Proposition 50K0892

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne les structures du barreau et la loi du 13 mars 1973 relative à l'indemnité en cas de détention préventive inopérante.

General information ¶

Author

Vooruit Fred Erdman

Submission date

Oct. 11, 2000

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

lawyer professional society organisation of professions detention before trial

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) 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.

⚠️ 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 ¶

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

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I am moved by Mr. Van Parys’s flattering words after a brief report and look forward to what he will say after a detailed report.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, the text of the bill that we are currently discussing and which is of great interest is the result of a long discussion in the Justice Committee on how the law profession should be organized in our country.

The untenable situation in which the law profession is currently situated inspired a number of colleagues to formulate proposals to get out of the impasse. The initiators of the various proposals had to conclude that the provisions of the Judicial Code, which currently govern the structure of the National Bar Association, no longer correspond to reality. The National Bar Association is no longer functioning properly or, worse yet, at all. A number of temporary associations were organized in the area, namely the Association of Flemish Balies in Flanders and the Conférence des Barreaux francophones et germanophones in Wallonia.

The legal profession is undoubtedly a very important player in the field of justice, and it is therefore understandable that many colleagues advocate for an urgent need for a new and sound legal framework for the functioning of the legal profession as a whole.

The committee started its work by giving the proposers of the various bills the opportunity to explain the scope of their proposal. Mr Verherstraeten facilitated the bill he submitted with Mr Van Parys and myself. He motivated his proposal by the conclusion that the profession of lawyer will be reimposed throughout Europe. In Belgium, however, this profession risks to tighten, in particular due to the current structures of the National Bar Association. The decision-making procedures at the Order are ⁇ logical and complex and the functioning of the Order is regularly blocked by profound disagreement between the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking bailes, either the large and small bailes.

With his proposal, Mr Verherstraeten wants to split the structures of the current National Bar Association. A Flemish and a French-speaking Bar Association would be established, with great autonomy. The proposal of Mr Verherstraeten leaves the structure and functioning of the local bars intact.

A second bill was submitted by Mr. Bourgeois. He also based on the finding that the current decision-making in the National Bar Association is blocked. An important reason for this was undoubtedly the discussion on the distribution of fees for free legal aid. The National Bar Association has, according to Mr. Bourgeois, become a virtual institution. Like Mr. Verherstraeten, in drafting his proposal he was largely inspired by the recommendations formulated by the Association of Flemish Balais. He followed the suggestion of the Association of Flemish Balies that preferred a more decentralized form of organization. According to the applicants, this no longer requires a comprehensive structure. This does not exclude cooperation, but it must take the form of a regular contact between the blankets of both orders. The applicants also relativize the disappearance of the National Bar Association.

A third bill was submitted by Laeremans, Annemans and Van den Eynde. Mr. Laeremans’s analysis coincides with that of Mr. Verherstraeten and Bourgeois. He also advocates an organisational structure that meets the wishes of the Association of Flemish Balies. He wants to build on that.

The last proposal to be discussed was the proposal submitted by the then colleagues Desmedt and Michel, as well as by Giet, Herzet and Grafé. Also from a French-language perspective, the committee admitted that the structure of the National Bar Association was to be reformed. According to the applicants of the proposal, the question is whether or not an overarching structure should be ⁇ ined at central or federal level. The French-speaking colleagues note that the Flemish colleagues do not opt for this in their proposals. Mr. Desmedt’s proposal is based on the finding that Justice is a federal authority; he advocates the preservation of a federal overarching structure with a limited number of powers.

These are mainly concerned with the representation of the law profession in relation to the Belgian and international authorities and the determination of the fundamental rules of professional ethics. The applicants also suggested organizing a different way of decision-making at the federal level to avoid some blocking risks.

After all the proposals have been explained, the Minister of Justice has expressed his position. The Minister recalled that in the major discussions on the reform of the judiciary, in 1996 and 1997, the lawyer profession has shaken by its absence in the debate. This was undoubtedly one of the bad consequences of the impasse that prevails in the National Bar Association. The minister urged the lawyers to come up with their own solutions, but on 9 December 1999 he had to hear from the deck of the National Order that no agreement had been reached. There have been attempts to reach an agreement, but again they have not resulted. The Minister stressed that it is important that the profession be organised as well as possible. He called on Parliament to find a solution to this issue.

The committee then heard several representatives. Hearing was organised with the representatives of the National Bar Association of Belgium, the representatives of the Flemish Balinese Association and the Conférence des Barreaux Francophones et Germanophones, the staff member of the court of cassation and the members of the ad hoc working group that mediated a while ago. Eventually, all these representatives were heard. They all delivered a detailed presentation summarized in the report. I refer to this report.

The following topics appeared in the various testimonies and debates.

Is a comprehensive structure needed? If so, what powers should they have? Does it have to play an arbitrary role?

Is it feasible that these separate organisations are able to organize a decent representation, both at the Belgian and international level?

Often questions were asked about how these different orders, which have emerged in practice, have organized themselves internally. by

There were questions about whether it was desirable to also include the functioning of local orders and disciplinary law in the discussion.

All these discussions ended with a number of large, common views, which the Chairman of the Commission has tried to express. by

Many colleagues were somewhat frustrated that the legislator had to intervene because the professional group itself failed to find a satisfactory solution. Many colleagues found that was not the best way to work, and they even questioned whether it was necessary to regulate this in the framework of the Judicial Code. It could not be better to return to the previous situation – a situation that the President has yet to experience, but I do not – where in practice there was no legal framework for the functioning of the representation of the law profession.

A second experience that could count on consensus in the committee was the following. Many colleagues preferred a certain theoretical construction, but were permeated by a certain sense of reality. Many colleagues had preferred a different arrangement but had to conclude that there was little affectio societatis on the ground. It would make little sense to create a new legal structure that would ultimately result in one not being able to function because the players on the ground were not willing to do so.

On the basis of this discussion, Mr Erdman made a first attempt to draw up a common text. This agreed very closely with the idea that two autonomous institutions should be set aside with overarching advice and arbitration, a tribunal that could arbitrate in conflicts between the two institutions. This text was discussed in the committee, and it showed that it is likely that there should also be room for internal consultation between the parties concerned.

These discussions eventually resulted in a bill submitted by Mr. Erdman. The proposal, which falls under Article 78 of the Constitution, was amended on a technical level by delisting the provisions actually falling under Article 77 of the Constitution and incorporating them into a separate bill. The two texts resulted formed the basis of the general discussion in the committee.

This brings me to the general discussion of both proposals. The proposal of Mr Erdman is based on two autonomous institutions: the Association of the Flemish Balies and the Conférence des Barreaux francophones et germanophones. All local banks are required to join one of the two institutions. These orders or institutions have a general assembly and an administrative committee. The organization and functioning of both orders shall be established in a household regulation according to which the original text shall be ratified by a royal decree. Both institutions can issue regulations and are responsible for safeguarding honour, rights and common professional interests. They are responsible for the legal assistance, internships, vocational training of lawyers and the continuing training of all lawyers. They take initiatives and measures useful for training, discipline, loyalty to the profession and the defense of the interests of lawyers and applicants. The rules they issue are binding on all lawyers of the affiliated courts. The boards of law shall remain competent in disciplinary matters. Local banks have additional regulatory powers.

The existing claim of the Attorney General before the Court of Cassation, which can apply for the annulment of regulations infringed by an excess of jurisdiction, contrary to the laws or adopted in an irregular manner, remains. However, the two institutions may also bring an action for annulment before an arbitral tribunal composed of seven members, three of whom each are appointed by the members of both institutions. In the absence of agreement, the arbitral tribunal is chaired by the pro-staff holder of the order of lawyers of the Court of Cassation. The Association of Flemish Balois and the Conférence des Barreaux francophones et germanophones can only bring a claim for destruction after a mandatory consultation at the level of the Federal Council of Balois. That Board consists of ten members, five appointed members per institution. Any institution and jurisdiction may refer issues relating to the jurisdiction in general and the proper administration of justice in particular to this Federal Council of jurisdictions. He may only take decisions by unanimous vote in each group of five delegates, which have only advisory value.

The action brought by either of the institutions does not give rise to the suspensive effect of the Rules. The arbitral tribunal speaks in last instance. It may “annul, in whole or in part, a contested regulation, as being impaired by excess of jurisdiction, contrary to laws, adopted irregularly or contrary to the generally applicable rules of ethics.”

The original texts also contain a number of transitional provisions relating to the functioning of the Belgian National Bar Association.

Although very many colleagues could agree with the basic structure of the proposals, some had criticism. They argued that problems could arise between the conférence des barreaux francophones et germanophones and the association of Flemish bailies relating to the way in which one or the other party exercises its regulatory power and that one of the parties would consider that a fundamental principle of the profession is infringed. They should be able, although after a consultation procedure, to decide by arbitration whether to amend a rule issued. Thus, the arbitration college would have a normative power. Moreover, according to this criticism, it is very difficult to determine when there is a violation of the generally applicable deontological rules.

Other colleagues have criticized the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the role of proust staff holder of the order of lawyers at the Court of Cassation. Others also suggested changing the names of the established institutions.

This was largely criticised, especially by French-speaking colleagues. They argued that a minimum decision-making power should be ⁇ ined at the federal level in order to represent the boards in national and international bodies and to ensure that coherence between ethical rules throughout the country is ensured. They also believed that an application for annulment by the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation or by one of the new institutions of the arbitral tribunal should have a suspending effect. The reason for the destruction was also to be clarified. For a colleague, the members of the arbitral tribunal had to be appointed for a fixed term.

Mr. Erdman, the applicant of the proposal, defended his proposal by referring, inter alia, to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the local courts. They may convict lawyers on the basis of ethical principles that are or are not contained in a regulation. He referred to Article 456 of the Judicial Code. The applicant wondered why questions related to duty doctrine could not be submitted to an arbitral tribunal. Regarding the representation of the Board in the various bodies and bodies, he argued that the consultation should primarily take place in the Federal Council. If no agreement is possible, each institution may delegate its representatives.

The Minister made a number of technical remarks at the meeting.

This was a brief description of the preparation of the text and its scope. Ms Barzin will explain the article discussion. It will be clear that during the discussion on the subject, Mr. Erdman’s basic text was still adjusted on several points.

First of all, I would like to thank the Secretary of the Commission, Mr. Love, for the quality of the drafting of the report we present to you today.

As stated by my colleague Vandeurzen, the commission decided to take the Bill No. 892 of Mr. Vandeurzen. Erdman as the basis for the discussion concerning the modification of the bar structure.

The discussion in the committee focused primarily on Article 4 of the bill. It was intended, in the second part, book III of the Judicial Code, to replace Title III, i.e. Articles 488 to 508 of the Judicial Code.

The new articles 488 and 489 concern the composition and organs of the Conference of French and German-speaking bars and of the Vereniging van Vlaamse balies.

Article 490 provides, for its part, that the baron of the Order of Lawyers at the Court of Cassation or his representative seats at the General Assembly of the Conference of French and German-speaking bars and of the Vereniging van Vlaamse balies.

The new article 491 of the Judicial Code provides that the modalities of the organization of the CBFG and the VVB are determined in an internal regulation, which is examined by the affiliated bars, approved by the appropriate bodies and confirmed by royal decree, within 30 days, after notice of the Attorney General near the Court of Cassation.

Since these articles have given rise to less discussions than some others, I will ask you to refer to the written report in order to read it in detail.

Articles 492, 493 and 494 regulate matters relating to the representation of the CBFG and the VVB in all judicial and extrajudicial acts, as well as in their relations with public authorities and bars.

The discussions in the committee mainly focused on the chapter on the competences of the CBFG and the VVB. These are now tasked with ensuring the honor, rights and common professional interests of their members. They shall be competent with regard to legal assistance, internship, professional training of lawyers and permanent training of all lawyers belonging to the orders which are part of them.

They shall take, through regulations, the necessary initiatives and measures in the field of training, disciplinary rules, professional loyalty, defence of the interests of the justiciable and, for the relations between members of different bars, the rules and practices of the profession.

These regulations are brought to the attention of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation, the Attorneys General at the Courts of Appeal, the other institution and the stewards.

The instructions I give you are decisions taken by the Justice Committee. The text of mr. Erdman was therefore modified following the adoption of certain amendments submitted by the members of our committee.

So I come to the article that has been discussed most during our work, namely the new article 501 of the Judicial Code.

The latter concerns appeals for cancellation, which can be brought against a settlement adopted by the other institution, either before the Court of Cassation (which is provided for by Article 611 of the Judicial Code), or by the arbitral tribunal.

Many amendments to this article have been submitted, including by colleagues Bourgeois, Verherstraeten, Van Parys, Vandeurzen, Milquet, Laeremans, Schoofs, Giet and Herzet.

Bourgeois, in particular, wanted to draw the attention of the members of the committee on the problem of the competition between the two appeals, the composition of the arbitral tribunal, mainly with regard to the lawyers at the Court of Cassation. He considers that the appeal before the Court of Cassation is sufficient and that the arbitral tribunal is therefore superfluous.

Colleagues Van Parys and Vandeurzen were of the opinion that voting by simple majority gives too many powers to the chairman of the arbitral tribunal, whose voice would be decisive.

Colleague Laeremans also objected to the decision-making in the arbitral tribunal and to the fact that a linguistic group supported by the former baron of the Bar Association at the Court of Cassation can, alone, annul a regulation or a decision of the Bar Association of the other linguistic group.

Amendments were submitted by Mr. Laeremans, by colleagues Verherstraeten, Van Parys and Vandeurzen aiming to provide that the arbitral tribunal decides by a majority of 5/7. The President of the Commission, Mr. Erdman was also in favour.

In addition, several other colleagues submitted amendments to suspend the proceedings before the arbitral tribunal, as soon as the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation forms an annulment appeal in accordance with Article 611.

Mrs. Milquet and Mr. Giet each submitted an amendment aimed at establishing a more stable composition of the arbitral tribunal and expanding its powers. This view was not shared by all members of the committee.

Finally, after a long discussion, the amendments of Mr. Giet and Ms. Herzet (No. 82 A and B) were adopted by the majority of the members of the committee. These amendments are intended to replace Articles 501 and 502 of the Judicial Code, provide for the suspension requested by some members of the committee, as well as the appointment of members of the arbitral tribunal for a two-year term.

In addition, President Erdman’s amendment 85B was adopted by 14 votes for and two abstentions. This amendment provides that a majority of 5/7 iems is required in order for the arbitral tribunal to annul a settlement.

Articles 503 and 504, which my colleague Mr. Vandeurzen has already commented, relating to the composition and competence of the Federal Council of Bars. In this regard, Ms. Milquet submitted amendments to give the Federal Council a decision-making power in deontology: these amendments were rejected.

The discussion on the Federal Bar Council also focused on the number of members of this board and the majority required for it to give its opinion. The majority of the members of the committee adopted, at the end of this discussion, the amendment submitted by Mr. Giet and by Mrs. Herzet. It provides that the Federal Bar Council gives an opinion – therefore it has no decision-making power – and that it is given to the 3/5 ieme of the votes of the members in each language group.

The other articles gave rise to less discussion and, in order not to prolong this debate, I will ask you to refer, for the comments that have been made on these articles, to the written report. I must point out, to close the subject, that the whole bill as amended, was adopted by 10 votes against 5.

I also specify that the bill No. 915 amending the Judicial Code, the law of 8 August 1983 organising a national register of natural persons and the law of 13 March 1973 relating to compensation in case of inoperative preventive detention in order to take into account the new structures of the bar, gave rise to very little discussion and was adopted by the committee by 10 votes against 5.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, allow me to regret in advance that we had to undergo a path of suffering for the creation of this legislation. In any case, I pay tribute to the rapporteurs, Mr. Vandeurzen and Mrs. Barzin, because their report shows that the legislature has not gone ice overnight on this issue. When, in search of inspiration, I recalled the report of Mr. Van Reepinghen, it turned out that a so-called superstructure had to be built, because the various bays walked different paths. I have found nothing in it of the indescribable struggle that former staff holder Van Reepinghen had to carry out in his own Brussels balle in order to somewhat harmonize the structures of his balle.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the successive Ministers of Justice, from Mr. De Clerck to Mr. Van Parys, and the current Minister of Justice, Mr. Verwilghen, have repeatedly hoped that a solution would be presented by the parties concerned themselves, who always invoke their independence in all discussions. Despite the efforts of some – it was not enough to vote on unanimous texts on one side to reach an agreement – and the long discussions have failed to find a compromise.

Given the finding that the legally existing structures no longer functioned in reality and the impasse that had arisen, the Minister has played the ball to the Parliament to work on a solution, precisely also because a number of MPs had already formulated proposals and because it was necessary to take into account the sensitivities that in our country often mortgage the policy, then influence it.

Per ⁇ this is an ugly comment, which doesn’t really fit in with my character, but I still formulate them for a moment. Although the word “politics” sometimes leaves a wretched aftertaste and too often, for the sake of ease, politics is overwhelmed with everything and more, the parties involved in the present case have not hesitated to say that politics should only provide the solution.

Of course, one cannot eat from two rows and criticize that politics walks certain paths, if one has left the dossier to the politics. This course of affairs was ultimately, by a proposal approved by a majority in a committee, labeled as ‘old political culture’. The search for balance and opportunities to bypass just that difficulty that this file has so long hypothesized was also described as old political culture. Well, I myself dare to say that this is primarily ‘culture’ and not ‘political’ culture. I call this culture because when one deals with people, even if there are professional groups involved, there should be in success bridges to break where this is essential.

I would like to emphasize that – I would almost say, despite my backgrounds – it is essential and remains that the interest of the right-wing prevails and not individual or other interests. It is in the interest of the legal person that the legal profession can play its role and at the same time also make its voice heard in the manner it suits.

We have heard the comment and colleague Vandeurzen has emphasized this in his report, that each of us, from our own perspective, ⁇ could have conceived other structures. It is even possible – and I do not want to be personal here – that certain members of parliament have left ideas with the aim of federalizing the judiciary, and then at a certain moment, once charged with other functions, they must have put those ideas aside again. Now they resort back to these ideas—that is their full right—but they cannot realize them. These colleagues, together with me, and ⁇ to the disappointment of some, will have to conclude that we still live in a country today where Justice is federal. Mr. Bourgeois, it is indeed so that by certain special laws special powers have been conferred on the regions, but the structure of the judiciary is and remains federal. From this perspective and with a sense of reality, the structures must be expanded.

The reality has forced me to take into account the fact that the National Bar Association has been unable to operate efficiently for almost four years and no bridges have been broken, whoever is to blame for it. So it is realistic – and this is a milestone in political thinking about these structures – that the autonomy of the two institutions is fully recognized – I press on this word.

Since certain colleagues, Ms. Talhaoui, were disturbed by fax messages that caused a shortage of paper in the device, but especially since, in the last instance, analyses of the preceding text were still undertaken, I would like to express here my amazement at the fact that legal practitioners apparently do not analyze the preceding texts as they were drawn up.

So I read that in this now suddenly the opinions of the Federal Council for the Balies would no longer be advisory. I understand nothing of that. After all, an opinion is an opinion, and since the article in question is simply rewritten in order to give clarity, nothing changes the characteristic characteristics of an opinion. I also read that regulations and decisions can be challenged before the Federal Council and possibly even can be challenged before the arbitral colleges. I wonder where that stands. What is different than that only regulations are subject to controversy?

I also read that one suddenly accepted a superstructure. Thus, it is underlined that the delegations to the Arbitration Board are appointed for two years. I admit that it was not my view on the composition of the arbitration college. In the context of the overbridge I had just mentioned, I eventually accepted that the delegates in the arbitration college would also be appointed for two years.

I have questions with the alleged overlapping body. Mr. Vandeurzen has subsequently well emphasized that in the eyes of the French speaking members - at a first approach and even up to the last moment in Mrs. Milquet's amendments - this overarching body, the Federal Council, should play a decisive role and institutionalised on certain matters decisions that are compulsory for all. An analysis of texts is a first requirement for lawyers. In those circumstances, therefore, a similar analysis is made in a polemical sense. It reminds me of a hidden agenda.

Last but not least. The amendments submitted by Mr. Giet and Mrs. Herzet have indeed made text changes. For a large part, however, without wanting to disregard the merits of these members, these were nothing but the clarification of the discussion on the text I had brought forward. Can I give some examples?

First, there is the case of the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation concerning irregularities as provided for in Article 611. In the text of criticism you received on that famous night, it is said that there was never a suspension before the regulations of the national order and that a suspension is now being introduced. I am sorry, but today for the drafting of the regulations of the national order there is legally a three-month suspension period, the time that the Attorney General can use to bring an action before the Court of Cassation. We reduced that period to two months, clearly emphasizing that only that period – and possibly during the proceedings following the initiation by the Attorney General for the unlawfulness of a claim – would be suspensive before the regulations in question.

We have not introduced anything new; on the contrary, we have shortened the deadline. All other stories that are possible in this text do not work suspending, despite the insistence of some colleagues. Mrs. Herzet will not contradict me, for she too has, at a certain moment, insisted that all progress should be suspended. Even the claim that would be brought before the arbitration college is not suspending.

Why is it now suddenly said that in these superstructures are being built and that concessions have been made? When the text was written out, it became all the more clear what I have repeatedly confirmed and what is contained with so many words in the report, that when the Attorney General initiates an action for irregularity and the other institution is given the opportunity to join it, it is of course excluded that the same grounds could be subsequently invoked before a arbitral panel. The "non bis in idem" rule was already cited in the discussion and is now expressed in the text. So what is so new about the amendments that they have become so disturbing that they would have "exhausted my original proposal"?

The only difference is that for the arbitration college there is now an effective appointment of the arbitrators for a period of two years. I give it Grif. I would have preferred to see this happening its "au cas par cas" allowing eventually specialists to be called to arbitrate for certain aspects.

Second, in my original text I proposed the unanimity for the opinions of the Federal Council, with which I wished to give them a moral force. I have subsequently reduced this unanimity to four-fifths. This was now reduced to three-fifths in each language group.

Third, decisions of the arbitration college must be taken with five votes out of seven. I challenge everyone to find a legal text that incorporates this grind. Mr Vandeurzen has repeatedly demonstrated during the discussion that if one retained an ordinary majority in the arbitration college, one risked – taking into account the language origin of the chairman who would be a member of the cassation board – to give the chairman the key to determine all standards.

Therefore, I submitted an amendment to the amendments-Giet - this happened, by the way, on the suggestion of the opposition - to give a foundation to this grindle and at the same time provide the possibility to add a minority note, allowing all information to be given.

What happens when the outcast occurs? What is denaturated to the original? I have been able to experience the merger of the Bally of Ghent with the VVB and I was happy to hear that the Bally of Nam eventually merged the Conference, so that the membership of both Balles and the composition of the institutions did not pose much more problems. However, if the autonomy is fully confirmed, if the Federal Council can act only as a counselor, if the proceedings before the Federal Council must precede any claim before the arbitral college, if only the Attorney General has a right of claim which suspends the drafting of the regulations for two months, if the claim is exercised and no further claim can be made on those grounds, what have we added? Fortunately, this is a weakening of the very broad possibilities I advocated in this regard, namely to make this case possible for the arbitration college only for the principles contained in Article 456 of the Judicial Code and for the international rules, let us call them the CCBE rules.

We have given that as a basis. This makes up the essence of the profession and not all the unwritten and written rules ever formed by balies. I still belong to the generation that found deontology a matter of feeling and not of written rules. Thanks to the comments of the opposition on grendel 5/7, these standards will only be able to be established if there is a contribution from each language group in the arbitral college. Based on this, I can say that we have done a good job. However, I must now read that this structure is labeled in advance as inoperable, as incompatible with the modern approach of the current legal profession. My answer to that is that one can build any structure and only let it work, depending on the willingness of the people to ⁇ efficiency. However, one responds a priori to the efforts made by the whole committee, because one is not equal on all points.

No one can blame me for not listening to everyone. I went to inform everyone. At some point, it has even been suggested that we have been relatively slow in the approach to the problem. However, we wanted to obtain information in the widest possible way. If one condemns these structures a priori, then I am indeed afraid of the possibilities that these structures can offer.

We all know, this has been said repeatedly during the debates, that this is only a first step towards a modernization of the bar. We all know that reforms need to be carried out, including in the field of disciplinary law. We all know that in relation to the relationship between lawyer and local order there are problems that will likely need to be resolved with legislative work. If this cannot be realized in concert with new structures that can work efficiently above any discussion, then I fear for any effort that is intended to be made in that area.

To those who write to me daily and ask not to liquidate the national order but to preserve and modernize the structure, I would like to say that they have had four years of time to make their voice heard in their own ranks in front of the responsible in their own bowl. If the legislator now assumes his responsibility, it is too late to come to ask us that we should ignore reality.

To those who today a priori say that for any reason they cannot cooperate with any effort, I would also like to say something. I give a very characteristic example for those who have experienced the history of the two orders in Brussels. I was an employee at the time. I have known the last staff holder of the unitary barrel, and I have known the first two staff holders of the two new orders. Taking into account the efforts that were made at that time, I did not want to turn to the principles that were at the time at the basis of that agreement, while at that time it was more than necessary that there is a bar and two orders in Brussels. This is the reality as it was negotiated and elaborated at the time in Brussels.

If one wishes to attempt to establish new structures for Brussels through a circumference now, one must, in my opinion, take into account the fact that, in my opinion, it is written in the stars that one must evolve towards a division of the judicial district, although one should not advance there today. Today, however, in reality there are an arrondissement, a barley and two orders.

It would have been more logical not to use the name "Association of the Flemish Balies" because this did not apply to Brussels, but to use the name "Orde" for that new institution. This is precisely due to the Brussels case.

Mr. Laeremans, I see that you read the faxes to the end, but I am not willing to go into fetishism in this. If one comes to me today, or if one told me yesterday, that it is so important that each of those institutions may call itself "Order" - not that I would have a certain aversion for orders, except for the New Order - why did one choose a different name as an actual association for four years? An actual association can choose any name and is not at all bound to existing structures. But that is not the essence. If that is the case, it is, to my great regret, a minimization of the efforts we have made. I thank those who initially took the initiative to roll the ball, to formulate suggestions, to actually demonstrate that there was a problem. I myself have tried to make my contribution and I ask you with confidence to approve this text, as it came from the committee.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we could no longer speak of the National Order of Lawyers but of the National Disorder of Lawyers! Even if legal practitioners have the passion of resolving their problems through the judicial bodies, when one manages to resolve these problems by the judge of the referred, it means that one is truly in an impossible situation. Therefore, it was necessary to change things.

In this context, the reform was necessary. It was difficult but it had to be done.

After this brief preamble, I think the goal we pursued was double.

On the one hand, it was necessary to dedicate the existence and role of the conference of the French and German-speaking bars as well as of the Vereniging van Vlaamse Balies. It was indispensable that beyond the arrondissements, there was an officially recognized regulatory body on each side of the linguistic border.

On the other hand, we wanted to maintain a federal decision-making structure in two areas: safeguarding and honouring the common professional rights and interests of lawyers, including the relationship of the bar with federal or international public authorities, and jointly adopting a minimum of professional regulations when they affect the basic rules and practices of ethics. Every day, in fact, especially in Brussels - especially this week regarding a regulation concerning the succession of lawyers - that two different practices and two different deontologies can confront on the same territory.

That is why we considered that the single representative instance of the profession was an absolute necessity and that it should be given genuine competence, not opinion but decision.

The compromise that has been made seems to us insufficient, since for the decisions of the Federal Council, we are in a situation where almost unanimousness prevails. It is therefore not through this body that we will find a logic of institution favouring the development of this unification of the essential rules of the profession.

Political life must demonstrate a certain realism and no one is bound to the impossible. In this case, it is clear that we were facing an impossibility.

However, with regard to the PSC group, and without any nostalgia for the past but with a vision that fits in the perspective of the role of Belgium on the international level and the attachment that one can feel to the bar in relation to its position in the center of Europe, we will express this reserve by an abstinence that is however positive in relation to the fact that through this bill, we finally get out of the completely blocked situation that we currently know. If it ⁇ had been wiser to go further with regard to the competence of the Federal Council, it would be better to move forward in spite of everything rather than keep things in order.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this design has a long history that everyone knows. I do not want to stop at this, except to emphasize that the dispersion of the national order was another evidence of the fact that the Belgian unitary structures have abolished, that Flemish people also have very different views on justice than French speakers, and also have a very different view on internal democracy and the building of an organization. Instead of responding quickly to the painful conflict situation and applying euthanasia to structures, the soul-togging national order – I see Mr. Coveliers looking up: apparently a stalk horse is awakening in him – one has, according to good Belgian custom, unlikely to have rotted the problem for a long time. Again and again, we have tried to get French-speaking and Flemish lawyers around the table in the perspective of a national order, to ultimately blame them that it was all their fault, that it was incomprehensible how the mediators, who are lawyers at all, were not able to get out of the difficulties themselves. Some obviously want to understand that the cause of the problems lies in the unitary structure itself and that therefore not the lawyers are to blame for the tensions, but rather those who want to maintain the unitary structure - the unitary compulsory tube - at any cost.

I cannot but here again express my great surprise and disappointment over the attitude of the VLD faction which delayed this debate time and time again and not for fear of retreat repeatedly, Mr. Coveliers, as the only Flemish party to agree to the delaying manoeuvres of PS and PRL. First this was postponed until after the summer recess, then until after the municipal council elections and so on. Hugo Coveliers, group leader of the VLD, has during this legislature and of course not only in this dossier – it would then be an accident the course – turned out to be a very faithful servant of the French speakers.

This is not a personal fact, Mr. Coveliers. However, you will have the word.

I know the opinion of Mr. Laeremans. I have no problem with that. I’m also not going to say every time that he is actually a separatist who throws sand in the eyes of a lot of people, because those voices want to attract with other problems for which his party has no solutions. In itself he is a separatist, which is his good right, and also a republican, which is also his good right. I find it wrong that whenever someone speaks from the political view that he has, he always tries to link other things to it. I am not going to say that you do this for separatist reasons, but I find it wrong that you continue to say this every time I have tried to act from a liberal perspective. I will later tell you what the liberal view is of ordes, and also of hordes, if you wish. It is a mistake to repeat it all the time and this actually shows the weakness of your argument.

I will continue to develop the argument, colleague Coveliers. However, you did not halt the debate in order to start the debate on the orders, because that debate was not initiated at all. You have also not submitted any amendments. You have delayed and helped to delay at a time when this was good for the French speakers, so that you ⁇ do not have to take a position before the elections. Similar hand-and-spand-stones have also been granted to the French speakers in very different files. I think then of the Rapid Belgian Law and other community affairs, the Lambermont Agreement that will be approved here soon and which also refers to the rubbish cart the liberal demand for a own judicial district. Their

In any case, I must honestly confess that I was pleasantly surprised by the proposal drawn up by Commission President Erdman and submitted several months ago. I am not talking about the amendments, but about the draft proposal. This proposal was not perfect and we said it immediately, but it was a very good basis for conversation and was also appreciated by the Association of Flemish Balies. This could also be difficult to do otherwise, because it provided great autonomy for the VVB and the Conference and retained only a flinterdunne unit layer.

At that time I had to control myself very consciously, because I was in a delicate position. If the Flemish Block were to swing with the smoke vessel, Mr. Erdman, then the French-speaking people would have found nothing more good in your proposal; that they would have said that there is a Flemish Blocker hidden in you. In the meantime, you could already read for six days in The Standard that there is a Flemish Blocker hidden in each.

I consider this as a personal fact.

Mr. Laeremans may have the illusion that in some people there are ideas that he attracts, suggests and stimulates. But I can assure him that those who will struggle his mind until the last, are much more than he suspects. Their

For the rest, I refuse that Mr. Laeremans, in any way, insinuates that I would be sympathetic to any idea of the Flemish Bloc.

Finally, Mr. Laeremans, I do not care whether you supported my proposal or not.

Mr. Speaker, I can reassure Mr. Erdman, in the sense that it was intended quite ironically, which may have escaped him.

I only referred to the days-long publications in De Standaard, which stated that in every Flaming hides a Flemish Blocker, in which it was also about cutting ashes on the street, about driving too fast and the like; in short, it was a crazy piece to which I referred with irony. And precisely to avoid, Mr. Erdman, that you would be suspected of a certain sympathy for ideas surrounding separatism, we have in any case avoided swinging with the smoke vessel, although we clearly agreed with your original proposal.

No matter how well I tried in the crucial moments to keep silent about this proposal, it should not benefit because just before the end of the marathon the veteran passed his torch to the sleeping neofiet, so that today we no longer discuss the proposalErdman, but the law-Giet.

If one wants to analyze the decision-making process in Belgium at one or another Faculty of Political and Social Sciences, this is a school example of unitary recovery, of the unitary struggle to grasp the autonomy of Flanders and Wallonia as much as possible, with backdoors, sluggish working methods and undemocratic behavior. It is a clear example because it is hardly ever seen that the government refuses to take a stand in a community conflict and openly leaves all freedom to Parliament. It was a unique opportunity to make democracy play full play. It was a simple file. There was a factual situation that only had to be officially sealed. The example of the feasibility of this solution has existed for almost twenty years, especially in the operation of the autonomous Dutch and French orders in Brussels. After the split of the Brussels Bar, the relationship between the lawyers has only grown.

This simple solution, for which there was a majority in this hemisphere, and which was actually largely contained in the original proposal-Erdman, could not be achieved. After all, the majority that could be found for this was not a good majority. It was a Flemish majority and therefore by definition a bad, a non-politically correct majority. Under no circumstances could a vote take place where this majority would apply. This was definitely in the headquarters of the PS and of the PRL by the real rulers of this country, the gentlemen Di Rupo and Michel, who regard such a vote as a terrible precedent and who, in addition, fear that the disappearance of a unitary structure could be the forerunner of the division of Justice.

Consequently, a text was hastily flanked together by the faithful peons Herzet and Giet, who, against the interests of their own lawyers, have put Erdman’s proposal entirely on their heads and thus have placed the gravity of power entirely at the top. Remove the flinterdunne upper floor. It again becomes a heavy unitary organ that divides the leaves. A serious explanation of these amendments or a serious debate on them in the committee was not necessary. It all went very quickly. The text was to be taken or left, and the Flemish majority parties – colleague Erdman and colleague Coveliers in particular – were allowed to put their steel throat head into operation to swallow everything through.

We cannot really call this country a democracy. The Flemish majority in this Parliament is not allowed to assert itself, even in cases where the government washes hands in innocence and transfers all responsibility to Parliament. A completely ineffective, hopelessly complex solution is preferred over a simple and transparent solution, because there must be no precedent showing that the French speakers in this country are actually in the minority. In addition, the unitary fetish should be cared for at whatever cost. This is happening again and again in this country and in this Parliament. The power of the number, the will of the real majority, must not play. This is how this country gets together. Instead of two distinct, autonomous, national orders – the CCB and the Conference – which clearly represent the lawyers at home and abroad, we now get an extremely ambiguous structure, in which the two new unitary bodies – the Federal Council of Bali and the Federal Arbitration Court – which were given a very limited power in Erdman’s original proposal, suddenly get very much power and in addition the procedure for cassation becomes more intrusive. In the original proposal, the Federal Council of Bali was merely a consultative body, which could only give its opinions unanimously and ⁇ could not take binding decisions. Today, that unanimousness has disappeared and can make any ballot attached to any problem, so that the division within the VVB and the Conference can be stimulated to the heart.

This Federal Council also becomes the dialogue body abroad. That is much worse. With the rapid Europeanisation of the legal profession and the judiciary, the foreign sector is becoming increasingly important. The committee representing it at the level of the European Union shall execute assignments and decisions on behalf of the Federal Council, and not on behalf of the CCP and the Conference.

Every document contains elements that sometimes belong to history. I can assure you that, in my file, I have received the written confirmation from a high representative of the CCB that, with regard to the mandate to be given to the representatives in the CCBE, this should not be a point of discussion. The VVB was not at all shocked by the decision of the consultation to give a uniform mandate.

Furthermore – which you once again lose sight of – this mandate is only possible insofar as a majority in each language group is reached to give this mandate. Belgium remains silent within the framework of the CCBE.

Mr. Speaker, if not, Belgium is silent, but because of this the Flemish and Wallish order cannot express themselves. You act as if I am the speech tube of the VVB. I am absolutely not. It is not because a senior spokesman of the VVB gives you a certain written promise that I am bound by it. I only note that the Federal Council of Balies is represented through that committee and not the two orders. They are not even orders.

I give you that element because some might be surprised by it.

In any case, a Flemish lawyer will not have the voice that the Dutch and Danish lawyers will have at European level. He stands a few dozen steps lower, because he is apparently inferior.

In the original Erdman proposal, the Arbitration Court was a body that would only be gathered very exceptionally and would be set up ad hoc for every issue. The power of destruction was also limited.

This now becomes a permanent organ that will undoubtedly come together much more often and possesses the most extensive destruction power one can imagine. It can invoke all possible reasons of opportunity. This arbitration college thus becomes much more powerful than the VVB and the Conference itself.

Thirdly, the procedure before the Court of Cassation is also extended so that the CCP and the Conference can also fight each other in this forum. Furthermore, this chapter further restricts the powers of the institutions by the provision that all decisions and regulations are only finally valid after two months. The CCP rightly warns that the arsenal of combat capabilities that is being built today will lead to much greater delays and blockages, which is very strange in an era where less regulation is sought and where lawyers are faced with a rapid globalization of economy and business, and in which they should therefore be able to respond quickly and efficiently to the developments. However, the government has permanently removed the words "fast and efficiently" from its journal a few months after it took office.

All this makes it clear why the new institutions, the VVB and the Conference, will never be allowed to be called "orders". It has long been no longer a semantic discussion about whether or not obsolete language use, as the cunning Mr. Erdman has tried to illustrate with his "coverture". The VVB and the Conference must not become national orders because then the actual power would come to them, then they would be able to represent the Flemish and Wallonian lawyers abroad and act truly autonomously. The national order is not abolished, but only suspended and can therefore always be revived. Its powers will be spread across all new institutions that will receive legal status today. The gravity of power here is, of course, in the unitary organs.

The final result of this debate is that "for purely political and purely sentimental reasons a dragon was born from a structure that is even more complex than the previous one. The reason for this political misconduct has nothing to do with the pragmatic and efficient solutions that the legal profession demands” because “the political majority apparently does not want the legal profession, which plays a crucial role in good judicial administration, to be structured in an efficient way”. These are not the words of the Flemish Bloc, which could be rejected as anti-politics, but of the democratically elected delegates of all Flemish lawyers. They are undoubtedly devastating for the fellow majority parties.

The Flemish lawyers go a step further in their destructive criticism. At the same time, they note that this abuse is also ⁇ undemocratic. In the new system, an unelected body, the college of arbitrators, can destroy the decisions of a directly elected body, the CCP or the Conference, for reasons of opportunity. The Flemish Balais are rightly wondering how this can rime with a modern vision of representative democracy. This is in the Absurdistan that Belgium is almost a rhetorical question. How can a Parliament that does not work in a democratic way and that the Flemish majority is constantly restraining, be expected to develop democratic solutions on its own? I am pleased that representatives of the VVB, of whom we are all talking here today, are present. They have worked hard to improve the image of the Flemish lawyers and to improve the legal assistance for the population. They are the symbol of a good, contemporary structure. Their

The VVB has mostly proven that it can be much better, much faster and much more democratic in an autonomous way. I would like to express my ⁇ great admiration, on the one hand, for the manner in which the CCP has continued to fight unceasingly against the archaic structures of the national order, and, on the other hand, for the fact that the CCP has not allowed itself to be overwhelmed by the very numerous erroneous lights that have sought to keep it on the unitary path. Without a doubt, this is largely due to the fighting temperament and the enormous workforce of the current VVB chairwoman, the former staff holder of Brussels. She was not rewarded. On the contrary, she gets all possible accusations thrown into her head. All the blame for the illness is laid to the VVB and not to the unitary courtship in which one wants to keep the Flemish lawyers imprisoned.

The handling of this dossier in this Parliament has undoubtedly been a very rich teaching school for the VVB. In my career as a member of Parliament, I have never experienced a professional group – still my own – so intensely engaged in a parliamentary dossier. The VVB has been able to determine how tough and resilient the Belgian unitary forces are. You have been able to determine which lawyers have left you behind and who has subordinated the legitimate interests of the Flemish lawyers to party policy calculation. As long as Belgium exists, these kinds of tapestries will be scratch and injection here. After all, Belgium is built on Flemish concessions and on extremely complex compromises that make the system less and less transparent and less and less working with the day. That is why everything that has to do with the basic pillars of our society square begins to rotate. Let’s just think of the asylum policy that has become a huge chaos. Let us think of the police reform that runs in the hundred. Think of a justice system in which the people still have not regained their confidence and where there is little or no improvement. The parquets continue to sink away in the mud of laxity and inertia.

I urge the VVB to send the comprehensive note, enriched with the findings of this debate, to the lawyers because it is of the utmost importance that they know what happened here.

Mr Laeremans, the debates of the Chamber are public and can be followed on the websites.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke not only about this discussion but also about the texts drawn up by the VVB.

Mr. Speaker, we can give points to any lawyer who reads the text.

That is a possibility.

I repeat that it is of the utmost importance that the lawyers know what is happening here and who has gotten on the brake.

With the exception of the FET who has paid attention to this problem, there is no need to rely on the press. The press is masterful in covering what is happening in Parliament if it does not fit into the unitary workplace. The press has silenced this file as hard as possible. It makes every effort to make people know that community peace is greater than ever and there is no dirt in the air. The history of national order does not fit into this picture.

The debate is not over. There are so many conflicts that the problems are even bigger than today. I dare to hope that the Association of Flemish Balies will not let itself encapsulate in a new compulsory tube and will have the courage to let the interests of Flemish lawyers and law enforcers prevail on outdated Belgian illusions and brain shaming.

Mr. Laeremans, I find myself happy that you have not smoked me and reserved your praise to others. Only I fear that the smoke you have just poured out on others is more harmful to them than you can imagine.

Mr. Erdman, you use a typical left and extreme-left tactic: you discredit everything that the Flemish Bloc says, as well as everyone who dares to stand on the same line of the Flemish Bloc in a given matter. In this way you are trying to constantly burn those who are the objective ally of the Flemish Bloc. By the way, in some municipalities the Socialists and the Flemish Bloc are indeed objective allies, because they are both part of the opposition, as in my municipality. Well, that technique works counterproductively in concrete files, because the inhabitants have all interest in a good, united opposition. I find your statement by which you try to blacken and harm people, especially that, since they get right from the Flemish Bloc, they are completely next to it, especially regrettable.

Such an argument I wanted to save you, precisely because of the core of the case and the importance of the file for the Flemish lawyers. Apparently you deeply regret that we argue that an association to which you are subordinate as a lawyer is more right than you are. If we have to choose, colleague Erdman, then we choose the VVB and not the statement that you have developed thereafter.

In any case, I wish the relevant organization that represents the interests of the Flemish lawyers and which I may better not call by name to please colleague Erdman or can no longer call, much success with her rebirth.

First of all, I would like to thank the two rapporteurs for the excellence of their report.

Due to certain circumstances, which can be regretted, the National Bar Association has found itself unable to function effectively and two separate institutions have emerged within this bar.

For more than three years, this Order was clinically dead. This requires the creation of new structures.

Since the profession failed to formulate its own proposals for reorganization, it is therefore due to deficiency and default that the Justice Committee and Parliament must intervene today. It was important, as Mr. President Erdogan said this today.

Our group, along with others elsewhere, filed, in February 2000, a bill aimed at addressing the causes of blocking the National Bar Association while ⁇ ining the federal character of Justice. The latter is indeed a federal competence and our group did not wish that, through the various bills filed, a transfer of competence from the federal to the federal entities would be initiated. It seemed to us, in fact, indispensable that the deontology of lawyers remain uniform and consistent in Belgium and that the representation of the country’s bars in international instances is made through a single interlocutor. The pursuit of this goal could only be achieved through the establishment of a façade structure with a minimum decision-making capacity at the federal level. I repeat, and I insist on this point, that Belgium is a federal state and Justice is a federal competence.

The bill submitted by Mr. Erdman, today somewhat murdered, although he must not be, on 11 October, constitutes an excellent basis for discussion even though, in its initial version, this proposal did not sufficiently respond to our claims. However, we could, on the basis of this text and remarkably initiated reflections by Mr. Erdman, perform a constructive work and avoid a duality of the profession that, in the end, would have been detrimental to the justifiable.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience, for your listening, your convictions and your search for consensus. Without your work, we would not be here today.

The arguments, which we have put forward with others in the committee, have enabled many amendments to be developed. Without entering into an inventory of the new provisions adopted, we can however draw up some that, we hope, will allow the future establishment of a structure and this in the interest of all (lawyers and prosecutors). It is true that mr. Giet remarkably translated in amendments most of what we wanted, the goal we sought. He refined, specified, supplemented the proposals of Mr. by Erdman.

I would like to point out that the Federal Bar Council will be able to issue opinions adopted by 3/5 of the votes at least in each language group contrary to the unanimity provided for in the original proposal. We hope that this quorum will be a protection against future situations of decision-blocking.

We also point out that the arbitrators composing the arbitral tribunal will be appointed for a period of two years. The permanence of the arbitrators shall ensure the impartiality of the arbitral tribunal.

The Court of Arbitration may appeal to the Court of Arbitration for annulment of any settlement “which would be bound by excessive power, would be contrary to the laws or would have been adopted irregularly or would jeopardize the safeguarding of the honor of the Order of Lawyers and the maintenance of the principles of dignity, probity and delicacy which form the basis of the profession of lawyer as defined by Article 456 and the international rules of deontology”.

Through these provisions or competences which now fall within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the cancellation appeal may be useful and effective.

We are also very pleased that the Justice Committee has accepted that a four-member committee, mandated by the Federal Bar Council, represents Belgium in the European Bar Council. It seems to us important for the image, coherence and role of Belgium that a single interlocutor represents the lawyers of the whole country.

Through these provisions, we also wish that a uniform ethical deontology be ⁇ ined in Belgium. It would indeed be inconsistent to see two different deontologies coexist within a State while the rules of law and procedure remain the same. It is in order to avoid this inconsistency that we wanted to expand the powers of the Federal Bar Council and the Arbitration Court in this regard.

I would also like to recall how, after the hearings, the exchanges of views, the letters received and the various and varied letters, the debates were long and difficult. The differences of opinion between lawyers of the two linguistic groups were reflected within our committee. It was necessary to organize a cohabitation while some wanted to separate and others did not want to. And if divorce is indeed consumed, we were far from a divorce by mutual consent. But we hope that with this bill, a real dialogue will reinstate between lawyers on both sides of the linguistic border, within these new institutions. The text adopted by the Justice Committee is somewhat in retreat – it is true and I would like to admit it – from the proposal we had submitted with other groups. However, most of what we want and consider indispensable has been defended and preserved to the end: the achievements are right there and I believe that reason has prevailed. We believe that, thanks to our amendments, the institutions and remedies established by these texts will be able to operate in the general interest.

The proper functioning of the appeals that may be exercised before the Federal Bar Council, before the Arbitration Court and before the Court of Cassation will depend on the good will of each. A real consultation between the lawyers of our country can exist within these two institutions. The existence of the “vereniging” and the conference of the Francophone and Germanophone bars is also realized. Both institutions will be able to exercise their regulatory powers, and organize their composition and modalities of functioning with autonomy. Therefore, the reconciliation between autonomy and coherence within our country seems to be acquired.

The structure is now organized. We believe that the Justice Commission did what was in its power, what was its duty. However, not everything is won. It remains to us to wish that the actors that make up the institutions set up will act together, with goodwill, with impartiality and diplomacy; it is true that it will be necessary and that it will be much needed.

These elements are essential for the proper functioning of the profession. As the mr. Erdman, we want to believe it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, we are at the provisional end - I say provisional end, because it is article 75, Mr. Speaker Erdman - of a file that has known a scam. When it became clear that the National Order of Lawyers existed only by law and no longer in fact, and the entire file was blocked, we – you pointed out, colleague Erdman, chairman of the Committee for Justice – not only the current Minister of Justice, but also his two predecessors, Mr. Van Parys and De Clerck, repeatedly interpelled. None of them have included their responsibility in this file. Within the Dehaene and Verhofstadt governments, no solution could be found to this matter, and the ministers have always passed the ball to the professional groups.

Previous speakers pointed out that they too had hoped that the professional group would take its responsibilities, get out of the difficulties and find a solution. This was wishful thinking, from the beginning. The ball was played back to a fictitious, no longer existing professional group. In fact, there was no National Order of Lawyers anymore, while in Flanders a new, dynamic Association of Flemish Balies had emerged, which took on its responsibilities, which led its own life and developed its own rules, which participated in the public debate.

When one says here that the professional group has not taken its responsibility, I want to distance myself from this judgment, in so far as it relates to the return of the ball to the Association of Flemish Balies. At the federal level, there was no longer any arrangement possible, which was precisely related to the two different cultures. I also have some contacts in the professional group – ⁇ less than you, colleague Erdman – but I have nevertheless been able to see that people without any political reflex, let alone without a political Flemish reflex and those who were part of the national structures, after time really came back discouraged.

They said that no longer can be governed at the federal level, that no efficient or consistent policy could be conducted, that no positions could be taken that would contribute to progress in the field of professional rules, or that rules would be accepted, colleague Herzet, that would lead to a federal debate. I infer from your intervention that you advocate that all these bodies and structures should be federal.

On the other hand, you have perfectly concluded your speech with a hopeful message for the two autonomous institutions. They could develop their own dynamics, live their own lives, and I think this is indeed the only chance of success and the only realistic message. Whether you like it or not – this has nothing to do with a political prejudice, nor with a political position – between Flanders and French-speaking Belgium there is a substantial difference in culture, not only in this area, but also in other areas and this outcomes itself also in the field of legal culture.

You said, colleague Erdman, that for now justice is federal. This is true, but we see that there is a dynamic of its own. Even in jurisprudence, you can easily demonstrate a number of differences. Until the State Council, you notice various developments and if there is something that qualifies for defederalization and that can be easily federalized, then it is precisely the structures of Justice, which are perfectly localizable.

You said – I don’t know if you said it exactly, but it came down to – that the split of the judicial district of Brussels is written in the stars and is part of an inevitable evolution. I agree with you, but we will have to push it a little or a big push. This division will have to be achieved and I am convinced that other judicial structures will also be de-federalized sooner or later.

That it has come so far with the former order of lawyers is mainly due to the self-conscious behavior of the group of Flemish lawyers. Indeed, independent of political considerations, they realized that there was no progress to be made with that national order, and they very self-consciously founded their own association, which developed its own dynamics that led to where we stand today.

In the absence of government initiatives, the Parliament has made several proposals. I will not explain them further. I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their excellent reporting in which they highlighted these various proposals. I have no trouble confirming that the case was blocked. We went from interpellation to interpellation and from incident to incident. There were also attempts from the French-speaking side to postpone. I say it just as we felt it and as it probably was. At a certain point, they have established all their hopes for a judgment of the judiciary. A procedure was initiated and the parliamentary initiative had to be postponed in the hope that a court ruling would be made that would end the immediate autonomy of the association of Flemish Balies. At least they had hoped that this autonomy would be placed under a form of curatele. Fortunately, this did not happen.

Finally, there was a more than praiseworthy initiative from the Chairman of the Justice Committee. We were told that this initiative was carried out by the majority, which subsequently did not prove to be the case. From the very beginning, we saw this initiative as a basis for discussion. We didn’t expect it and it wasn’t what we had suggested, but it was still a praiseworthy initiative.

Mr. Erdman, you have referred to your antecedents several times. To the extent that I can estimate it, it was, in my opinion, an extensive proposal. I said this in the Justice Committee. I would quote something from your explanation: "In this state of affairs, a clear distinction must be made between the notion of desirability and the notion of feasibility. It makes no sense to propose structures that could not be accepted, even if the proposed formulas cannot lead to full consensus acceptance."This is, in my opinion, a good reflection of what your proposal intended and of the structures you proposed. You acknowledged - and the others confirm that - that this proposal was carried by the majority. I will try to summarize the principles of your proposal. Their

The first principle is the autonomy of the two orders. You call them institutions. I will not do word fetishism, although I am a supporter of the name order. I think that the association has indeed demonstrated a certain modesty by using that name as long as it was a factual association. Once the split is a fact and there will be two full-fledged institutions, I find that they deserve the name order. On this side, it is important that you assumed the autonomy of the association of the Flemish Balies and of the Conferences.

A second premise is that you created a formal consultation structure between both orders, the Federal Council of the Balies. Your proposal explicitly states that it is a structure that can only give advice and that those opinions should be taken unanimously. That was your initial proposal.

The third proposal was the possibility of retaining to appeal in cassation, article 611. This principle has not been contested by anyone, so it is a logical proposal.

The fourth point was that you gave effect to a real arbitration procedure. I could get some income there, even though I was not in favour of it. It was an arbitration procedure. A fact judge could annul a regulation if it was compromised by an excess of competence, infringed the laws or was adopted irregularly pursuant to Article 611. You added that this was also possible if it was contrary to general deotological rules. This is wrong for the shoe. The arbitration procedure which was open to challenging regulations contrary to general deontological rules remains an overwhelming concept for us. The concept can be extended to such an extent that it can give rise to repeated disputes of regulations. It is not accurately defined enough, especially in light of the two legal cultures in this country. These two legal cultures are already expressed in the regulations adopted by the Association of Flemish Balies. These regulations do not correspond to those used in the French-speaking region. On not insignificant areas, we see that positions are taken, among others by the Association of Flemish Balies. I would only point out the big tricky point of the multidisciplinary company on which we will need to take a legislative initiative. You know I have submitted a proposal for that. If we transpose the Directive on the freedom of establishment of lawyers into Belgian law, we are in any case obliged to take a legal position unless we leave everything free. However, I hope that this is not the position of the majority. The Association of Flemish Balies has taken a position on this subject that I can endorse. It can be seen that on the other side of the language boundary there is silence or that there are other views. Therefore, being in conflict with the general deontological rules can be a working concept, but I fear that it is too stretchy in this two-part country.

A second objection to your proposal was that we did not want an overarching body. I will not say that you are really creating an overarching body, but the Federal Council was institutionalized in your proposal. This board was given an advisory power and had to initially make unanimous decisions. This has now been weakened. We assumed that there should be autonomy and that there should be occasional informal consultations. That is quite normal, and among cultivated people this is an obvious thing. If the informal consultation would not lead to solutions, one could focus on the rules of the European Union for lawyers. I thought this was perfectly manageable. However, you went on and that was our second objection. I have already said in the committee that I nevertheless find your proposal a very acceptable basis for discussion. I think that the majority and the opposition have worked constructively together to find a solution. I have at least contributed to this to the extent of my possibilities. I have also tried to improve legislation in proposals that did not come from us. I think the debate went pretty well. In the meantime, there were serious attempts to federal recovery that have not continued. As a devil out of a box, however, at the end came amendments from colleagues Giet and Herzet that clearly had a recovering goal. Mrs Herzet has confirmed in her presentation that she intended to do so and that she intends to restrict autonomy. It assumes that these are federal structures. It was intended to limit your proposal, which already met our objections. As a result, the competence of the Federal Council, which was advisory in your initial proposal, continues. In your proposal, both orders had autonomy, including in their foreign relations. Nothing was determined about this but it came to the conclusion that the Association of Flemish Balies and the Conference as autonomous institutions could participate in European bodies. As with other countries where multiple orders are present, it would be true that they could all take their positions in the CCBE.

The result of the amendment-Giet-Herzet is now in any case that the Federal Council mandates a committee to take positions in the CCBE. You have rightly said in your replica that Belgium is silent when there is no agreement. This is not an ideal solution. I personally prefer that both institutions can make their voice heard, that they can participate in the debate. This is the case if there is a different culture.

Mr. Bourgeois, this point is actually dependent on the regulation-CCBE. Today, in the death struggle of the national order, Belgium has a delegation, composed of two delegates of the VVB and two delegates of the Conference. Belgium is a member of the CCBE, as Belgium is a member of Europe. Even with the regional and community matters, also regarding the federalization of Agriculture, we still have the obligation to order a federal minister with a portfolio of Agriculture in the representation in the European institutions. All other international contacts remain entirely autonomous, but specifically for the CCBE there is no position, including with regard to its contacts with the members of the delegation, in the absence of a unanimous vision of the delegation. I have documented this well.

Mr. President, Mr. Erdman’s presentation was interesting.

This is indeed the situation. When I go to the website of the CCBE, I find that for various, even unitary countries, several balis are present and are part of the CCBE. It is not excluded that two autonomous institutions for our country could have made public their views, although there might have been only one vote at the vote. I hope you agree with me that this is a democratic deficit. We have an Association of Flemish Balies, which is formed democratically. Hopefully the conference will also be democratically composed. However, they cannot vote in Europe because of the parity committee that gets its mandates from the Federal Council. It is a shame that we must be silent in the absence of consensus. It would be a wealth if the two cultures could be addressed at the European level.

The second consequence of the amendment-GietHerzet is that there is no real arbitration procedure anymore. An arbitration procedure is by definition ad hoc, it is compiled when a dispute arises. Now there is a permanent professional room. There are mandates of a certain duration. This depends on the specificity of an arbitration procedure. Indeed, a qualified majority is still needed, but the grounds on which the arbitration may be initiated are unacceptable for us. Unless I am wrong, there is also an incorrect reference in the amendment. It is even said that cancellation can be sought when the rules pose a danger to the honor of the Bar Association.

I have the impression that that Order of Lawyers no longer exists, but this is still part of the text as it presents.

Colleague Coveliers, I know that you would like to make another speech later, but it should not be limited to the Order of Lawyers. In my view, we should strive for a uniform regulation of disciplinary law of all orders. I think it is time for this debate to take place. The Association of Flemish Balies is, in my opinion, a requesting party to cooperate on this. I would be pleased to participate in a legislative initiative in this area. You are right in wanting to address this point, but it seems to me, however, it is also wise to keep this a moment apart in order to come to a solution.

A second objection is that these vague standards of review and the institutionalized disciplinary law are unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I must add that the amendments were introduced "and steamlessly" although we have been able to discuss the rest of the proposal in depth. Colleague Herzet has once again emphasized the intention of these amendments. In any case, the entire operation turned out to be an intrusion into your proposal that could not count on a consensus within the majority.

I would like to say to Mr. I am disappointed with his way of interpreting things. You wished, along with some of your colleagues, you hoped and in any case pretended to believe that it was a bill. It was a bill that was subject to debate within the majority, like all laws. We decided in due time to submit amendments. This is logical in a parliamentary work, it is logical in a committee. It has nothing to do with the majority. It belongs to the parliamentary initiative to submit amendments to any bill.

We have only clarified and refined the Erdman proposal. There was a basis for thought and a basis for discussion. I don’t like being treated intellectually dishonest. I can’t stand it, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, of course I do not challenge your parliamentary initiative right and you have the right to amend, but colleague Erdman will not object that his proposal was presented as a consensus proposal that was carried by the majority. For the sake of correctness, I would add that you said from the beginning that this proposal was subject to amendment.

Mr. President, Mr. Bourgeois, you are not a member of yesterday’s parliament, right? When a proposal is submitted, the first review comes from those who carry the proposal and signed it. Well, this proposal was only and exclusively signed by me. I have understood that, after the responses from the French-language corner to the submitted proposals, with questions to postpone, I had received the assurance that they were willing to speak about the proposal that I and only I had submitted. Let there be no misunderstanding about this. I have no problem with the fact that Mrs Herzet and Mr Giet and Mr Coveliers would make technical improvements or clarifications if this would enable a full consensus in the committee, which would have weighed much heavier on the interest groups.

Ultimately, one has been based on a misinterpreted text and at the same time one has wanted to refine the text because it came from a certain angle. The pure theoretical question can be asked whether if I had submitted the amendments Herzet and Giet myself, the response would have been the same.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker,

Colleague Erdman, when the amendments Herzet and Giet were submitted, I was able to find that on the part of the Flemish parliamentarians, after your vote, it remained very quiet. I would like to point out that there has been very little discussion on this subject. However, I can assure you that, if those proposals were from you, I would have responded with the same rationality, as I have also said, which in your proposal was unacceptable for us. This does not affect the value of your proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that, despite the limitations laid down in the initial proposal, despite the long path of suffering, despite the additional amendments Herzet and Giet now accepted, reality will still find its way. The Autonomous Working Association of Flemish Balies will find its way, which are also the structures that can form obstacles. I also sincerely hope that this association will find its own dynamic. The association is institutionalized. She deserved her trace. The association has nothing to blame, but I am not the speech tube of it. I have my own interpretation of the texts, which should be in a parliament. The great historical merit of this association is that it has united a group of self-conscious lawyers who wanted to design a structure that met the interests of both the members of the courts and the prosecutors. I therefore hope that the members of other orders, who also address me on this matter, will exert the same courage and the same self-consciousness.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteurs and the departments of the committee for their work.

The Socialist group is pleased to see the final completion of the case concerning the National Bar Order even though, like some if not all, it is regrettable that the legislator had to intervene to impose new structures on the bar. Indeed, no doubt a consultation between members of the profession on the future of professional structures would have been preferable. Now, since 1997, we have had to find that the National Order of Lawyers has been harmed by community-based veils resulting in a secession in order, ⁇ , in the spirit of some, to force a federalization of justice.

Nevertheless, the essential objectives of the National Order appeared clearly in the Van Reepinghen report preceding the draft Judicial Code. I quote it: "The safeguarding of the general interests of lawyers, their honor and their rights, their representation in their relations with national, supranational or foreign public authorities for the determination and unification of the rules and practices of the profession of lawyer due precisely to the confraternal relations between the members of the bars remained distinct and autonomous." They eventually crystallized on the distribution of pro deo compensations. Should it therefore be concluded that the profession of lawyer should be managed only by regional bodies? Our group strongly opposes this because we believe that the Bar has an essential function in the administration of justice and the access to law and justice for citizens. Lawyers guarantee the defense and protection of fundamental rights to their clients and, therefore, they must be bound by the same basic rules and ethical practices.

The judiciary and its organs belong to the federal and must remain there. It is, in our sense, in the interest of all, and this is especially so since no other institution in regard to justice, whether it be courts and courts, State Council, notaries, court officers, Higher Council of Justice, does not consider a division. So, since it is commonly accepted that these bodies belong to the federal state, why then act differently for lawyers?

This division into two organs raised multiple questions: is it in the interest of the prosecutors, which ⁇ too much has been forgotten in this debate, as well as of the lawyers to see the bar, organ necessary for the functioning of justice, divided according to the linguistic and regional boundaries as regards the deontology and the defense of the interests of the profession and of the prosecutors in relation to the federal authorities? How can you explain to a prosecutor that, depending on whether he goes to consult in the north or in the south, or whether his problem comes to a court in the north or in the south, the rules will be different? How can relationships between lawyers of two orders of the Brussels Bar and more ⁇ within mixed associations be realised in practice if the rules are fundamentally different depending on the regional body from which the lawyers depend?

For us, strict potential duality was detrimental. Currently, fundamental ethics is the subject of regulation at the national level, and so is it. Only complementary rules could be assessed differently depending on local specificities. The various arguments put forward by some of our Flemish colleagues seem unfounded to me. So much Mr. Van Doosselaere as Mr. Glansdorff demonstrated this during the hearings. by

Furthermore, it is necessary to maintain a single interlocutor with respect to supranational and in particular European bodies.

These two elements, the basis of our reflection in this reform, are essential and cannot be jeopardized. This does not prevent us, however, from dedicating the existence of the two regional associations, the "Vereniging" and the "Conference", since it seems necessary to bring together the local bars, too often dispersed, and allow them to deal together with certain issues concerning them.

Furthermore, each association can structure and organize as it wishes, subject to royal approval, which ensures transparency and legal certainty. The agreement on this plan does not seem to be lacking. by

As for the maintenance of a federal body and the definition of its powers, our group is ultimately satisfied with the outstanding, balanced, coherent and feasible solution. Indeed, it was desirable to establish a system to prevent conflicts that could arise as a result of the adoption of a different or even contradictory deontological regulation.

As such, the creation of an arbitral tribunal is of consensual nature, since it allows to resolve, within the profession of lawyer itself, the conflicts between the two regional associations in the field of deontology as well as the control of the legality, the regularity of the adoption of the regulations and the elimination of any excess of power with the guarantee of a certain unity in the rules of deontology.

Equally essential element before any appeal for cancellation by one of the two associations: a negotiation procedure is mandatory.

Furthermore, we consider that this court should neither be a permanent court nor a court whose composition varies depending on the circumstances. In this case, kick-by-shot nominations could block the process by crystallizing the conflict through those nominations, which is not the aim pursued. Independence and distance must be ensured, as well as the experience of the referees. As for the Federal Bar Council, its powers are balanced, even though our group would have preferred a more restrictive system and wider decision-making powers. We hope, therefore, that the profession will take its future into its hands and accept the opinions given by this new body.

On the other hand, the Socialist Group considers it important that the mandates of representation at the European level and more specifically to the CCBE be conferred by the Federal Council. Belgium must speak with one voice, otherwise it would be forced. This is especially true since European organizations do not recognize regional entities and it is fundamentally essential that their voice be heard, due to the harmonisation process currently underway at European level.

We would also like to emphasize that we have defended the idea of harmonization and coordination of the various possible appeals against a settlement of the "Vereniging" and the "Conference". In fact, legal certainty must be guaranteed both for the justiciable and for the lawyers. Similarly, the existence of contradictory decisions on the same disputed settlement must be avoided. Therefore, the solution adopted by the Commission is satisfactory thanks to: 1. Suspending effect in case of appeal before the Court of Cassation. 2 of 2. A possibility for the "Vereniging" and the "Conference" to intervene voluntarily before the Court of Cassation to exhaust the grounds of appeal before this instance. 3 of 3. An appeal to the arbitral tribunal for excess power, illegality or irregular adoption in the sole hypothesis that no appeal has been exercised before the Court of Cassation.

Finally, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Commission for his commitment to this matter, his realism and tenacity.

Furthermore, we hope that the Attorney-General of the Court of Cassation will be aware of the most important mission he is assigned to.

Finally, we hope that lawyers will engage in good faith in these new structures.

If, for community or other reasons – the proposal could also be addressed to the whole European profession – Flemish or French-speaking lawyers are not able to enroll in a minimum structure of collaboration in the ethymological sense of the term, I do not care, in the short or medium term, the profession of lawyer in its specificities and privileges, in its role of auxiliary of justice and in its monopoly of plea. It is up to the lawyers and institutions that represent them to decide and choose between confinement and radiation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, in the intervention of Mr. Giet, it was cited that we may have had too little talk in the committee discussions about the right-wing and the justice. I have to contradict that somewhere. Per ⁇ this was not explicitly discussed, which I can follow. However, we have been constantly talking about subcutaneous. In a world that is becoming more and more globalized, with a justice that is becoming more and more international and more and more commercially approached - we are now coming to deontologically smooth ice - the legal profession will have to adapt to certain macro-economic data for a lot. We need to have a good and, therefore, fast justice. There, too, the lawyer has a role to play. If we want that legal profession, and the Belgian in particular, to survive there, then we will also have to deal with those macro-economic data and those market-conform data such as customer-friendliness and customer orientation. They have an important role to play anyway and that sometimes requires a quick adjustment of the regulations, something that we no longer succeeded in the national order. In this sense, I think we have been very concerned with the interests of justice and the legal subordinates.

I understand very well what Mr. Verherstraeten means and I repeat what I said at the end of my speech.

I think you are launching the debate about the future of the lawyer profession. If we really need to engage with the sole vision of the law profession as a profession that deals with commercial or macroeconomic issues, you no longer need an organized law profession. This is the whole problem of the future of the profession.

Everyone thinks about the future of the profession of lawyer, but I am not at all convinced that the direction taken by some will safeguard the profession of lawyer, quite the opposite if you want my opinion.

We are not going to engage today in the debate about the future of the lawyer profession with its peculiarities. If, for you, lawyer equals legal advice, we are obviously talking about two different things.

For a bit, I can get in those words. The lawyer will always remain the servant of the law. That will always remain our primordial mission, otherwise the legal profession no longer deserves its name and we can best become traders. I ⁇ do not advocate for such a legal profession, but on the other hand we cannot remain blind to certain social tendencies.

There is history. Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised by the Erdman II proposal, following the first proposal in which you sought to exercise balance and reach a compromise. Following the reactions, you came to the conclusion that this would not succeed. This resulted in the second proposal you submitted.

As far as my memory is still fresh, I remember that after a plenary session we were invited to a committee meeting where you interpreted this position. Well, Mr. Speaker of the Committee, that same evening, while I was driving home, I heard on the radio that the majority had reached an agreement on the proposal of which some essential provisions were repeated as contained in your second proposal. The next day, I read the same thing in the newspapers. This may be the result of the commission meeting.

This is not a reproach, but merely the conclusion that this document was adopted, despite the fact that you only signed it and only submitted it – and we knew it – after consultation within the majority. You have always suggested that an amendment, mostly of a legal-technical nature, was possible, but that the compromise within the womb of the majority had actually found its expression in your second proposal.

In all honesty, the proposal contains a lot of positive points. I have no objections to your authorship. As a young trainee, I learned part of the profession by listening to you in the courts of appeal, Mr. Chairman of the Committee. That will always mark our relationship. If this authority belongs to someone, then it is up to you. In this regard, intellectual honesty commands me to say that you assume the actual situation in 1997. One can assume that the Flemish Balais at that time wanted to adopt a different name in order to distance themselves a little from the Order as such, but that is not, in my opinion, the essence of the matter. You assumed autonomy with regard to the budget, to the operation and to the composition. I appreciate the binding force of your regulations and the fact that the local bars could only act in addition and were bound by the regulations approved by the Association and the Conference. Nor did we object to the principle of arbitration as such.

However, we did not agree with some provisions and I immediately informed you of these points. According to my interpretation, your compromise text leaned closer to the desiderata of the French-speaking than of the Dutch-speaking balies. More specifically, I pointed out that the arbitration college, in addition to the legislative control - 611 - also perceives for a part the control of opportunity, against which we still stand shy.

I am afraid that the amendments submitted will partially melt a lot of correctly formulated ambitions in your proposal. I have to admit that all the positive points I mentioned remain. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that the amendments submitted in final instances are more than clarification. You just took them.

Notwithstanding the requirement of a special majority within the Arbitration College, I note that by the permanent establishment of this college we deviate from the provisions of the Judicial Code concerning arbitration. I fear that this will have consequences. Your intentions were very noble. It is good that the report included that you explicitly requested that an ad hoc arbitration college would meet if a dispute arises. In addition, the chairman had to be a specialist in the dispute point to be dealt with. That was good.

By installing a general, permanent college now, I fear that we will get a suction effect. That is there anyway, so I think the threshold to catch it will occur faster. This creates a conflict model. The specialty that the President should have in your original proposal is no longer reflected in this proposal.

My headscarf that I already had ad finitio against the opportunity control of this Arbitration College has only become even more explicit. Article 611 does not pose any problem, but Article 456 of the Judicial Code and international standards also play a role. Based on which test do we have no higher standard? That arbitration board, although with a special majority, can only partly complete its own interpretation and rules of the game.

In that sense, these amendments are more than clarifications, because if they were more than clarifications, we would not have needed them.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Verherstraeten, I have never denied that with regard to the way the arbitration college is now conceived, a path has been paved against my first vision. Let us not discuss this. If one seeks consensus, one must possibly be willing to deviate from his own view.

Much more important is your sentence recording on the examination and the norm. I am formally in that.

Remember that lawyers have set themselves in front of convictions in order to continue to exercise the profession on the basis of the same standards that are now used as the basis of review in case of dispute between institutions. Today, even after this proposal, local orders are allowed to convict lawyers with a ban on the profession for harming the honor and dignity of the profession and the principles of Article 456, which is not further specified. I do not know how long Strasbourg will retain this definition. Is it then so unthinkable and unacceptable that above the special majority requirement, this is the test stone between the two institutions and that, after consultation, in full awareness of their mandate, the subject is submitted to the arbitral college? Is it so unacceptable to have the audit performed according to the same standards?

Mr. Speaker, some restraint is in place because the decisions of the arbitration board will be binding and can only be challenged on formal grounds.

This leads me to the explicit formal addition of "order" to the Federal Council with regard to international representation. In fact, this is a repeat of the Hermes Agreement on agriculture. I fear that such solutions will lead to Belgium having to play the fool of Portici at many international meetings because the north and the south do not have the same opinion. As a result, our voice will not be heard.

Of course, it is healthy that two separate institutions consult with each other. This is even indispensable. No one can blame the Christian Democrats for not being open to consultation, consensus and compromise. Sometimes we were even accused of this. However, a consensus should not be imposed. If the structure is organized in such a way that the consensus is imposed, the fear that the consensus will not be achieved grows. The amendment was therefore not an improvement to the original text.

Per ⁇ the mistrust that was present in the professional field is too institutionalized in this proposal. This is regrettable. As an opposition member, of course, I did not attend all informal conversations. However, I cannot get rid of the impression that the applicant of this proposal has received too little support from the other Flemish majority parties. This resulted in a compromise in which one party is satisfied and one party is less satisfied. The compromise is not ideal. That is a shame, and I blame some Flemish majority parties for that. Several Justice Ministers have made attempts. It was written in the stars that they would not succeed. I had hoped that the Minister would stop the crucial amendments, which have worsened Mr. Erdman’s proposal, so that the line of compromise would continue to be followed.

This proposal is in any case an improvement to the existing scheme and it gives both banks the opportunity to further expand the desired autonomy. I do not think that the deontological rules will grow far apart. If this is the case, then it will be so. In any case, the legal profession will be able to react faster to societal developments and that is something that the legal profession, the judicial world and the legal seekers have a need for.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to greet the colleagues of the Flemish Association of Balies. It appears to be a custom of corporate delegations to strictly respect the working hours and to leave the hall right at 5 p.m., after the speech of Mr. Bourgeois.

Mr. Speaker, in order to exclude any misunderstanding, I would like to emphasize that I do not speak on behalf of this organization. Mr Coveliers, I would like to point out that that same organization has already followed the discussions in the committee, even in the late hours. You cannot claim that they respect office hours because of their absence at this time. They have never done that in the past.

If all the members of the Chamber were present.

Mr. Laeremans, I understand that you feel attracted to defend these people, especially after the nighttime faxes I just made a fix. I found out that both colleagues left the hall at 5 p.m. 17:00 is usually the end of office hours and half an hour after the last magistrate has left the court.

This is not a boutade. I would like to congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on Justice for not responding to the repeated provocations of the opposition by which they wanted to make him say that he was the only good and the others of the majority were not. He did not do this. It is correct that the workpiece is largely due to him. However, in a very democratic way – which is always the case in the majority – he has taken into account the beliefs of all those who have contributed to the document. I would also like to thank both rapporteurs – I don’t always do this – for their brilliant reports.

We can go back to the introduction of the law of lawyers. The order is not so old. I suspect you were already a member of Parliament in 1967. You have collaborated on this. You do not have to be proud of this.

Which initiatives have I not participated in?

At that time I was a good student and I was taught by Professor Storme, who had not yet the texts, but only the preparation of Parliament. The Van Reephingen Report was the course on the Judicial Code. I know what happened before the establishment of the order. I remember the criticism of the arrondissemental order and the lack of cooperation, the us-know-ons principle in disciplinary matters. In 1970 the national order was introduced. The implementation was carried out in different ways in both regions. This may have been due to local situations that differed.

The legal profession has always held high at least the appearance that it was a professional group that was very concerned with its independence. Mr. Giet’s remarks in this regard were cognizant and put his finger on the wound. It all depends on the vision of the lawyer. More even, it depends on a specific group of that legal profession. A lawyer who merely deals with ⁇ ining commercial interests has different interests than the lawyer who is a criminal lawyer. This is very well evidenced by a number of feuilletons that emphasize this difference. The fact, however, is that these lawyers, in all their independence and after thirty years, have failed to build the national order established in 1967 with a lot of trumber-off, into a permanent and effective structure. The question is whether this was not worked in hand by the modified structures. Think of the system of pro deo that Van Reephingen did not even dare to think of at the time. Per ⁇ not the persons are the cause of the malfunction, but the structures.

I think – here I advocate for the clients of Mr. Laeremans – the establishment of an association of Flemish balais was a good thing, especially after the somewhat barbaric balais of Gent was moved to join, according to some forced, and after the same step was taken in Namur in Wallonia.

In fact, one could ask the two associations, which were founded in 1997, and which now send us so many nightly grievances — nothing is so bad as a nightly grievance, for then one must be able to rest or at least do something in that sense — why, though they have experienced a evolution of thirty years as a barley and could gain experience as a association and conference for three years, they have failed to find a solution for both together — for a group alone it is easy — to find a solution. Given that failure, I was indeed very upset – which is another euphemism – over the press release of the Association of Flemish Balies of 5 July 2000 in which it is claimed that the VLD is complicit in the community tender. Well, I say that the Association of Flemish Balies is complicit in the fact that for three years nothing was proposed meaningful. If the only result is a few foolish regulations, for which one is going to get points, then I also thank you for that. I do not accept the accusation and I would like to say that to the affected ladies and gentlemen.

That’s pretty on your sandwich, isn’t it, Mr. Coveliers?

Mr. Laeremans, I don’t have the habit of eating butter hammer at 17:15. I am not a corporate representative and work as it should.

I am not going back to the content of the proposals. I agree with the statements of Mr. Erdman and Mr. Giet and Mr. Herzet, who correctly expressed the views of the majority. It is the advantage of the last speaker that he or she does not have to talk about it, but can broaden the debate.

Well, we said almost two years ago that we want to govern our federal country for hopefully a four-year period as best as possible. If in a federal country one must find a regulation and establish norms, assuming that there must be norms – do not regret me, Mr. Speaker, that I will return to that later – which are equally applicable throughout the country – that is precisely the rule of law, democracy – then one must, after each has presented his vision, come to a solution. I have no problem in defending the elaborate compromise for Flanders, adding that if we could have done it alone, we would have done it differently. The claim that the Flemish lawyer would be degraded by this is larie and apekool and is not true. The Flemish lawyer has other problems. I am not surprised that the gentlemen Laeremans and Bourgeois develop this reasoning in their presentations, for one opts for separatism and the other also, though in covered terms. I am disappointed that the VVB defends the same vision, because not all lawyers, who pay their annual contribution to the VVB, agree with it. By the way, not all lawyers, who are members of the VVB through their local office, know what the VVB has advocated in this regard. No information meetings were held on this subject, nor were the local bars consulted on this subject. Only the 8 corporatist exempted in Koningsstraat have decided what the plea of the VVB would be, and that I blame them.

But I am willing to defend this text everywhere, including from the Flemish point of view.

In the defense of this text, the problem lies more in another aspect, namely when one would say that this text fundamentally regulates the concept of "Order" and then I mean an Order of free professions in a democratic society. That is not this text. He gives only a temporary solution to a problem that was primarily a problem of distribution of financial resources, let us be honest in that.

We must begin to think about what we mean by the concept of deontology, in the French deontology fundamental. We want to engage in a debate on this. So we want to say not only to the lawyers, but also to the doctors, the pharmacists, the architects, the accountants, the notaries, the court executors, let alone, what an Order or a Chamber can decide that is not in conflict with the law of competition. I would like to point out that a number of decisions have been made, including by a jurisdictional college in this country, which found that this cannot be done. I think of the prohibition of advertising, the honorary rates, some provisions of the Order of Architects.

For example, how can you motivate a consumer, which is a consumer of services in the jurisdiction, not to go to another service provider because the former has not been paid? This is essential in violation of competition law. I am aware that this is an interesting rule for lawyers, as they are thus certain or quasi certain of the collection of their honorary remuneration, but in fact this is not in accordance with competition law. If one explores this, one finds many elements that raise the question of whether this is still possible, whether this still belongs to deontology, or whether some provisions are essential for the fulfillment of the social function. For all these professions, some measures are essential, I will not discuss them, but a number of other rules serve merely and only the restriction of competition and they were drawn up by conservative or corporate groups.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, even taking into account all the sensitivities, I think that in the end there has been a text of which everyone - and I appreciate that also Mr. Verherstraeten has just done that - recognizes the value and which can be considered by everyone as a good basis for departure. I repeat, on the Flemish side, one initially wanted two fully autonomous Orders and an external autonomy, while the French speakers rather wanted an overarching structure, with decision-making power and a more limited autonomy.

What came out of the bus is a defensible compromise, in which everyone can more or less find themselves and that can offer a solution to the problem we have now faced. Is this the best structure? I don’t think it, as far as the best structure could exist. Is it a good structure? I don’t know, but I think, although the future will have to show it. Is the structure working? It seems to me ⁇ so, but it will of course depend on those who work with it.

I would like to say this to the representatives of the confraters lawyers. The ball is now back where it should have always been, namely on the field of the lawyers and on the field along both sides of the language border.

I think this text takes into account the fact that Justice is indeed a federal authority. This text offers the opportunity to develop the profession of lawyer on both sides of the language boundary in a modern, dynamic way in our modern rule of law.

I fear that, of course, there will be lawyers who will undoubtedly find ways to greatly hinder the functioning of both the association and the conference. Now, however, it is up to the ladies and gentlemen lawyers, in anticipation of a very restrictive legislation on the jurisdiction of the various orders, to make the decision to stop the backcoat battles and finally go to work.

For three reasons, I will be brief and concise. First, we can boast of an excellent report. Second, it should be emphasized that the matter concerns the discussion of bills, in other words, initiatives of the Parliament. This was a conscious choice of the government. Third, I think that a lot, if not all, that should be discussed in this debate has also been discussed.

Nevertheless, I would like to add something. Initially it was to be envisaged that at the establishment of the National Order, at the introduction of the new Judicial Code in 1967, a series of difficulties could arise from the difficult decision-making process, provided within the National Order and within the organs in order to move to a smooth decision-making. Maybe it was written in the stars. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the then Royal Commissioner, Mr Van Reepingen, as well as we, parliamentarians in the political world of today, assumed that the profession of lawyer was able to solve certain problems on its own.

The flow of difficulties reached its peak in 1997 with the staff holders of the Flemish Balies, with the exception of the staff holders of Gent. Mr. Van Parys would rather have asked how it would actually be with the staff holder of Gent. The General Council of the National Order was then blocked. A substantial gap in decision-making and the difficult decision-making process were at the root of the difficulties. Subsequently, without legal recognition, the Association of Flemish Balies and the Conférence des barreaux francophones et germanophones were established and the further functioning of the National Order was limited to the handling of the ongoing affairs.

Ever since I took office as Minister of Justice in the summer of 1999, I have worked through intense mediation efforts to bring the different views of the two associations closer together. I have always emphasized that a constructive solution for the restructuring of the National Order is only possible if the parties concerned reach a consensus. In the moment we chose the profession of lawyer, we learned that the essential characteristic of our profession is the prevention of a dispute. If this was not possible, we would at least learn to find a way out through reconciliation. It is therefore regrettable that a professional group that stands so strongly on its independence - which has been said several times today, some have even spoken of an appearance of independence - is not able to find a solution in itself.

In the hope that the richness of a parliamentary debate, abstraction from minority/majority opposition, would lead to a solution that would benefit from a support, as broad as possible, the choice of the government, not to submit a proposal in this or another way to the legislative chambers as part of the settlement of this problem, was also deliberated.

In this context, I would also like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Justice for the efforts he has made in the search for such a constructive solution. The proposal also provides for legal recognition of the "Vereniging van Vlaamse balies", on the one hand, and the Conference of French and German-speaking bars, on the other. A federal bar council is created to enable concertation between the two institutions. Disputes relating to matters relating to the bar may be submitted to an arbitral college. by

Finally, I dare to express my hope that these new instruments will be used by both institutions to ⁇ a content decision-making process in a constructive atmosphere and in mutual loyalty, which we have lacked since 1997.

As soon as the provisions of this proposal become definitive, I will of course make the necessary adjustments to allow for a smooth subsidisation of first and second line aid. I think I will immediately help solve the most important problem that was on the table.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.