Proposition 50K1135

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 4, 8, 9, 12 et 13 de la loi du 27 décembre 1994 portant assentiment de l'accord relatif à la perception d'un droit d'usage pour l'utilisation de certaines routes par des véhicules utilitaires lourds, signé à Bruxelles le 9 février 1994, entre les gouvernements de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, du Royaume de Belgique, du Royaume du Danemark, du Grand Duché de Luxembourg et du Royaume des Pays Bas et instaurant une eurovignette, conformément à la directive 93/89/CEE du Conseil des Communautés européennes du 25 octobre 1993.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

March 8, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive cross-border cooperation international agreement toll

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

I refer to the written report.

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?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill that is proposed for vote this afternoon aims to concrete the agreement concluded between the government and road carriers on 14 September 2000. It is about bringing the rules for the application of the traffic tax and the Eurovignette closer.

The draft law implements the following four principles.

1 of 1. The suppression of the presumption of taxable use related to registration. The Eurovignette will no longer be due from registration but from the first day of effective traffic on the public road.

2 of 2. The possibility of fractional payment of the eurovignette without additional cost. At his request, the debtor can pay in four times and free of charge.

3 of 3. The possibility for the debtor to request the partial refund of the Eurovignette in the event of temporary non-use of the vehicle. There is a maximum refund of two months for the Eurovignette. The maximum budget impact, which corresponds to a two-month refund to all users, is 536 million.

4 of 4. The degree of the administrative fine in case of infringement of the provisions relating to the eurovignette.

This bill provides for a number of amendments and refinements to the Act of 27 December 1994. The changes are defensive, but it is clearly a semi-fortunate solution. One dissolves a certain suction of the sector and at the same time creates another. We regret that the majority did not take advantage of this opportunity to address a number of other hot hangers. For example, a number of exemptions, which have already been provided, can easily be extended, as is the case with our neighbors. I am referring to goods transport vehicles used by agricultural, horticultural, forestry or fishing undertakings for trips within a radius of 50 kilometers from the vehicle’s usual station, including the territory of the municipalities whose core is located within this radius. That is an old very, a proposal that is still defended by the CVP.

The next point is, in my opinion, the most important. This could also apply to vehicles used for the transport of goods and the mobile tools used for the handling and transport of goods within the port areas. This was a proposal from the VLD in the previous legislature, which was defended with very much verve by Mr. Van Aperen. This proposal is actually identical. Therefore, I do not understand why the VLD dismisses its suspicion of the previous legislature in the file of the eurovignet.

On 3 March 1995, even before the precise implementation decisions of the legislation appeared on the eurovignette, the then competent minister was contacted to draw his attention to the specific nature of traffic within the port zone. It called for an exemption from the eurovignette for port vehicles that restricted themselves to transfers within the port. As a result of the decision of the Municipal Council of Antwerp, last amended in September 1992, an additional regulation concerning traffic within the port is in force in Antwerp. This Regulation applies to port vehicles which meet certain criteria and which are used exclusively for traffic between loading and unloading points, such as forklift trucks, within the port area defined in the text. This is a very clearly defined area. These exceptional measures are attributed to the fact that this is much more about tools than vehicles that move something, and that never leave the port area and are used exclusively for the transport of goods from one place in the port to another. Therefore, these roads never use the rest of the country’s road network. Any additional costs imposed on it would seriously impair the competitive position of the port of Antwerp.

The answer to this question was also negative in the previous legislature and came to the conclusion that tax is due once the vehicle is registered with the Directorate for the Registration of Vehicles. Even occasional transportation could not be exempted.

In conclusion, we addressed our request to the Flemish Government, which in turn contacted the federal government and informed us on 29 January 1997 that the exemption we requested could be obtained. However, a circular letter from the administration would indicate that these vehicles are considered to be passenger vehicles outside the scope of the eurovignette.

However, a closer examination shows that this only applies if those port vehicles are not used for the transport of goods. Then we go back to where we started.

Thus, that letter of conversion offered little news. In addition, the situation has remained unchanged so far. Port vehicles are subject to the Eurovignette.

In itself, this would not be so bad if there were no exceptions to our major competitors in this area. This is the port of Rotterdam. In the Netherlands, and also in Germany, this exception is provided. It does not seem to us more than normal for our federal policymaker, Minister Reynders, to abandon that rigid dogma.

We have calculated that the port company of Antwerp pays an additional cost per port vehicle annually from 30,000 to 50,000 BEF. It is understandable that this measure is detrimental to our own industry, in particular to the Antwerp industry. The draft law should therefore be used to also amend Article 5 of the law on the eurovignettes in order to extend the categories of vehicles exempt from the vignette. My amendment in this regard provides for that exception. If my amendment is not approved, I must conclude that the VLD is shooting down its own child.

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?

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.

I confirm the discussion and conclusions in the committee.