Proposition 50K1379

Projet de loi relatif au dédommagement des membres de la Communauté juive de Belgique pour les biens dont ils ont été spoliés ou qu'ils ont délaissés pendant la guerre 1940-1945.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Aug. 3, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

war war victim damages

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Bart Laeremans (VB) 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 ¶

Nov. 13, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Nov. 22, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, with this draft law, the line set by the decision of 1997 approved by almost all parties in the hemisphere is followed. I am talking about the establishment of the study committee concerning the fate of the property of the members of the Jewish community, the so-called Buysse committee. He delivered a very subtle and strange report.

On the basis of the findings of that committee, the government has examined how it can handle legal restructuring in concrete files indicated by the committee. In response to the State Council’s comments on possible discrimination against other population groups, it has in the first place also studied other population groups. She also set up a committee to answer the individual questions.

I will not describe the whole process. In short, the committee will not be part of the judiciary. This is at least the conclusion of the Chairman of the Committee on Justice from the fact that the bill refers to Article 78 of the Constitution, which indicates that it is an optional bicameral text, and not to Article 77, which would have made the text compulsory bicameral. The representative of the Prime Minister has explicitly confirmed that whatever the content of the decision of the committee — not regarding the amounts — it is possible to appeal to the Council of State.

The draft also provides for the establishment of an institution of public benefit, whose social, religious and cultural purposes meet the needs of the Jewish community of Belgium. It is that institution that will receive the balance of the amounts. In this regard, Mr. Laeremans noted in the course of the debate — he will undoubtedly repeat that criticism later — that the institution is beginning to resemble too much the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for the Fight against Racism. He said literally, “These assignments are reminiscent of those of the Centre for Equal Opportunities and for Anti-Racism...” That’s why he can’t stand behind them.

The Commission will therefore have to grant the individual compensation. For these compensations, it can draw from funds brought together by the State, the banking sector and the insurance sector. A protocol must be concluded. That is why the text was sent back to the committee last week. Following a government amendment, the text had to stipulate that the protocol should be concluded within three months. That protocol shall also contain the coefficients applied in order to know the current amounts of the amounts to be allocated. If the protocol is not concluded within three months, the King shall, by means of a royal decree consulted in the Council of Ministers, determine the coefficients and provisions.

The procedure for that committee is relatively simple. Applications must be made within the year by the injured person himself or by a descendant up to the third degree, both in direct descent and in lateral line. These latter persons may be closer to the originally injured than the persons in the straight downline.

Since the procedure is not carried out through a court, the determination of the damage can therefore be difficult to prove. Therefore, the committee, composed of officials or former officials, should determine what compensation will be paid. The payment of compensation is liberating, which means that the suffered damage has been definitively reimbursed.

The text was initially unanimously adopted. On some technical aspects, which may soon be repeated in the discussion, some discussions have taken place. However, nobody fundamentally disagreed with the text. The supplementary text was adopted with one abstinence. This abstinence may soon be justified.

Mr. Speaker, the VLD group is pleased that the work that began in 1997, so very late after the end of the Second World War, can finally be completed. The property that has been taken from some citizens in a completely unfair manner can now be returned, if possible in nature, but usually through a fee. That compensation shall be determined in the most accurate manner possible. Thus, we take a step towards a just recovery for those who were unjustly deprived of their assets during World War II. The VLD group will, of course, approve this text.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for the original report and the supplements. It is important to distinguish those two, because during the discussion very many points were clarified, clarified and clarified. Parliamentary work will ⁇ serve as a guide for the future committee when evaluating certain dossiers.

I think it is appropriate to pay tribute to the initiative taken at the time to establish the Buysse committee and in particular to the work done by this committee. Based on the efforts of the many experts who have worked on this, it can now be built further. I have already had the opportunity in the committee to express my regret for the fact that not necessarily all those who have accumulated a very large expertise in the committeeBuysse have been incorporated into the framework provided for the future committee. It is not my intention to recapture all the discussions that were discussed in the committee. I would like to address only two points which, in my opinion, still need some clarification. This discussion will also contribute to the evaluation by the future committee. First, I think that at the time when the Government explained the method of negotiation in a supplementary amendment, it was clear that it would also be necessary to talk about the different coefficients to be applied to the amounts granted by the Buysse committee. It is clear that in relation to these coefficients one cannot go lower than the suggestions that were made at the time. That is also not the intention of anyone. Some now insist that this is considered a minimum coefficient. This seems to me to be obvious if the negotiations are conducted by all stakeholders.

The second point I would like to point out is more important. Already during the treatment, there was the possibility of granting flat-rate fees without the possibility of specifically and individually situating certain goods. The Minister has said, as correctly illustrated in Mr Coveliers’ supplementary report, that the interpretation of Article 6 should be sought because it clearly states what is meant by “robbed goods”. In the 1° it is said that it is the goods that have not been returned and have not been reimbursed. In addition, these are goods identified in the report of the study committee. There is no uncertainty about this. But now it comes — I quote: “...or those are identified in the context of the examination of the application by the committee”. You remember I asked in the committee what happens if someone is not in power to actually present those evidence. I have urged — in response to the question of Mrs. Genot — that the committee will then have to judge humanly that there has indeed been plundering without being able to specify specific goods. Then, of course, one comes to a kind of flat-rate budget of what these people were deprived of. I hope that this point has been clarified because in the future there will be a need for clarity on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, my group will fully join the draft as it presents in the hope that recovery can be assured as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat that a broad unanimity emerged from all democratic groups to welcome this project, to congratulate the Buysse study committee for the work it has accomplished and to call for action as soon as possible, because survivors disappear every day.

We were also very pleased that the way the amount was to be negotiated could be clarified in commission. Indeed, the impression was that the State would bear the majority of the deductions while some sectors were considering negotiating in the most advantageous way for them.

I have full confidence in the Jewish community that must be able, as in neighboring countries, to negotiate directly with the relevant actors, the state, banks and insurance. Within the time frame, a balanced solution is likely to be reached. It is now clear to all that all the spoiled goods identified by the Buysse commission are concerned, including the looting of goods, whether it is furniture, dishes, clothes, etc. The administrative commission will judge at best the amount necessary to compensate for this type of property.

The descendants up to the third degree will be able to file a complaint. If we can be congratulated, we can also fear that this will lead to complications and delays in the work of the commission. I hope that this will not be the case.

Another regret: we let the Buysse Commission die, we let part of the archives disperse and the experts go back to other work. I hope that the Administrative Commission will do its best to be able to work with the experts if they still wish to do so and that efforts will be made to assign the most competent officials to this Administrative Commission.

Another problem is the right of initiative. A number of goods have been identified as well as the people to whom they could be returned. The Commission will not have the right of initiative, but it is understood that the difficulty in this matter could not be easily overcome.

In addition, when goods are in disheritance, they return to the State. The latter made a strong gesture by announcing that the balance of the amount inherent in this operation will be allocated to a foundation. Within this foundation, the Jewish community should be represented in all its facets and therefore both religious and secular or cultural. Furthermore, it might be appropriate that independent and unusual personalities of the associations can put their experience at the service of this foundation.

In addition, Minister Verwilghen expressed his astonishment over the possible need for the State to recognize the role of some of its organs during the war. I hope that, since then, he has had time to reflect on the issue and that this issue will be the subject of further discussions.

An excellent report was drawn up with regard to the property looted to the Gypsy community. Various work has already been carried out in collaboration with the latter. It seems that an agreement could be reached fairly quickly. I take the opportunity to ask Mr. Deleuze and his colleagues to quickly handle this case for the benefit of the Gypsy community and to inform us of the deadlines.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, on behalf of the Flemish Blok Group, I support the starting point of this bill, namely the direct compensation to the Jewish victims, which, after all, constitutes a legitimate restitution of important funds. The first personal consideration I would like to link to this is that all this, fifty-six years after the end of the Second World War, comes abundantly late. It is truly incomprehensible that this work was not done twenty, thirty, or forty years earlier.

In addition, I would like to note that your servant, as the only one, had noticed a very large gap in this bill, and I quote from the original excellent report of colleague Coveliers: "In terms of financing, the bill does not provide the possibility to determine the amount of the amounts to be paid, nor the criteria for the distribution of those amounts between the State, the banks and the insurance companies". In other words, this design created no decision-making mechanism at all that would determine how the fund would be concretely founded and that was, of course, a very essential part of the story. My concern was removed; it was all stated in the report, the chairman of the committee claimed in his narrower style appropriate to our party. The Flemish Block has, according to some, almost per definition wrong here, so our comments should not be paid attention. At the foot of socks, the majority had to come back to it, because I would have put my finger on the wound.

The draft law was removed from the plenary agenda fourteen days ago, precisely in order to incorporate amendments of the Government with the intention, first, to fix the amounts and the actualization coefficients and, secondly, to determine the manner in which the distribution would be determined, more specifically by the contribution of the signatories of the protocol and in the absence thereof by the head of state. This, of course, gives us a lot of satisfaction. The Flemish Bloc was right again.

However, I remain with a few concerns regarding the unilateral nature by which the Minister could determine these amounts and the quasi impossibility of subsequently challenging this. The committee discussions clearly showed that in the Council of State the amount of the amounts could not be disputed. Any disputes can only relate to administrative errors and I see the person who said it here knocking again. In my opinion, in a rule of law, it could have been better to provide for a specific appeal body.

Finally, we continue to emphasize that Article 14 of the draft manifesto goes too far. This article aims to transfer the balance of the funds to a new, yet to be established foundation that at first sight has a number of very noble purposes. It should be responsible for the tasks of a social, cultural and religious nature. So far no problem, but now it comes: these assignments can also cover the fight against racism, intolerance and human rights violations. In itself, these seem to be noble goals again, and I would like to emphasize that, of course. However, if we find out how the terms anti-racism and intolerance have been misused in recent years for terrible party-political purposes, then I hold my heart. After all, in the name of anti-racism, the Centre of Father Leman was created, which has begun to present itself as a dangerous Big Brother, an antidemocratic dress, which is primarily aimed at eliminating the Flemish-national mindset and above all a certain political party and to permanently restrict the right to free expression – including a human right – forever.

We do not know who will sit in this new foundation, how many tens of millions this foundation will manage, and what direction it will take, but I dare to hope that it will not be seduced to the same awful party-political games, because if this was done in the name of the victims of the Holocaust, it would lead to an incredible banalization of the Holocaust, and this can never be the intention. To warn you, I will abstain from voting.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, Dear colleagues, I speak on behalf of the PRL-FDF-MCC group on this bill aimed at compensating members of the Jewish community of Belgium for the property of which they were spoiled or abandoned during the period of the Second World War. This bill follows the report of the Buysse commission, which was published in July of this year.

Similar research has been undertaken in other countries, such as France, but has not reached such a degree of completeness. However, it should not be forgotten that Belgium accused of a certain delay in this matter. We want to emphasize the tenacity of the Prime Minister who has been able to give the decisive impulses for this project to succeed. The logical follow-up of this historical work was to result in the establishment of a compensation commission. This approach has enabled a consensus on a sum that will serve, on the one hand, to respond to requests based on tangible proof of ownership and, on the other hand, to provide support to social, cultural and religious actions of the Jewish community of Belgium.

We can only congratulate the agreement that has been reached, which is the result of numerous contacts between the government and Jewish organizations, the banking world and the insurance world. We now encourage the Minister of Finance to carry out the negotiations to conclude the financial protocol in order to respond to requests that will be made over the next four years and by family members up to the third degree.

We hope that the three-month deadline that has been set for the conclusion of these protocols will be sufficient to carry out these discussions in a constructive spirit. Dear colleagues, I would like to conclude by pointing out the fact that, if we speak today of compensation or repair, we must never lose sight of the origin of this situation, that is, the personal journey of many individuals who have experienced a human tragedy during the darkest pages of the twentieth century. Belgium had to recognize a gap. It was important to do this for the indispensable memory work.

The institutions of our country, parliaments and governments, have done their duty and I will not be surprised to tell you that the PRL-FDF-MCC group will support this bill.