Proposition 50K1071

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en vue de supprimer la répartition en classes des justices de paix et d'adapter le traitement de certains greffiers en chef et secrétaires en chef de parquets.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Jan. 29, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

pay judicial power

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 ¶

March 22, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill I propose you to approve aims to remedy an injustice resulting from certain provisions of the law of 29 April 1999 on the monetary career of magistrates. This law has assimilated the heads of bodies of the courts of first instance whose jurisdiction has 250,000 inhabitants, to those of the courts of first instance whose jurisdiction has 500,000 inhabitants. This law concerned only the magistrates, so that the monetary career of the secretaries and secretaries, which was, until then, aligned with that of the magistrates, was dissociated from it. Therefore, the criterion of first or second-class courts has continued to be used to determine the treatment of these members of the judicial order. The bill proposes the abolition of this system.

During the general discussion, Mr. Van Parys supported the objective of this bill and proposed to take advantage of this discussion to remove another inequality. Currently, only the presidents of the courts located in the major districts can appoint a secretary to assist them as secretary of cabinet. by Mr. Van Parys therefore submitted an amendment aiming to also grant a cabinet secretary to the presidents of courts located in mid-range districts. During the general discussion, Mr. Thierry Giet referred to the bill he submitted to abolish the distribution of classes of peacekeepers.

The Minister of Justice submitted an amendment that took into account the suggestion made by Mr. Van Parys and who went even beyond, since this amendment also allowed the heads of bodies of the prosecutors to designate a cabinet secretary. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

In addition, colleagues Tony Van Parys and Servais Verherstraeten submitted an amendment aimed at reducing the differences existing in terms of monetary careers between the chief secretaries of the first-class cantonal peace courts and those of the second-class cantonal peace courts. The Minister of Justice replied that the distinction still applicable to the chief secretaries of the peacekeepers in matters of treatment will in principle disappear on 1 September 2001 when the law of 25 March 1999 on the reform of the judicial cantons comes into force. The entire draft law, as amended, was adopted by the committee with 9 votes and 5 abstentions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mrs. Barzin for her excellent report. The problem that we have addressed in the committee, she has identified very precisely. We have submitted our two amendments. Our amendments aim to equalize the main graffiti of the first and second-class peacekeeping courts on a monetary level. I think there is no discussion about this.

The Minister of Justice has said in the committee that this will no longer be a problem from September as the distinction between first and second class is eliminated thanks to the law of 25 March 1999. At a closer look, however, this does not appear to be correct. Following the law of 25 March 1999, 31 cantons of first class remained. These are cantons with a population of less than 50,000.

Our amendment is therefore indeed necessary to eliminate the discrimination in the monetary status of the chief greffers of first and second-class peacekeepers. There are therefore two possibilities. Either our amendment is approved, or it is reviewed again in the committee. We will then be able to prove that the law of 25 March 1999 did not solve the problem. This statement was, however, defended by the minister, but it appears to be incorrect by closer examination.

Since there is no discussion about the substance of the case – there should be no distinction between the secretaries of first and second-class peace courts – there is no discussion, I would like to ask the majority to approve this amendment. Otherwise, I would like to ask the chairman of the committee to put this point on the agenda of the committee next week.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask that this bill be returned to the Justice Committee. That way, this issue can be re-treated next week Tuesday.

This bill will be returned to the Justice Committee. Mr. Erdman, this bill will be returned to your committee before it comes here again. It is better to prevent than to cure.

This bill aims to increase the treatment supplement for specialized tax substitutes. This financial incentive is necessary in order to attract enough candidates to occupy these functions and to ensure that they remain in service. The difference between the remuneration of these specialized magistrates and that of private workers, having received the same training and possessing the same knowledge, remains in fact considerable.

During the general discussion in the Commission, Mr. Fred Erdman asked whether the Minister could not take advantage of the opportunity to also grant a treatment supplement for bilingualism, question to which the Minister of Justice replied that a bill concerning the granting of a bilingualism premium had been submitted to the Council of Ministers and that the said bill would be finalised within the framework of the overall settlement of the Brussels problem.

Regarding the discussion of articles and votes, the government has submitted an amendment to change the system applied so far for the award of premiums for night or weekend benefits. Under that system, the premium was granted as soon as the magistrate assumed eighteen night or weekend benefits, which was unfair in so far as the magistrate who assumed seventeen such benefits was in principle not entitled to such a premium, whereas the magistrate who assumed, in the course of the same year, only one more than the latter was entitled to the whole of the premium. Therefore, the government proposed that in the future, each benefit be remunerated and that the amount allocated per benefit be increased. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

In addition, the Minister of Justice submitted another amendment aimed at adjusting the amounts of the premiums granted in view of the introduction of the euro on 1 January 2002. The bill was unanimously adopted by the Justice Committee.

May 3, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As a rapporteur, I refer to my written report. On behalf of my group, I would like to ask Minister Reynders a concrete question. During the first meiveries, a number of socialist leaders have explicitly pledged for a rapid abolition of the system of the shares of toonder, this in the context of the fight against tax fraud. I heard during the committee discussions on the draft on the dematerialization of state loans that Minister Reynders is opposed to that abolition. Could the Minister confirm this?

I refer to the written report.

As a rapporteur, I refer to my written report. I would like to ask a concrete question to Minister Reynders on behalf of my group. On the occasion of the 1st of May celebrations, socialist tenors explicitly advocated the rapid abolition of the securities system as part of the fight against tax fraud. I learned during the discussions in the committee concerning the project of dematerialization of state loans that Minister Reynders is opposed to this removal. Can the Minister confirm this?

I confirm the discussion and conclusions in the committee.