is a legalistic dragon with few predecessors.

A second fundamental concern also goes to the Minister of Justice. In fact, it is true that he has rotted this file for so long that the old procedure could no longer be applied. It is, of course, true that there are reasons to apply the new procedure now to these two appointments, but had one acted diligently, had one been attentive at the moment of the destruction itself, then one could quickly come to a appointment in the old procedure. This has not happened, contrary to what the Minister of Justice had said in response to an interpellation by colleague Poncelet, where he had very explicitly stated that he would "dans les plus brefs délais" and "étant attentif à la surcharge du travail des magistrats à Liège", thus within the shortest time that appointment would be arranged. He was, by the way, confident that the old procedure could apply, because he had engaged a specialist in administrative law. However, nothing is less true and the result is indeed inappropriate. In a very concrete way, this means that the court of first instance in Liège will have to function for two years without a corpus supreme.

Remember that the Kaduke appointment of Mrs. Reynders dates from 30 December 1999. Today we are a year later. Thus, for a year this file was rotted. It is now necessary to start the new procedure following this amendment of the government. If one charges the different deadlines for the opinions to be obtained and the procedures to be followed under the new law, one will appoint the president of the court of first instance in Liège no earlier than at the end of this year. This means, Mr. Giet, that the court of first instance in Liège will not have a corpus commander for two years. The question is whether we can afford this. Is it really conceivable that we are legalistically so upset that for two years there is no chief of the corps present in an important judicial district? Moreover, it is not only about the absence of a corps commander, but also about the atmosphere that is abominable in that court, which I do not have to explain to you. There is no one there who effectively exercises the presidency – observing of course – and sitting with two vice-presidents who compete with each other in the ambition to see the presidency. They compete in the absence of a decision. Imagine the situation: two years open, no chairman, no corps commander, and two vice chairmen competing with each other. This is a concrete example of improper administration and is at the disadvantage of good judicial administration. There can be no doubt that the absence of a chairman and the absence of a decision on that matter are absolutely detrimental to good judicial administration. The CVP group will therefore abstain from voting on this bill. We have no problem with the general assembly of the peace judges and police judges, which is evident. However, if one abuses this bill to mould, with a legistic dragon, the Reynders file under the mat, and so ensure that there will be no corpse commander present in Liège for two years, but two vice-presidents competing with each other, then I call this inappropriate administration. We must refute this, anywhere.

We will therefore abstain from voting on this bill, Mr. Speaker. It would be useful that you, as the chairman of the Chamber, would like to help monitor the legislative quality. I do not believe that this Chamber can afford to approve such dragons. thank you .