Proposition 50K1459

Projet de loi remplaçant l'article 43quinquies et insérant l'article 66 dans la loi du 15 juin 1935 concernant l'emploi des langues en matière judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 19, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

legal profession judicial power use of languages

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Goutry (CD&V) 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 ¶

June 13, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, it is important, I think, to show by my intervention on behalf of Ecolo and Agalev that a common analysis and approach to this matter is possible. Indeed, the most important thing is to provide answers to the prosecutors suffering from a judicial delay that has accumulated for many years.

The problem of judicial retardation is already old. The lack of solutions has caused an amplification justifying the measures to be taken today. Many prosecutors have been waiting for more than ten years for their dispute to be settled. For them, the current situation resembles a denial of justice. by

However, through several investigations, we know that knowing that injuries committed against people are not prosecuted and are not treated essentially contributes to the feeling of insecurity. For those concerned with improving security, it is important to be able to respond to those people who are waiting to be interested in their fate.

Due to the linguistic sharing, in the Brussels region, Dutch-speaking chambers are less affected by judicial backwardness than French-speaking and bilingual chambers. However, they are far from being saved.

This abnormal time limit for judgment of cases submitted to courts and courts constitutes a serious infringement on the fundamental rights of the prosecutors. Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states that everyone has the right to express his cause fairly, publicly and within a reasonable time.

Thus, in November 2001, the Brussels Court of First Instance declared, through three judgments, that the responsibility of the Belgian State, in the judicial backdrop, was established. This opened up a right for victims of the backward to compensation from public authorities. In addition, this situation seriously damages the image of justice and, therefore, the confidence of the population in this institution, which is, however, one of the main guarantees of social peace.

It appears, through the studies that we have been able to consult and through the hearings, that the main cause of judicial retardation results from a lack of magistrates from both the seat and the public prosecution. This was confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Delay in Brussels and also by the audit of the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office carried out in May 2001 at the request of the Minister of Justice.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, I recall that for the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office, the framework is provided for only 70%.

I would like to recall that in order to effectively address the problem of judicial delay, an agreement was reached at the Council of Ministers of 17 March 2000 — thus already two years ago — and it was subsequently confirmed in the so-called Lombard Agreements. It included four inseparable measures providing a comprehensive and balanced solution capable of meeting the legitimate expectations of each party. These four measures were as follows:

1 of 1. Increase the number of Dutch-speaking referendums in the Court of Cassation. 2nd Create a Hal-Vilvoorde unilingual section at the Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office. 3 of 3. Re-depose the bill doubling the number of supplementary judges for the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal. 4 of 4. Divide the language examination requirements into two levels of knowledge.

Of these four measures, only the first two have been implemented so far. It turns out that these are the most favourable measures for Dutch speakers. However, it was with enthusiasm that we voted in favour of the four measures.

It is time now that the two orphan measures, which we are dealing with today, are also implemented. This implementation is important not only for the French-speaking justiciable but also for the entire population of this country.

These two projects are complementary. In fact, the first concerns the use of languages in judicial matters. It provides an element of structural solution to the problem of judicial backwardness. It must also allow to complement the largely incomplete framework of the judiciary by means of a reasonable adaptation of the law. However, this framework has been left so long incomplete that judicial backwardness has reached truly catastrophic proportions. It is therefore important to supplement it by means of a transitional measure that will not allow the current situation to persist. This is the subject of the second bill as it aims to increase the number of supplementary magistrates in Brussels. This will be a conjunctual measure. by

In order for it to play effectively, it should be ⁇ ined until the return to reasonably short fixing deadlines. by

The duration of validity of this latter measure should therefore not be arbitrarily determined. It will only cease to be justified when the persons within the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal will again see their disputes heard within a reasonable timeframe and in accordance with their rights. Each of us hopes that this timeframe is as short as possible.

It can therefore be referred to the terms of the current article 86bis of the Judicial Code, which provides that it is the necessities of the service that justify the designation, always temporary, by the King of a complementary judge. The same provision carefully specifies the manner of assessment of these service needs. Consequently, the appointment of supplementary judges will cease when the needs of the service no longer justify their appointment to any position.

Regarding the project on the use of languages in judicial matters, it appears that the main cause of the failure to complete the framework of magistrates is to be found in the difficulty of examinations. Many have said this today, so I will not develop this point. I will simply recall what my colleagues have already rightly expressed, namely that in 2001 both French- and Dutch-speaking candidates experienced great difficulties and that only a small number of them passed the examinations. This situation does not differ so much from that of previous years.

Of course, there can be questions about the quality of language teaching for these candidate magistrates. Within our communities and our academic institutions, an improvement may be necessary because we are sensitive to the interest that exists in knowing the language of our neighbor. But today, the problem we are facing is the situation of the justiciable who suffer from this judicial backwardness. In view of the results, we cannot speak of the bad will of the candidates. The community quarrels that try to resolve around this issue are not specific to the problem that concerns us.

The project will allow to distinguish two levels of linguistic competence. In the audit report I mentioned, the Supreme Council of Justice emphasizes that the legislation on the use of languages does not take into account the requirements specific to the various functions exercised by the various subconjuntes of magistrates. The same expectations are expressed towards all judges and all tasks.

The requirement of an advanced bilingualism for both understanding and written expression and oral exchanges is, in reality, unrelated to the necessities of the essential part of the functions that are assigned to magistrates. Indeed, the principle of unilingual procedure has the effect that unilingual chambers must deliver judgments and other procedural acts only in one language. It is true, however, that the person who appears in person before a court enjoys the constitutional right to express himself and to submit documents drawn up in his own language.

Regularly, cases also contain documents written in the other language, but this does not imply that judges must demonstrate a particular mastery of writing skills in that other language, nor that their oral skills, both active and passive, must be those of a high-level bilingual. For the practice of the majority of magistrates, the requirement for bilingualism as it exists today is therefore excessive. by

Some functions that are too diverse for me to stand here, on the other hand, continue to require an advanced knowledge of both languages, including the ability to produce procedural acts in the language other than that of his diploma. It is therefore reasonable, as does the first bill submitted to our vote today, to distinguish two levels of language skills requirement.

The project intends to effectively use the skills of SELOR to evaluate these language abilities and it is hoped, through this body and through a requirement for skills more adapted to the reality, that these procedures will gain in efficiency and impartiality.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that we believe that the principles underlying the current language legislation are not affected by the amendments proposed at the vote. These principles are the constitutional right of the justiciable to express himself in his own language, the constitutional bilingualism of the Brussels Region, the general principle of linguistic laws according to which, except for exceptions, each judge makes justice in the language of his diploma and the rule of judicial organization of the unilingualism of the procedure. The proposed law is therefore in no way a revolution in relation to the current philosophy of linguistic laws.

As for the fundamental right to be judged within a reasonable time, a right that has been seriously damaged in Belgium in recent years, we believe that it will be better respected and this in the benefit of the justiciables, both Dutch-speaking and French-speaking.

These two projects will not be enough to remove the judicial backwardness in all its demonstrations. It is also well known that judicial backwardness is not the only challenge the judicial apparatus will have to face. Nevertheless, we consider them reasonable, balanced and timely, and we believe that they will address a considerable pan of the back problem. We will support and, of course, we will vote for these projects out of respect for those prosecutors whose fundamental rights of access to justice have been violated.

First, I would like to congratulate Mr Bourgeois on his complete and correct report. Next, I will look at the two bills and, first, the bill on the use of languages in court proceedings. Subsequently, I will discuss the second draft in particular on the added judges.

Colleagues, the first draft, which we are discussing today, essentially aims to align the examinations on the use of languages in court proceedings with the functional needs of legal practice. With the introduction of the territoriality principle in the judiciary, the Law of 1935 on the Use of Languages in Judicial Proceedings organizes language exams at two levels. As an exception to the principle that a judge speaks law in the language of his training, an examination provided a thorough knowledge of the other language, in order to be able to function as a judge in a language other than that of his diploma. A second lower level was introduced for the purposes of mixed-language procedures, where only sufficient knowledge was sought.

That system, which lasted until 1970, was substantially amended by the Act of 1967, which introduced the new Judicial Code. In general, the use of languages in court proceedings has been governed as follows since the introduction of the New Judicial Code. The master’s knowledge of the language is demonstrated by a diploma proving that the doctorate — now understood as a bachelor — was completed in that language. That fundamental rule is based on the consideration that judicial proceedings require a thorough knowledge of the language of law and that that knowledge is in the interest of all applicants, both Dutch speakers and French speakers.

The abrogated two-level language examination has been replaced by a new test on the mere knowledge of the other language with the new and sole purpose that the judge should be able to hear witnesses speaking the other language and understand documents submitted in the other language during the course of the proceedings, which are always conducted in one language. This is not only in the interest of the applicants. Translators or interpreters do not need to be involved, nor should reference be made to other courts, which avoids delays. After all, anyone who would appear as a party before a judge who should only be able to conduct a conversation on a topic of daily life would be deprived of a fair treatment of his case.

The basic rule of unanimity of proceedings, coupled with the rule that magistrates hear exclusively in the language of their diploma, has resulted in the abolition in Brussels courts of bilingual chambers, i.e. chambers in which judges hear in one language and then in the other.

The correct range of those few basic power lines is sometimes placed by some, unfortunately, in the wrong perspective. This is how it goes with the design. Previously, it was not even forgotten to awaken the minds by referring to the actual lag in the jurisdiction. In this regard, the Minister has rightly demonstrated that the two matters cannot be directly linked.

The core of the problem – and this has been shown in detail today – is that in the judicial district of Brussels, the staff formations are not fully filled today. I will return to this in detail later. Particularly in the case of Brussels, it should therefore be reiterated that the draft law does not prejudice the principle that a judge may only hear in the language of his doctorate or licensure. That is of course elementary.

The concern that the present draft aims to address is to overcome the shortage of judges with a certificate of second language proficiency. This aim can be achieved by providing for a better system for the language examination. The design responds to this by offering candidates the opportunity to prepare for the exam by improving their knowledge of the programme and by aligning the required knowledge with the needs of the position. That assignment will be carried out by the Selor selection agency of the federal government, which is not only characterized by its independence, but also because it already has extensive experience in developing and taking tailored language tests.

We will approve the first draft.

That brings me to the second draft, in particular with regard to the additional judges.

The purpose of this draft is to effectively address the judicial lag in the courts of first instance and the public prosecutor’s office of Brussels. As for the judges, the occupation rate is currently 78%, for the substitutes it is 68%. If you add the additions within the frame, you have 1 too little. Let us not call each other a liar. The additional judges intend to add them to the framework. If one fits the added judges into the framework and assumes that one is out of trouble in this way, one makes a mistake. The intention is to complete the framework and add a few more people to it, precisely in order to work out the lag. The framework remains what it is. An adjunct judge has its statute, is added and must first ensure that this gap is addressed. Mr. Laeremans, you and Mr. Bourgeois make a deliberate mistake.

Mr. Goris, you argue that an added judge is only added to work out the downside. Why do you do this on a permanent basis? The added judges are appointed for life. There is no time limit and no certainty that the next Minister of Justice, who can be as much a French speaker as a Dutch speaker, will not simply continue to maintain the added judges and repeatedly fill new vacancies.

Mr Laeremans, you know that the added judges have a temporary character. We all hope that we will not need these added judges forever. However, there is the backwardness. We are counting on the surplus that those temporary added judges can make in order to remove the downturn. Their

The framework is the framework. It is challenging to include in the framework the additional judges who operate today in Brussels and to say that in this way the framework is almost completed. That is a thinking mistake.

Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. In practice, the added judges are effectively deployed in vacancies. In practice, the framework is fulfilled. In addition, the majority would like to appoint a number of judges. These can be discussed on condition that they meet the language requirement. Their

At the moment, all the places are filled. It is not true that the rooms in Brussels do not function. All rooms are functioning.

Mr. Laeremans, we clearly do not agree. Hopefully the Minister will clarify this.

The main reason why this bill was submitted is the language problem that constitutes an obstacle to the full completion of the staff formation. We note that many candidates do not survive the language exam. The result is a lack of bilingual magistrates in office. It is correct that structural solutions must be sought. The VLD will not escape this debate. At the moment, however, we are dealing with acute problems that require emergency solutions. Therefore, the government proposes a solution. It goes back to the Added Judges Act of 1998, which we discussed in 1997. At that time, together with Mr. Erdman and Mr. Coveliers, I was a member of the Senate Committee on Justice. It is correct that it is a bill proposed by Mr. Vandeurzen, which was strongly defended by then Minister of Justice De Clerck. The bill could count on almost general approval because it provided for the pooling of the “flying” judges who were permanently appointed but did not have a permanent location and were deployable everywhere. In 1997, the question was already raised whether these judges would fall under the law of 1935. The answer was very clearly “no”. After all, the discussion showed very clearly that the government wanted to solve the backwardness in Brussels and that the pooling of "flying" judges was a means to solve a problem that has been ongoing for years.

Colleagues, what is essential for the VLD in this discussion? Four years ago, when we were ahead of the elections, we explicitly stated in our electoral program that we wanted to address the problem of judicial lag. After all, the sense of insecurity that lives in many Flamingen has to do with the judicial backwardness. The then-security plan, the V-plan, of Marc Verwilghen, who was still a candidate and has become a minister, we have always defended with a lot of fire. Therefore, we consider it a priority to address this judicial gap by all possible means. Therefore, this priority was included in the government agreement a few months after the elections.

Let’s not be hidden and, above all, be pragmatic. Let us address the issues as they occur, and with the resources we have. Let us solve the problem of backwardness. After all, it is clear that this backwardness is a fact.

Mr. Laeremans, Mr. Goris was just as good at driven.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay everything, but I want clarity on one point. Collega Goris referred to the electoral program of the VLD with regard to the backwardness. In the electoral program of the VLD and in the government agreement of the VLD in the Flemish government was expressly stated another promise of the VLD, in particular the division of the judicial district.

Mr. Goris, I wish I knew what you want to start with this. Do you want to realize that and do you still stand behind it? Regarding the electoral district, the VLD now suddenly says that it is against it. Are you still in favour of the division of the judicial district on a horizontal basis and according to the model of the Brussels court, as Prime Minister Patrick Dewael recently said? Are you a supporter or an opponent?

Politics is the art of possibilities. (Laughter) If one ever succeeds in carrying out this division — and we will continue to diligently strive for it — we will ⁇ fully support it, which is evident. You also know how complex Belgium is and that is why we are looking for viable solutions today. Not the Flemish interest, which is often misguided, but the interests of the Flemish citizen are important to us. Flamings who are involved in legal proceedings in Brussels-HalleVilvoorde – either side-by-side in a French proceedings or as victims due to a French-speaking criminal – must wait more than a year for a trial. They are also Flammers who demand their rights and for which we are jointly responsible. To this end, we are looking for viable solutions that can be implemented immediately.

Mr. Goris, try to put an end to your argument.

I would like to come back to the judicial downturn, which is still significant. Let me start with the civil affairs. I have the documents of the report here, but I would like to bring them forward, because that seems to me elementary in this discussion. There is a delay in matters that can be claimed from 2,709 files on the French-speaking side. On the Dutch-speaking side, there is a lag of 205 files. There is, therefore, a more than tenfold backwardness on the French-speaking side. In those 2,709 French-speaking files are undoubtedly also side-by-side Flamingen involved, which is almost inevitable. Even those Flammers are waiting for their right, let that be clear. In addition, we are in the correctional cases and the criminal cases in general with 3,590 pending cases on the French-speaking side. They were postponed to March 2003, and that dates from a month ago, so say right away at least April 2003 or one year behind. On the Dutch-speaking side, there are 309, and they are treated within two months.

Colleagues, that means that a Dutch-speaking criminal in this district will be tried within two months – and that should also be so – and that a French-speaking criminal in this district will only be tried within one year – and that should not be so.

Mr. Peterson, I give you the word for an intervention. Colleagues, if you all speak through, your name will not appear on the board.

The [...]

Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Peterson wants to interrupt. Thus we did not come out.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the speaker whether the reasoning he hangs here to justify that law would also apply to the police officers.

Mr. Goris, you say that the Flemish fool who is in a French procedure also benefits because it goes fast. This also applies to police services. If we do not find enough bilingual police officers tomorrow, you argue that the police services in Brussels should be insured. Therefore, you will also hire only French-speaking police officers. Is that what you mean?

( ... ...

Ladies and gentlemen, let Mr. Goris answer. Colleagues of the VLD, it is a VLD speaker who speaks.

Mr. Pieters, it is of course significant that in this debate you must suddenly shift to another debate, because in this debate you must apparently dig the bottom. I would like to ask you to stay with this debate.

(Protest) I would like to continue my presentation. We are not debating here today about the police, but about the backwardness in the judiciary, especially in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde.

In particular, I would like to emphasize the following about the judges. That remains completely unchanged and I deeply regret that other echoes have been spread about this in the press, as well as in the face of private individuals. Judges can still only make a judgment in their own language. Never, even after that bill, Flemish legal subordinates will be subject to French-speaking judges. Some went so far to suggest that. Let this correction be clear.

Mr. Bourgeois, I have just heard you say the same thing several times, but I did not want to interrupt you. You talked about the Flemish monument, the law of 1935. Also for the VLD it is a Flemish monument. We do not amend the law of 1935 today. This law does not change anything at all. You know well that the law of 1935, which provides for the magistrates with a permanent seat in three-thirds, which makes us get twice two-thirds, remains integrally standing. We are talking about the additional judges, about temporary appointments. We guarantee that the law of 1935 is not affected. However, we are pragmatic enough to find a solution where we can find it to address the problem of backwardness.

However, I do not want to deny that there are some trouble points in this design. First, I would like to address the problem of the mobility premium. This award is indeed very sensitive and sparked a number of comments and criticisms. Mr. Laeremans just said that there are considerable payments.

Mr. Laeremans, you have to say it all. You talked about gross amounts. Converted into net amounts and on a monthly basis, we expect to be more than 5,000 Belgian francs or, in turn, about 110 euros per month for those magistrates. You said it was a huge amount of money. I do not know if that amount can be classified under such a substantial premium. Of course, the prize is there. I admit that she is significant. Let us, however, put the points on the i: it is not about 130,000 to 180,000 francs.

Let us say things as they are: it is about 5,000 francs per month net. This mobility premium is more than that. Of course, the premium has to do with mobility. Judges who need to be mobile are expected to be able to move. This is a less powerful argument in Brussels. [...] That is true. We want the debate to be fair. Additional judges also do not have access to the special mandates: juvenile judge, seizure judge, investigative judge, which are better paid. They are also not sure of their position. A French-speaking supplementary judge in Brussels may eventually obtain a permanent seat in Luik, Aarlen or Doornik a few months or years later. They do not necessarily remain in Brussels. The uncertainty, the demand for mobility, the non-accessibility to special mandates, all these factors are compensated by the mobility premium of 5,000 francs per month.

I also draw attention to the fact that this week another discussion will be held in the Council of Ministers in order to provide a storage for the judges with permanent seats as well. It is true that if the premium is added to the salary of the added judges, the salary is sometimes higher than for the judges with a permanent seat. We have therefore explicitly asked to remove that evil. The salary of the judges with a permanent seat will be increased very soon, so that the difference is no longer there.

That is an interesting point, but I would like to know if it is a bilingual premium or a remuneration that is also granted to single, permanent magistrates. The Minister agreed to a bilinguality premium. What you say seems to apply to all judges, including one-sided judges. That doesn’t put any sorts on the dick. This does not encourage anyone to learn the other language.

Mr. Laeremans, I want to leave to the emperor what belongs to the emperor, to the king what belongs to the king, and to the minister what belongs to the minister. I am confident that the Minister will also be able to confirm in this regard whether it is all judges or the one- or bilingual judges. However, it seems to me here to go a general adjustment that makes the difference automatically disappear.

In the report on page 10 the proposal was made to Minister Verwilghen — he may soon be able to clarify — to replace the mobility premium of the added judges with a bilingual premium for the magistrates passing the language exam. The Minister considers this to be an interesting matter. Of course, finding an interesting thing is not enough. We have therefore explicitly asked the Minister to remove the mobility premium specifically for Brussels and Vilvoorde as soon as possible and to eventually introduce a bilingual premium as an incentive and also to encourage the additional judges to take a language exam in order to be able to sit as a bilingual judge. In this regard, it should be clear that the VLD also highly appreciates the Flemish feelings. We want to work on that. (Hongle laughing)

You can enjoy it, but it is clear from my presentation that we want to work on it in a viable way.

A second problem is the temporary. Article 86bis makes it clear that it is a temporary appointment of a permanently appointed judge. The Minister also said this in the committee. This appointment has an exhaustive character. An evaluation after three years is planned and is now being carried out. This may hopefully lead to the addition of judges being reduced. It is of course also intended that the additional judges be appointed in the freed places within the framework, possibly outside Brussels such as Luik, Aarlen or Doornik or anywhere in French-speaking Belgium.

In this regard, I would also like to refer to the written documents of the Chamber, the report which is very clear in this regard. On page 17, I quote the Minister of Justice who says he denies that the government has formally committed to submitting an amendment. He states that Article 86bis of the Judicial Code already provides that the appointment of these additional judges is of a temporary nature and that he does not intend, in any case, to appoint additional judges for a period of more than four years on the basis of the draft text. Well, we will continue on this. Their

Mr. Laeremans, we are confident that the Minister of Justice, Mr. Verwilghen, does not intend to appoint additional judges for more than four years.

To conclude, I would like to say that structural measures are needed. However, we all know how complex this country is and how much more complex the situation is in Brussels-HalleVilvoorde, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. We also know that if we want to find a global solution, we cannot get ice overnight. The Flemish interests will undoubtedly collide with some French-speaking interests. We all know this, we should not hide it. Nevertheless, we are open to conducting this debate thoroughly. Structural measures are needed. Today we are facing a huge problem of judicial lag. The Flaming is also beneficial for solutions in Brussels. Also Flamingen go daily to work, pendle, shop and go out in Brussels. They also come into daily contact with situations that cause them to appear before a court in Brussels, either side-by-side, as a victim or whatever. It is for the interests of those Flamings, mainly from the outskirts of Brussels, from Halle-Vilvoorde, from the province of Vlaams-Brabant and the others who come to Brussels, that we include it. We want them not to have to wait for years — especially in civil matters — for the matters in which they are involved. They also have a right to right. Therefore, we will firmly support the temporary emergency measures — and I emphasize their temporary nature — which we are now going to implement immediately.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, starting this speech, I will first pay tribute to one of our former colleagues, Mr. Claude Desmedt, who for more than two legislative periods has been the first parliamentary to draw attention to the seriousness of the judicial delay in Brussels. He had taken care to submit entirely reasonable bills in order to provide an appropriate response to this true denial of justice.

In order to frame the debate, I will recall that the Belgian State was condemned in first instance due to the abnormally long procedural timeframes of which are victims of judicial persons awaiting judgment in the judicial district of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde. Three convictions to the civil. That is, by the unprecedented nature of these judgments, the seriousness of the situation in this judicial district. by

To those who try to make them believe that this problem is only French-speaking, I refer to the statements of mr. Dejemeppe, Procurator of the King in Brussels, who also teaches Dutch legal language. Therefore, it is undoubtedly a man who has a perfect mastery of both national languages. In February 2002, he wrote this in a letter to the weekly "Le Vif l'Express": "The community blocking regarding the terms of nomination in Brussels does not have a disastrous effect on the only French-speaking side. The Brussels prosecutor’s office also suffers from not being able to recruit candidates holding a diploma issued in Dutch language and not officially bilingual.” by

This statement was corroborated by that of Patrick Mandoux in "La Libre Belgique" — edition of the last 23 and 24 February. He observed the lack of staff, screaming a bit everywhere in Belgium, but especially in Brussels since there is a lack of 30% of judges in the court of first instance, 30% of substitutes compared to the existing framework, and this is largely due to the severity of the law on the use of languages which imposes a full bilingualism to two-thirds of the magistrates of the seat and the prosecutor's office, while, under penalty of nullity, the judges are allowed to sit only in the language of their diploma. by

Patrick Mandoux said: “This surreal situation penalizes French-speaking and Flemish magistrates. I see in fact that it leads to a desertification of the Flemish section of the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office.” I refuse to appear as the only applicant in this case. These are all those in Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde, regardless of their linguistic affiliation, who are waiting for a fair treatment within a reasonable time of their case. by

by Mr. Goris cited a document annexed to the report on the bill amending Article 86bis of the Judicial Code. The statistical data are clear: there is judicial delay in both French-speaking proceedings and Dutch-speaking proceedings, but it is true — this is the socio-linguistic reality of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde — that there is a greater number of cases pending, for a longer period, on the French-speaking side than on the Dutch-speaking side. This is not due to the will of the judges themselves. This is the result of the number of transactions entered in one or another language. It is well known that the language of the proceedings is not even always determined by the parties themselves, but by rules provided in the Law on the Use of Languages in Judicial Matters, which determines in a very strict manner the language of the proceedings to be followed. by

If there is an overwhelming number of French-language cases pending and awaiting justice in the Brussels judicial district of Hal-Vilvorde, it is because the Law on the Use of Languages in Judicial Matters requires, in a number of cases, the introduction of these cases in French.

The situation is known, admitted. It was also admitted by the members of the commission regarding the judicial backdrop in Brussels, whose composition I recall did not give a majority to the French speakers. Within this committee, which delivered its interim report at the end of 1999, a majority of Dutch speakers made the same finding. Let us stop saying that this problem would be created or wanted by the French speakers! It is corroborated by magistrates of both language roles.

I also find a certain contradiction, not to say a certain contradiction in the words of those who praise that a magistrate can sit only in the language of his diploma and that he can know business only in the language of the justiciable — which is a principle of good justice — and who at the same time, do not cease to advocate for the maintenance of an excessive bilingualism. Since — I have always been attached to this principle — that a magistrate can only know unilingual affairs and can only sit in the language of his degree, there is no reason to maintain a high level of bilingualism requirement. That is why I have always considered passive bilingualism to be desirable on the part of the magistrates of the judicial district of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde. by

What a more normal thing is that a magistrate can get acquainted with the jurisprudence made in the same district in the other language! What more normal is that a magistrate reads the doctrine in the other language! What is more normal that a magistrate can get acquainted with pieces in the file that are possibly in the other language! But passive knowledge is sufficient to meet the needs and needs of the service. There is no reason to impose active bilingualism, moreover high, often unrelated to the exercise of the function itself. Therefore, the same ones who advocate — and I am one of them — that a magistrate is of the same language as that of the justiciable, that a magistrate sits only in the language of his diploma, that they also accept the fact that excessive bilingualism is unrelated to the necessity of a good service of justice.

I will end up believing — this is an euphemism — that all those who do not want to allow the resorption of the judicial backdrop in Brussels-HalVilvorde, whether at the advantage of the French or the Dutch speakers, have another idea behind their heads: that of letting the situation in the judicial district of Brussels-HalVilvorde rotten to claim its division sooner or later. It is known, in fact, that dividing the judicial district of Brussels-HalVilvorde is opening the way for the regionalization of justice. For them, it is necessary to blow the lock of the judicial district of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde, which runs on two regions, to better advocate then the regionalization of justice. It is necessary to bring French speakers to face such a situation of denial of justice in Brussels that they should sooner or later accept the division of the judicial district of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde. This is what we will never accept!

And I allow myself to say the following to our Flemish colleagues who advocate in this direction. As I have never asked that the case of the Flemish justiciables be dealt with by French-speaking magistrates — and I can understand that in the past, there have been grounds for recrimination — so I do not wish that, tomorrow, French-speaking justiciables from the periphery are drawn before Flemish courts. That is why the maintenance of the judicial district of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde is also a condition of fairness in justice for every community and for every justiciable, regardless of their language in Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde!

Moreover, since the signing of the Framework Convention on the Protection of National Minorities, due to the effect of the well-known “standstill” clause, there will no longer be amendments to the legislation resulting in a reduction of the rights currently found in favour of persons belonging to a minority.

Mr. Maingain, if it were so that the minority treaty contained a stand-still clause and if it was so that we would ever have to respect this clause, then I wonder if this does not apply to the Flemish subordinates who in a French procedure now have the right to a judge who understands them fully and who will be confronted tomorrow with a judge who may only understand them half. If you refer to it, that guarantee must also be there. You will now change the law so that anyone who now has to provide a full proof of bilinguality needs to have only a passive knowledge. This may also be contrary to the interests of the Flaming in the light of that stand-still clause?

Mr. Pieters, for every justiciable regardless of their language, being attracted before a jurisdiction where magistrates are unable to understand their language is not acceptable.

There are still bilingual chambers at the Brussels Court of Appeal that no longer or almost no longer have reason to be given that the language of the appeal procedure is determined by the language of the judgment in the first instance. Therefore, the number of bilingual chambers at the Court of Appeal could be significantly reduced and ensured that they are composed of magistrates who speak the language of the justiciable. This does not pose any problem to me.

Mr. Speaker, I hear colleague Maingain say that he is in favour of the principle that the applicant must be able to claim his right before a judge who speaks his language. Is he willing to bring this through to the Court of Cassation? This is not the case here now. I find that the French speakers oppose a 60/40 ratio in the Court of Cassation. Here it is heremized about the judicial backwardness in Brussels while there is a huge backwardness for the Flamings in the Court of Cassation. The Dutch-speaking councillors of the Court of Cassation must work much harder than their French-speaking colleagues and the Flemish prosecutor must also wait much longer for his judicial service. In addition, there are situations where chambers of the Court of Cassation are composed of a single French speaker who must judge on Dutch-speaking files.

I would like to remind you that the Court of Cassation has disputes, not on facts but on the interpretation of law. The main task of the Court of Cassation is to ensure the unity of jurisprudence for the whole country. The defendant is not or is very rarely called to be heard before the Court of Cassation. It is therefore not abnormal that, before the Court of Cassation, magistrates of both languages sit to hear a question of principle of law, since it is in this matter that the Court of Cassation must decide. The latter made arrangements to ensure the perfect translation in both languages.

Mr. Speaker, of course, it is not about the united chambers but about Dutch-speaking matters in which one can expect that the counselor, who must judge about it, can read the file. The great principles that Mr. Maingain claims to defend suddenly no longer count before the Court of Cassation. I repeat what Professor De Pauw, an unmistakable source, wrote. According to him, this is contrary to the fundamental rights of defence.

I know in the Court of Cassation of Flemish magistrates who are not better bilingual than their French-speaking counterparts. That being said, I advocate to promote the passive knowledge of the other language at all degrees of the courts, and ⁇ at the Court of Cassation.

I find that, in the end, if one adheres to the principles that I have recalled, the maintenance of a high level of bilingualism does not correspond to the necessity of the exercise of the function. What the government proposes to us is ultimately a fairly reasonable adaptation, first for all magistrates who, due to the nature of their functions, are called to know affairs in one or the other language—peace judges, police judges, presidents of courts, etc. — and for which it prevails to maintain a relatively demanding level of bilingualism. On the other hand, for all other magistrates, the law does not yet determine – I am talking about BrusselsHal-Vilvoorde or some jurisdictions along the linguistic border – the level of examination. It sets benchmarks and it is especially the examination jury that, on the basis of the measures that will be adopted by the government by royal decree, will have to ensure the implementation of a functional adaptation of the language examinations to be passed by the magistrates.

I dare hope that this adaptation will be real and that we will not know what we have known so far, i.e. examinations in which a number of magistrates belonging to the selection committees felt obliged to reproduce to their candidate peers a high level of requirement because they themselves often had a bad memory of the level of examination they had had to pass. Thus, if they did not really take their revenge, at least they felt compelled to have passed a test of a nature equivalent to that which they had to undergo.

I dare hope that the Minister of Justice, in perfect consultation with the Superior Council of the Magistrates and with the relevant circles, will ensure a real adaptation of the level of requirement of bilingualism, knowledge of the other language. Without this, this reform would otherwise be a failure, at least a disappointment and we would return to the starting point. I am afraid that then other debates will rise again and you know what I said about it. For our part, the division of the judicial district of Brussels-HalVilvorde is unacceptable. This would be the beginning of the debate on the regionalization of justice. In addition, it would infringe on the language rights acquired for French speakers in the Brussels outskirts.

I don’t speak with my eyes, I see. Mr. Van Hoorebeke, ask your question.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask Mr. Maingain whether he also expressly agrees with the principle that, as regards the additional judges, it is a provisional measure.

Mr. Speaker, supplementary magistrates, who are not subject to the laws on the use of languages in judicial matters — a principle that had already been admitted by the previous government, let me remind myself, this is not a new fact — will be needed as long as there is a judicial backwardness.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, considering the advanced hour, I will keep it limited.

When some French-speaking colleagues here today have advocated for solutions to the judicial downturn, I can understand that. Judiciary needs to be done quickly. Fast judicial administration is also good judicial administration or good judicial administration should be quick. Where, however, they seek to express their concerns with regard to the judicial delay, including at the level of the first instance and the Court of Appeal in Brussels, they remain silent in all languages on the Dutch-language delay at the Court of Cassation. Apparently, it is not so urgently necessary to do something about this especially Dutch-speaking judicial backwardness.

The problem, of course, has existed for a long time. When during the previous legislature the Christian Democratic Minister of Justice was confronted with this problem, he also sought to answer it. Honesty commands us to tell it. Indeed, we first installed the “flying” judges who eventually became added judges. But in any case it was a much smaller number, it was obviously also done with a different finality and was intended for exceptional circumstances. There has indeed been a draft that came from the Council of Ministers to make changes to the language legislation. It was Flemish parliamentarians, it was also Christian Democrats who blocked this. At the level of the Court of Appeal, there was, among other things, the draft on the deputy councillors which also addressed the problem in part for Brussels. Meanwhile, in relation to such answers to the problems, our current Prime Minister once said in his book "The Belgian Disease" that all this was only courier am Symptom, that the problems had to be addressed structurally. How these problems could be tackled structurally is a part of the Flemish government agreement. In it, the majority, including the Greens, socialists and liberals, also advocates for the division of the judicial district. This could indeed be that structural solution, since, as Mr Bourgeois has already stated in detail, the problems relating to judicial delay relate not only to the problem of language knowledge but also to problems of an organisational nature, both at the level of the seat and at the level of the prosecutor’s office.

For this reason, in the Senate — by Mr. Vandenberghe’s mouth — and here through amendments, we have sought to persuade the majority to choose a structural solution over couriering am Symptom through division. This, Mr Maingain, is not total, but functional, vertical as regards the parquet, with permanent consultation between Brussels and Halle-Vilvoorde and horizontal as regards the seat. Their

We would retain the judicial district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde, with therefore separate two unilateral courts at the level of first instance, labour court and court of commerce and district courts, with bilinguality requirements for the president. This would give more transparency. This would also provide the guarantee that the regional language would be the right language, for which the Flemish were so battled before the Second World War. This could lead to fewer communication problems in the court seat. This could lead to the easing of that framework fulfillment. In addition, it would create healthy competition between French-speaking and Dutch-speaking courts, which would undoubtedly reduce that legal delay.

The answer to this problem was partly completed in the same way by the arrangement of the Brussels Bally, with two independent orders. Ultimately, this has given rise to a reinforced Flemish law enforcement, a reinforced Dutch-speaking law enforcement, but above all also a reinforcement of the position of the Dutch-speaking law seekers. What can be against it? If right-wing backwardness is a problem for French speakers, it is the same for Dutch speakers.

This structural solution would benefit from the fact that there are no changes to the language legislation. This would benefit from the fact that there is a guarantee that his case would be handled in his own language. This would require that in a chamber of three judges there is of course a bilingual judge. This would require a single-seat judge to be functionally bilingual. However, this would allow for a faster process.

This is how I get to the park. If we are all in favour of good justice and good justice, then we should also be in favour of good law enforcement, good criminal investigation, good judicial investigation and investigation. As regards the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office, we are in the situation that the Halle-Vilvoorde district is sociologically completely different from the Brussels region, with a completely different crime phenomenon, with completely different sensitivities, with completely different crime rates that may also require a different approach. Here vertical splitting would in any case improve criminal proceedings.

Should this be linked to substantial bilinguality premiums, a structural response would be offered. I regret that the VLD, although it claims to be in favor of the split, will reject the amendments as well as in the committee, because it considers some things impossible.

The two drafts will probably be unanimously approved by the French speakers, including the French-speaking opposition. That speaks book parts. This is not the first time that this happens during this legislature. We have already done this in connection with the Lambermont Accords. The two designs are not alone. Remember the language legislation in administrative matters: despite we put more competence requirements on officials and grant phenomenal wage increases, the language requirements for the top of the federal administration were reduced. During this legislature, functional bilinguality will no longer be imposed as an admission requirement at the summit, while broad transitional provisions will be provided.

The designs are not alone. Remember the mandate functions. For the chairs of the directive committees, an equal number of Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people was provided. We have seen how these frameworks were completed.

The designs are not alone. Find out how the police zones are classified. In some zones, a facility community was divided into Flemish municipalities, with the result that police officers who previously acted only in a single Dutch-speaking area now also know French. The Minister of Internal Affairs has even said that in the future he would hire bilingual police officers in such zones.

We also know how the majority defends the Dutch language at the European level. Some other small languages are defended there by the respective governments in a different way.

This is structural: the current majority is Flemish unfriendly. Tonight, at the vote, we can do the lactose test. We can take the test on the sum. We note that many members of the liberal group have a Flemish national past. The question is whether the emphasis is on the Flemish or on the past. I ask the liberal colleagues with a Flemish national past: do not curse what you used to worship rightly. The [...]

The [...]

It hurts, Mr. Cortois, when you no longer confess the language you spoke from the opposition in the distance. One must not curse what one has worshipped. This will be determined later in the voting process. For those who could not be present...

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to Mr. Verherstraeten that the initiative came from the additional judges of his group. It was also clear the question of his faction that the draft would not be subject to the language regime of the Act of 1935. That initiative was defended by your then minister with fire. You should not give us lessons about this.

Mr. Goris, I have already talked about this when you were absent. The current draft on the added judges, which you will approve tonight, currently has a completely different content, scope and finality than that draft. I expect that honest intelligence from you too. I regret that some liberal colleagues with a Flemish national past, who cannot be present here today, at least did not send the signals extra muros that these two designs go far too far. In any case, we have the responsibility to point out to all Flemings that this Flemish past is denied. We can only regret that.

Following Mr Erdman, I will give the floor to the Minister. Then I will close the general discussion. I am convinced that many colleagues have already addressed their amendments in their discussion.

( ... ...

I have already asked for the restaurant to stay open longer, but I’d rather have shortened the shelf time.

You will be suspended, I suppose.

After the Minister’s response, I will suspend. I extended the cold buffet until 21:00. If I am asked, I suspend. Mr. Bourgeois, primum vivere deinde philosophari. Here it is the reverse.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I don’t think the legal revolution is announcing itself, if I see how much attention colleagues are paying to this matter. It is said that this is so essential. But come, everyone has his approach and greeted the present beings.

We have always regarded this issue as a social law matter. You know that over the years our group — myself and my colleagues — has never been very pleased with increasing the number of magistrates. We have always advocated for other measures because in the framework of Justice many other measures would likely have brought efficiency beyond merely expanding the frameworks.

We have a sentimental connection with this legislation, in addition to the history that colleague Bourgeois has outlined about the formation of the law of 1935. You may have missed it, but the law of 1935 was signed by a socialist, Minister of Justice Sudan.

The [...]

I take your word: then came the socialists from the party uni et fort. Let us not discuss this. Mr. Sudan has signed the law. I must admit to the liberals that Mr. Janson submitted the draft. For the little story, I would add something. Then we talked about the Court of Cassation. There were then two draft laws, one on the use of languages in court proceedings and one on the use of languages before the Court of Cassation — at that time it was still referred to as the Court of Breaking. Then these two projects were combined.

How is the language exam now proposed in the design? I have said in the committee that I know something about those language exams, because I am still one of the last survivors of the "deep knowledge", attesting that I have also preserved and still carry proudly. There was the evolution of 1967 and the Judicial Code and the regulation of 1970: at that time one could only be a candidate for positions based on the language of the diploma.

We have heard the stories about how those exams are taken. Even those who would have certain motives to struggle with the text will have to admit that here a very strange and positive step is being taken by charging Selor with taking the exams. In my opinion, this is very good.

A new distinction has been built with two degrees. If one overlooks the list of those who still need to function a little more than functionally, and taking into account the evolution within a framework that evolves rapidly and ambitions every promotion, then one can assume that there is an initial stage and a second stage that is somewhat better.

That has led me to submit amendments at some point in order to make a refinement and to further carry out Parliament’s control. Finally, when the Minister submitted his draft royal decree, I found in it that the possibility is provided on the basis of the reporting, to keep an eye on the course of those examinations.

Then, I experienced the history of the Added Judge politely. It has already been alluded to afterwards.

Colleague Bourgeois, if I read my documentation properly, you were angry at the previous reading in the Chamber, when the original draft was returned by the Senate — they had improved it technically, not substantially, somewhat — because you then discovered that during the discussion in the Senate there was suddenly a question of whether or not to apply the language law. This was not the case at the first treatment. In the explanation that the Minister then gave in the Senate, this was not even mentioned. He then explained that one should indeed have additional judges "out of the framework" according to the needs of the service and that there should be mobility. Language legislation was not discussed in the introduction.

The actual starting point for the whole discussion came from Mrs. Milquet’s amendment, which at some point pointed out that the added judges could only sit in the language of their diploma and so the ball began to roll.

It is true that at that time the minister said with so many words in the discussion that the language legislation was not applicable. That law was then voted and the law is still "living".

What is the situation today? The possibility of the number is increased, for Brussels alone. Something else is not done. I could make a parody of it: one might rather have already said in 1935 that everyone in Brussels should be completely bilingual; maybe that was another solution. You pointed out that at that time there were not too many graduates to carry out that task. In addition, I had previously tended to ask for the possibility of raise also for Antwerp, but I will not do it.

The number is now increasing, but I would like to ask the Minister a series of questions. I hope he can explain this to me in his answer. Colleague Bourgeois has always had the good or bad habit of wanting to interpret my body language.

I am not happy with that design. I tell you that honestly and I assume that others are not happy with it. This design, in my opinion, does not offer a solution to the problem, or at least an insufficient solution. It may help, but it will not solve the problem. Their

Therefore, Mr. Minister, I wish for a clear answer on the duration of this measure. This measure is temporary as defined in the Act of 1998. Do you confirm that this temporaryity is indeed linked to the assignment and, as Mr Maingain stated in his remarks, that the corps must disappear at the moment when there is no longer any backwardness? Do you confirm that the Chamber must take other measures to overcome that downturn? If that happens, then this measure is indeed temporary. Their

Second, there is no legal framework. A maximum is provided. No framework is established. The possibility exists, but there is no legal framework. Their

Third, the requirements of the service are a criterion. In the legislative text, an aspect is indicated regarding the interpretation of the "requirement of service", more specifically if a magistrate cannot sit. All the conditions for this are listed. It has also been stated that there are other requirements of the service that, on the advice of... must be tested. Mr. Minister, I ask you here to strictly control and strictly apply those criteria of the service requirements.

The next point. If you strictly monitor and apply these criteria, you will have to deduce from the requirements of the service the language origin of the added judges. You must send this file to the Supreme Council in order to submit the candidatures within the framework of language-split advisory and proposal committees. You will need to deduce the language requirement from the service requirements. Their

The evaluation is included in the law. On the basis of the evaluation, I ask you to carry out the necessary controls to ensure that the process is followed.

Another point, the prizes. I have already discussed this in the committee. In my opinion, the mobility premium was introduced because one could operate in different locations within a jurisdiction of a court of appeal. This is just about Brussels. In exceptional circumstances, there may be someone going to Nijvel. Wouldn’t it be better to take the option — among others colleague Goris has already alluded to it — to favour multilingualism with premiums or to maintain the mobility premium, which is inherited from other office areas?

I would like to return to the needs of the service. Mr. Erdman, does this mean, in your opinion, that if the backwardness or the alleged backwardness among French speakers is ten times higher than among Dutch speakers — 2000 cases versus 200 and 300 versus 3000 — there should be ten times more French speakers than Dutch speakers in the additional package of added judges? Is this reasonable and possible for you? Their

In the debate during the previous legislature, however, it was stated that the additional judges are not covered by the two-thirds system on language knowledge. About one-third-two-third, then Minister De Clerck said that the rule of at least one-third Dutch speakers would not be affected.

This regulation is not violated within the framework. The framework remains subject to the second-third rule.

But what about the added judges?

As for the added judges, read the same statement made by Minister De Clerck here in the House, after it has been discussed in the Senate. He said that the language legislation does not apply to it. After that, I told colleague Bourgeois that I think that part of that language legislation still applies, because otherwise one cannot work, but that the second-thirds rule for the added judges has been removed. That’s my interpretation, but you know that everyone has his own.

I will come to the last three questions. I think that this should be made clear, in view of the future, the evolution and the importance of the right-wing. First, I will talk about the procedure for changing the language. In Brussels, this is an old very, and no one will contradict that. It uses arguments that are not necessarily those of the rightful. They understand me very well. Look at it. You are currently submitting a draft regarding judicial law. Per ⁇ something can be undertaken regarding the change of language.

Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Justice Committee makes a very relevant comment. It is indeed an old very. Nevertheless, I would like to point out that I also have an amendment to amend the legislation, which is still formulated in old Dutch. In this way, the banks would no longer be judged, but with a reasoned decision within eight days. In this way, the applicant is actually taken into account. Now judges at the banks say that one knows enough French, because one is, for example, a family doctor.

Mr. Bourgeois, you know this house enough to know that this sensitive point will not be solved with one amendment. I give it to the Minister as a hint so that he can take it into account when looking for a solution.

Mr. Minister, I come to a second, very important element, in particular the measurement of workload. We introduced the workload measurement at the moment we extended the scheme for the added councillors. Then we made it clear that a workload measurement was absolutely necessary. We received a report on the park. The workload measurement will provide an additional element. In any case, carry them out at the appropriate time and within the necessary timeframe.

Last but not least, you have given assignments to the Supreme Council. He is armed for this and it is also his competence. You have instructed him to make examinations of the courts. I would even like to give credit to those who argue that this is a solution to the judicial downturn. I would like to make that concession, but then it must also be proven by an examination within a certain time. Therefore, I ask you to confirm that you will ask the High Council to establish the effectiveness of this measure within a reasonable period, taking into account, inter alia, the judicial settlement.

Mr. Speaker, I have made a decision. I repeat what I said later: this is not the miracle remedy; neither is the exam scheme. This must be addressed globally. It is not just a Brussels problem. It is now ⁇ the most prominent in Brussels, but it is not just a Brussels problem. I always take the example of the housing of the magistrates of the prosecutor’s office. Now who would like to sit in that basement on the Poelaertplein in a small office without cabinets? They have, of course, been given a little more infrastructure, but it’s about housing, support, modern working tools, guidance, training and management; it’s about so much. Let us hope that this is a small contribution to this. Therefore, we will vote in favour, but on the condition that I get a very clear answer from the Minister to my questions.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I will divide my presentation into three parts. First, I will give a few general considerations. Next, I will focus on the problem of the language examination to end with the case of the added magistrates.

Let me start with the general considerations. The starting point of the government is actually to engage in the struggle against judicial backwardness. We have included that in the government agreement, because the most heard complaint with the legal subordinate is that the procedure is too long and does not have a normal course. Based on this, the government has made a number of efforts that it has distributed globally across the country but which it also specifically applies to Brussels. In Brussels, the legal lag is the largest. This is a perfectly normal finding when we know that Brussels is the most important judicial district in terms of number of inhabitants. In addition, there are a number of institutional users of the law established, such as large insurance companies, institutions and parastatals having their headquarters here, the government which is also usually involved in procedures in Brussels, the companies and non-profit associations all having their headquarters in Brussels.

For these reasons, we chose the following principle. The protection of the legal person is the central point of approach in the fight against judicial retardation.

I would like to remind you that we have already taken some measures for this. I will not extend this, but I will give a few examples.

First, at a certain point, we passed the law which established a temporary staffing of councillors for the courts of appeal due to the delay we found there. We want to be able to work there with additional rooms with an extensive staff formation of fourteen councillors.

Second, under another law, efforts are currently being made to move to workload measurement. The state of affairs is the following. For the parquets there is a working group, led by a lawyer-general from Antwerp. The workload measurement for the parquet of both the first building and the appellate parquet is likely to be in place within the foreseeable time, possibly already at the end of this year or at the beginning of 2003. For the seat, we have done this effort mainly at the level of the courts of appeal. We are also working there to improve the workload measurement, together with the High Council for Justice and together with the magistrates of the seat. This is an important element in making such an operation successful.

The third measure we have taken is that of the Deputy Councillors, in other words, the lawyers who assist the Court of Appeal. This measure has not only been extended. At the same time, we also provided them with new things. Not only the historical downturn, as determined in 1997, but also the current downturn is redistributed over the ordinary chambers and over the supplementary chambers with deputy councillors. Finally, the Government makes efforts to ensure that the legal framework is complete in every judicial district and can be supported by additional magistrates where appropriate.

Specifically for Brussels, there is a fifth measure. We have moved to ask for a thorough investigation by the Commission-Brussels on the problem in Brussels. In that committee representatives of the magistrateship, both of the Court of Appeal and of the courts of first instance, the peacekeeping courts and the police courts, as well as of the bailes, sit.

From their report of 7 December 1999 we learned that measures need to be taken at almost every level in Brussels. The first measures we have taken is the Ministerial Decree of 9 February 2001, which allocates referents to the Court of Cassation and increases the number from 10 to 15, where the Court of Cassation will determine how the distribution will take place. Ten of these referendums are Dutch-speaking, five are French-speaking.

A second measure we took for Brussels: of the 14 councillors in the famous new supplementary extensive framework, 6 will be allocated to Brussels. We will at the same time raise the deputy councillors, i.e. the existing lawyers, from 48 to 54. There are 12 to come. Here too, therefore, we allow at the same time the redistribution of the supplementary and the ordinary rooms. Meanwhile, these measures are yielding fruit and allow to address the judicial downturn at the level of the courts of appeal.

A fourth measure we will take concerns the police courts. Four additional supplementary judges have been appointed in the police courts to address the judicial downturn that exists specifically in Brussels.

What do we read in the report and what is so easily overlooked? An important finding made by the committee is that the judicial delay, both for the Court of First Instance and for the Prosecutor’s Office for the Court of Brussels, is mainly due to the incomplete completion of the staffing. The main reason for this is also indicated by that committee, namely the language problem.

The strange thing is that at the same time another initiative, separate from that work of the Commission-Brussels, will be carried out, in particular the inspection of the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office by the High Council of Justice. The Supreme Council for Justice comes to the same conclusion, in particular that at the level of the prosecutors, as a result of the language legislation, insufficient people are found to fill the staff formation. She even proposes changing the language exam and setting up a language exam based on two functional needs. First, there is a need for magistrates who must have a partial knowledge of the other language because they must be able to understand documents or hear witnesses without the need for translation. Second, there is also a need for magistrates who, in the exercise of their duties — because they are chief of the corps, peace judge, police judge or investigative judge — must have a thorough functional knowledge.

On the basis of both reports, the Government has not hesitated to assume its responsibility and has taken a dual initiative: one initiative relates to the language exam and one initiative aims to fill the staff formation. What we did not do, and what the Brussels Commission had proposed, is the establishment of a temporary extraordinary staff formation. If we had entered into this, we would have been completely out of the context of the law of 15 June 1935. We have chosen the additional magistrates for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in Brussels.

The adjustment of the language exam will take its time. This does not immediately yield its fruits. I have heard a number of people say that, if this is changed, one can rest on his laurels because things will be fine in the long run.

That will indeed be in the long term. That does not provide the desired solution in the short term, which is why it is also necessary to supplement the staff formation with additional judges. I remind you that the figure of the added judges came into being in 1998, from the finding that staff formations were never fully filled. After all, there are people who die, retire, advance or become ill for a long time. These are all factors that, after the pension scheme, cannot be estimated in advance. Therefore, this has been achieved, linked to the workload and the judicial lag. In this context, it was also regarded as a weapon.

Mr. Bourgeois, I have no trouble admitting that the solution we have now provided is not the solution at best, it is only a part of the solution. This regulates the temporary aspect. There will therefore be need for something more than this. What will be needed, among other things, is the evolution to the active judge. This amendment to the Judicial Code will allow the procedure to be accelerated. You know that this is currently being consulted with the State Council.

I now come to the second part, namely the language examination.

Currently, it is very difficult to find enough candidates who can prove their knowledge of another national language. We know the same problem with police officers, public officials and even some doctors working in authority departments.

For the Supreme Council of Justice, it is necessary to question the reasons for the failure of magistrates at exams as regulated by the Royal Decree of 1 April 1970, while they work properly in a language other than that of their degree. Asking the question is answering it. An inadequate examination would explain these failures. The previous government had established the same finding of inadequacy of the legislation. That is why my predecessor, Stefaan De Clerck, had introduced in 1997 a bill aiming at establishing a two-level linguistic examination to allow the recruitment of the magistrates provided for in the framework, a project that however failed.

Some argue that the difficulty of the language examination is a problem only for French speakers. This statement is not based on any objective element. On the contrary, it is as difficult to find exam winners among Dutch speakers as it is among French speakers.

I find that, for the year 2000, 19 Dutch speakers out of 130 participants passed the exam; 16 French speakers out of 47 participants passed the exam. For the year 2001, it is even more catastrophic, 4 Dutch-speaking out of 36 participants succeeded and 5 French-speaking out of 24 participants.

You may argue that the Dutch-speaking exam is a little more complicated than the French-speaking exam.

However, do not mistake yourself in this. I can also give you figures from 1994 which show that of 20 Dutch speakers, 8 have succeeded, while of 60 French speakers, only 6 have succeeded. In this regard, we are therefore with the same schemes.

Since this problem has existed for a very long time, the government has decided to match the content of the examinations to the functional needs of judicial practice. by

Thus, for the magistrate who must not only take knowledge of documents or statements in a language other than that of his diploma but must also render justice in that language, the proof of knowledge of the other language includes a test designed to assess his active written knowledge of the other language. The magistrate who must write acts in a language other than that of his diploma must, in fact, provide proof that he is able to do so. For this reason, a separate examination is planned, of which only the second part of the written test is different. In the interests of objectivity, the government also decided to entrust the organization of the examination to the SELOR, which also has extensive experience in the field and will thus use this expertise.

I now come to the third and last part, in particular the added judges. I would like to remind you that this is a law dated from 1998, resulting from a bill proposed by Mr Vandeurzen. There seems to be a major conceptual confusion in this regard. Does that supplementary judge receive a higher fee than the ordinary judge? and yes. Why does he get them? This is not about a mobility premium, as I heard wrongly telling today. An increase in the bet has been granted to the supplementary magistrate for various reasons, namely, first, the uncertainty with regard to the place where he will be employed and the displacements resulting therefrom. Furthermore, we did not allow an additional judge to observe a special mandate. Consequently, he cannot become a juvenile judge, investigative judge, or seizure judge, coincidentally three types of judges who are better paid for their performance than ordinary judges. Colleagues, in order to address this, you have passed a law that allows the added magistrate to receive a higher benefit. That is the real reason. This was decided in 1998. This is not in line with the bills presented today. However, I admit that there is a “distortion” or a field of tension between the first-instance judge who passed the exam and fulfils the requirement of bilinguality and the supplementary judge in Brussels who is appointed and who is unanimous. I will return to that later. However, this is not new, we know that situation as since 1998.

The Government has decided to amend the Judicial Code and it will increase the number of additional magistrates in Brussels. There should be a distinction between the parquet and the seat. Article 186 stipulates that in respect of the prosecutors, a number of additional magistrates shall be assigned to the Prosecutor of the King. That staff formation reflects the needs of the service in a fixed framework. This happens in Brussels because it will show that here a third of the number of parquet magistrates is missing. This is the same as asking the Red Devils to win the match against Russia tomorrow with a team of 8 players and without spare players. Their

The number of additional judges will be determined on the basis of Article 86bis of the Judicial Code. For this number, however, a upper limit will be used. Increasing the number of additional judges from 27 to 54 does not necessarily mean that this upper limit must also be reached. On the basis of objective data and a report, the President of the Court of First Instance must request the Minister of Justice and the appointing authority to appoint these additional magistrates. This question will be examined and advice will be given on it. Only then will we move on to the completion. For all clarity, I would like to remind you once again that every appointment must be functionally accountable. At the same time, this also means that another problem arises if no results are obtained once that appointment has been awarded. If necessary, I will not hesitate the High Council for Justice to request an inspection because I no longer want to continue to hide behind the shame of the incomplete occupation of the framework, while the framework is fully occupied, but no result is linked to it.

As regards the absence of a temporary framework, I would like to emphasize once again that although the additional judges are appointed for life, their appointment is temporary, namely for the performance of the assignment they have been given. That temporality was made by my predecessors, is made by me, and will probably also be controlled by my successors. Every three years, it shall be examined whether the measure on the assignment of additional judges has delivered the expected results. If this is indeed the case, I can assure you that I have already taken decisions giving this added judge a different assignment within the same jurisdiction. I can assure you in this regard that this will be considered in this way. I would like to return for a moment to what was said during the reading of the law of 10 February 1998. I quote the then Minister of Justice, Stefaan De Clerck: “Thanks to the present draft, it should be possible to appoint and delegate one-time judges to courts where this appointment is not always possible through the existing frameworks, due to the obligation of bilinguality for the benefit of two-thirds of the full framework.” So don’t blame me today and say that I’m pulling something out of his connection. Their

It was already clear which option was taken. I also find it inappropriate for the initiators of the law of 10 February 1998 to accuse me now that in fact the law of 15 June 1935 would apply to the use of languages in court proceedings. I will tell you why. CD&V submitted an amendment in which it was precisely stated that that law of 1935 would be applicable to those added judges. So one felt that in the past one had apparently “forgotten” something, but at the same time one realized that there was no point in continuing that path. For this reason, the applicant withdrew the amendment, though with a certain drogreed. In any case, it must be deduced from that a contrario that one cannot but have known that the law of 1998 excluded the application of the law of 1935. Furthermore, Article 43 of the Act of 15 June 1935 determines which judges are subject to this Act. The article provides a listing in which the added judges are not included, despite the debate on this subject.

Mr Laeremans, this discussion was held. You and I were there in 1998. Maybe your memory doesn’t stretch so far. In any case, Ms. Milquet was especially urged to do so and decided by a majority that the law of 1935 would not apply to it and that the amendment amending Article 43 concerning the additional judges was not held. I would add one thing to that. I often hear that the future added judges will be exclusively French speakers. I don’t know where they get that. They can also be exclusively Dutch-speaking magistrates. This will be demonstrated by the needs of the service. Laugh, Mr. Laeremans, I will give you the figures for Brussels. 17 of the 21 judges present are French-speaking and 4 are exclusively Dutch-speaking. As for the parquet, 11 of the 17 substitutes are French-speaking and 6 Dutch-speaking. There is one case that you can easily overlook, namely that the Court of First Instance in Brussels, which is directly involved in this case, accepts this proposal. I received a rather imposing delegation from judges of first instance and from prosecutors. Approximately three-quarters of those present have actually proposed the corps of both. They expressly stated that they could agree with both government bills, both Dutch-speaking and French-speaking. That is an important signal to know that in the struggle against the judicial lag in Brussels is waiting for this measure, but that of course you also know the consequences of it.

This has already been discussed today. It is said that the Minister has committed to submit an amendment. I read what was written in the texts:

"The government can agree to an explanation of the proposed bill by inserting the temporary character of the proposed measures." Obviously, I wanted to make a constructive contribution to the discussion on the conflict of interest. But it must be noted that the chairman of the Flemish parliament could not agree to this possibility, considering that the absence of temporary character constituted only one of the points of disagreement. I think so that also there of nodige distance must be genomen.

I have said that there are a number of other measures in place. It would be very naive to think that only a change in the language examination scheme would provide a solution in the short term. The two measures will need to be reviewed and evaluated together. In the next three-year review, it will be necessary to check whether these measures have yielded fruit. If this is not the case, the decision will be made not to extend this measure.

I will conclude with a sentence that I also found in the preparatory work on the law of 1998. I will again quote my predecessor: “This bill aims to resolve in the short term very important problems facing the courts and courts in matters of delay and a recognition that the political world is making efforts to improve the condition of the prosecutor.” By increasing the number of additional judges for Brussels, this effort continues, but it must now be proven on the ground, and that will also be verified through the evaluation of the management, which is used efficiently and optimally. The starting point of the government has been the right-seeking, is the pragmatism with the science of support. I believe that in those circumstances nothing prevents this Chamber from approving this bill.

I thank you. Mr Laeremans, would you like to take the word?

Mr. Speaker, I have another question to the Minister in connection with what has just been said, also by colleague Goris. He then announced that the bets of the magistrates would be raised. It was not clear at all whether that was linked to the knowledge of the second language or not. The Minister has not been clear about this.

You asked the question to Mr. Goris and he passed it on to the government.

This is a correct comment from Mr. Laeremans. I have said that there is a field of tension between the bet paid to the adding judge, who is or may be a single judge, and that of the judge who has passed the examination for bilingualism. That is also why I will submit a draft law to the government in the coming weeks, which aims to award a premium for bilinguality to magistrates who provide proof of bilinguality because I want to encourage the magistrates in Brussels to make that effort. It will be a substantial response that will encourage people in Brussels to make that effort.

Can I close the general discussion? Or do you want another replica, Mr. Bourgeois?

Mr. Speaker, I will not answer in detail. I said what I wanted to say and I heard the minister. I must say that I remain with my fundamental objections and that I am not convinced. You gave me plenty of time to say what I wanted to say. I will not fall into repetition. As a small added value in this debate on the added judges, I will therefore not explain my amendments, because you have just allowed me more speech time. Nevertheless, I will continue to hold them with the same amount of fire and hope that they will be supported.

June 13, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, if everyone agrees, I will be so free to submit the report on the two drafts in succession. If you allow me, I would like to subsequently make my personal intervention, on behalf of my party and myself. But first the report on the first bill replacing Article 43d and incorporating Article 66 in the Law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in court proceedings.

The Committee on Justice discussed this draft at its meetings of 7, 8, 14 and 22 May 2002. At the basis of the draft is the conclusion that it is difficult to find magistrates who can provide evidence of sufficient knowledge of the other national language. This has to do with the language exam. Due to this already very long-standing problem, the Government has therefore opted to adjust the language exam according to the functional requirement of the office being exercised. The Government refers to the report of the High Council for Justice. Therefore, there is a distinction between different levels of knowledge.

The first level is that of the elementary knowledge, which is required to hear witnesses and to understand documents. This applies, of course, to witnesses who speak the other national language and documents drawn up in the other national language, respectively Dutch and French.

The second level is that of sufficient knowledge. This is required to derogate in exceptional cases from the principle that law is spoken in the language of the diploma.

For this purpose, various exam types are created depending on basic knowledge or sufficient knowledge is required. The exam consists of a written part and an oral part. The language exam will be taken by the Deputy Director of Selor who will also issue the certificates.

Let me start with the discussion. Mr. Laeremans was of the opinion that this bill proves that this government has ⁇ little interest in the situation of the Flemish Brusselsers. The bilinguality of state services is diminished. He also believes that the working conditions of the magistrates should also be worked out.

The rapporteur emphasized that the delay in court proceedings was precisely caused by the years-long misunderstanding of the language legislation at the appointments in Brussels. However, the remedy that this design provides is aimed only at the French-speaking interests. According to the rapporteur, it is incorrect that the downturn was caused by language legislation. General structural measures across the country are also needed to address the judicial downturn.

Ms. Lalieux welcomed that the government is working to address the judicial lag in Brussels. The problem, however, is not in the actual language knowledge, but in the language examination itself. In response to Mr. Arens, the CDH calls for further measures, in particular, for example, the limitation of the number of bilingual magistrates, which must now be two-thirds in Brussels, to one-third.

Mr Verherstraeten acknowledges that the difficulty of appointing magistrates in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde has existed for years. However, the problem of judicial lag in Brussels goes beyond that: it has to do with the nature of the district itself. He therefore calls for a thorough reform of the judicial district and, more specifically, for the division of this judicial district; grosso modo a vertical division of the prosecutor’s office and a horizontal division of the seat.

President Erdman agrees with the scope of the draft, but at the same time points out that additional measures are needed to remedy the judicial lag in Brussels.

Mr Maingain pointed out that the language exams are excessively difficult, both for French speakers and for Dutch speakers.

Finally, Mr Van Parys regretted that, in order to address the real backwardness in Brussels, a unilateral concession to the French-speaking demands is chosen.

I now come to the vote. 23 amendments were submitted to the draft; five of these amendments were withdrawn; the 18 abstained amendments were all rejected and the draft was accepted by 11 against 3 votes.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now report on the discussion of the second draft, in particular the draft law amending article 86bis of the Judicial Code and the law of 3 April 1953 on the judicial institution, which is the draft number 1496. This bill was discussed during the committee meetings of 21, 22 and 28 May and 4 June 2002. It aims to create an exception in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in Brussels and the Labour Court in Brussels with regard to the total number of additional judges that may be appointed. The current article 86bis of the Judicial Code stipulates that the number of additional judges per jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal or of the Labour Court may not exceed one eighth of the total number of magistrates of the seat of the courts of first instance, the courts of commerce and the labour courts of the jurisdiction. The draft proposal aims to amend this and stipulates an exception for the Court of Appeal and the Labour Court in Brussels, in the sense that the number of added judges there may be more than one eighth, but that it may not exceed a fourth.

This amendment is reflected in the draft by the large judicial backwardness in that jurisdiction. It is said "that this backwardness is due to the difficulties of filling the staff framework, which in turn is due to the language problem." I quote from the memorandum of explanation, page 4, which was explained by the Minister in the Committee on Justice.

I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, that the Flemish Parliament has invoked a conflict of interest in this case and that the Flemish Parliament’s statement was that the interests of the Flemish people have been harmed because the draft law of 1935 on the use of languages in court proceedings is bypassed by the draft law, as it creates the possibility of appointing more single judges in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde district than the number provided by the law of 1935. As you know, the 1935 Brussels Act stipulates that at least one-third of the judges must have a diploma drawn up in French and at least one-third of the judges must have a diploma drawn up in Dutch and that two-thirds of the total of the magistrates must provide proof of knowledge of the other language. As the draft differs from this, the Flemish Parliament called for a conflict of interest.

The consultation on this conflict of interest, in which Chairman De Batselier raised seven objections on behalf of the Flemish Parliament, did not lead to an agreement between the delegations of the various parliaments. The Senate then advised that the motion, submitted by the Flemish Parliament, is unfounded. The consultation committee followed the opinion of the Senate, which the Prime Minister communicated by letter to the Chairman of the Chamber.

I come to the discussion. In his speech, Mr Laeremans stated that this draft has no other purpose than to circumvent the bilinguality requirements in Brussels. With this draft, the government encourages magistrates to remain single-sided instead of supporting language teaching for magistrates. The alleged shortage of magistrates in Brussels is not a valid argument for him, since the statutory staff formation was de facto completed by the already appointed additional judges. He also argued that the division of the judicial district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde would provide a solution to get out of the impasse. Mrs Lalieux, on the other hand, welcomed the government’s efforts to address the downturn, but she stated that these are urgent, provisional measures which, in her opinion, do not provide a coherent and structural solution to the downturn in Brussels. Their

Mr Van Parys did not agree with the government’s approach. He argued that one jurisdiction is preferred over all others. Furthermore, he considers that this draft has lost its reason for existence because the government simultaneously chooses to adapt the language legislation and to ease the language examinations. I refer here to the draft law of which I have just issued the report on the discussion. Mr Van Parys says that the additional judges are appointed for life so that in any case it is not a temporary measure, as the government points out. Mr. Van Parys decides that the government will bow to the lobby of Brussels French-speaking judicial circles who have never wanted to learn Dutch and are now also rewarded for this. Finally, he describes the government’s approach as counterproductive.

Mr Arens agreed with the purpose of the draft.

I myself stated at the discussion that it is not the government’s job to eliminate the backwardness in Brussels, but rather to circumvent the language legislation in Brussels. I have developed the assertion that this design no longer has any reason for existence. The explanatory memorandum, which refers to a structural approach due to the need to amend the language legislation, has been overlooked by the previously considered and in the committee approved draft law amending the language legislation. Furthermore, I asked the Minister for a clear answer to the question of whether or not the additional judges — in particular in the homogeneous Dutch-speaking area and the homogeneous French-speaking area — fall within the scope of the Language Act of 1935. Finally, I asked the government why it had not yet submitted the announced amendment to give the law a temporary character.

President Erdman stressed that the solution is not sufficient to resolve the judicial downturn structurally. He also had questions about the mobility premium, which only additional judges receive, and he decided that the notion of "service needs" is already too vague. Their

In its response, the Government pointed out the specificity of BrusselsHalle-Vilvoorde, which makes the proposed measure reasonable. Furthermore, the Government considers that the provisionality is sufficiently demonstrated by Article 86bis of the Judicial Code itself. The comments regarding the mobility premium are worth examining. However, this cannot happen within the framework of this project. Furthermore, the Minister emphasizes that the additional judges are not subject to the rules of knowledge of the second language.

So we came to the replicas, where your servant remained with his view that the measure proposed by the government is not the appropriate method to remedy the judicial downturn. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the problem in Brussels originates in the language legislation. Even if it would be advisable to be able to appoint more additional judges in Brussels, then yet there is no reason not to subject those added judges to the language legislation.

According to Mr. Laeremans, it should be a temporary measure. He feels supported by the Flemish Economic Union, the Flemish Pleitgenootschap, the Flemish Jurist Association and the Association of Flemish Balies. Mr Vandeurzen came back to the temporality of the draft. Together with Mr. Van Parys and Mr. Bourgeois, he believed that the government had committed itself to submit an amendment so that it would only be possible for four years to appoint more additional judges in Brussels. This was denied by the Minister.

Mr. Laeremans, Mr. Van Parys and myself submitted a number of amendments, all aimed at incorporating the provisionality of the rule on additional judges into the law. All amendments were rejected. The bill was adopted unchanged by 11 to 4 votes.

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

Mr. Bourgeois, you asked me if you could continue your speech. I would rather have some time between the report and the rapporteur’s own discourse.

Mr. President, that is good. In the meantime, you can let someone else speak.

I would like to remind you that the speaking time is a maximum of 30 minutes. There is one common discussion. You have just accepted that.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today we will vote on two bills that both make profound changes to the historical language legislation in court proceedings of 1935. These two bills constitute an irreversible step in the further refinement of the courts in Brussels. Both draft laws should, according to the motivation given, reduce the judicial delay. It is true that the judicial downturn in Brussels, but also elsewhere, has become a serious threat to good judicial administration. Solutions need to be found, but the solution will not come from these two bills. A weakened level of language skills and the addition of single French-speaking judges will not solve the problem of judicial lag. On the contrary, both measures threaten to increase, rather than reduce, the judicial lag. The consequence of the unanimity among the judges will be that more and more judges will be able to sit in fewer and fewer cases.

In Brussels, most of the affairs are language-mixed. That language mixed nature of the disputes in Brussels is the basis of the current language legislation there. The Brussels magistrates often have to hear people in both national languages, or take note of arguments in both national languages. None of the unilateral add-on judges can question other-language witnesses or consult other-language documents. These files will move to the ever smaller group of bilingual judges, resulting in new delays.

Interpreters and translations will need to be used, which in itself is already a disadvantage. This will slow the procedure even more and it will also cost more. The taxpayer will soon have to charge for interpreters and translations because French-speaking judges in Brussels refuse to learn Dutch. The communication between the judges will not improve either. Magistrates must be able to read and understand each other’s statements; they must be able to consult scientific literature in both languages?

With the present draft laws, there will be no qualitative improvement of the judiciary in Brussels and the applicant will be in charge of it.

That there are difficulties in the judicial district of Brussels is conscious. The judicial district of Brussels is the largest in the country, both the prosecutor’s office and the court of first instance of the judicial district of Brussels currently have a framework of more than 100 magistrates and each more than 200 employees. This is difficult to control within the existing structures. Everyone agrees on this. The problems lie mainly at the level of the Court of First Instance, the Court of Appeal in Brussels — ⁇ to a lesser extent —, the Labour Court and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. There are difficulties in filling out the frameworks in the absence of sufficient bilingual magistrates.

These drafts will result in the appointment of almost unlimited French-speaking judges, thereby increasingly limiting the bilingual character of the courts and the prosecutors.

Furthermore, the inspection of the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office, conducted by the High Council for Justice, has shown that almost everything on the Prosecutor’s Office is missing. The organization of correctional sessions leaves much to be desired. This leads to a tremendous waste of personnel and resources, as on average only 10 out of 30 cases are handled. According to this audit, there is still no criminal law policy in this prosecutor’s office, and the autonomous prosecution procedure is not applied.

Instead of structural measures, however, we are given two emergency measures that will not and cannot solve the problems posed. On Saturday, at the Flemish Conference in the Flemish Parliament, Ms. Geneviève Boliau, the chairman of the Order of the Flemish Balies, spoke about the qualitative justice system. He recommended that remedies be given before the disease is known. An analysis of the workload is planned and the judicial lag will be mapped. These results are not yet there; ⁇ they will not be there until within two years, but in the meantime measures are being taken on weakened language skills and single-talk added judges. First the medication, then the diagnosis.

Unanimity in Brussels, in a capital that internationally takes the second place in terms of accommodation of international institutions, organizations, press agencies, lobby centres and the like. This is a proof of shrinkage. Bilingualism, real bilingualism, is a must and a treasure. The risk of that growing legally initiated monotony is that it will spread in Brussels: monotonous magistrates, monotonous police, monotonous firefighters, monotonous nurses, and I can quote even more. This will not improve the quality of life and coexistence in Brussels.

Then I come to the bills themselves. First, the language skills requirements are adjusted. On the thorough language knowledge, functional language knowledge on two levels is provided in exceptions.

The legal weakening of language requirements has been demanded for years by French-speaking circles and heavily supported by the French-speaking media. This requirement has been reflected in a bill that will be voted today. For the Brussels magistrates, of whom two-thirds must know the other language, a completely new type of weakened language level is being conceived. The reduced language knowledge is intended to be able to quickly appoint French-speaking judges. Their

The number of additional judges will be increased. This is again an emergency measure and applies only to Brussels. According to the Minister, the very large number of added magistrates should not have knowledge of the other national language. The added judges are appointed for life but do not have a fixed office. In order to compensate for this discomfort, they are given a betting bonus. By combining this wager fee with the removal of the language requirement of the added judges, this supplement risks becoming a one-time bonus. That this premium leads to the hallucinating situation that single-talk added judges will enjoy a higher income than their colleagues who have made the effort to demonstrate their bilinguality is the cherry on the cake! Mr. Minister, it would not be more desirable to reward bilinguality rather than to give a premium to monotony.

In its opinion on the draft law against which a conflict of interest was raised, the Council of State stated that the number of additional judges for the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal may be increased provided that the planned measures are temporary in anticipation of structural measures that will enable the existing extraordinary situation to be ended definitively.

In the Chamber Committee on Justice, the Minister, in turn, clearly emphasized the temporary nature of the measure to increase the number of additional judges in the jurisdiction of Brussels. He announced the submission of an amendment that would address the possibility of replacing the threshold of one-eighth of the magistrates of the jurisdiction by reducing a threshold of one-fourth to four years. This transitional period, according to the minister, would allow structural measures to be developed. The Minister added that after the end of the four-year period no more new appointments could be made within the increased number of added magistrates so that this number could be automatically reduced in the future. However, the Minister has not submitted an amendment. There is no amendment. The promised provisionality of the measure is not the case.

As regards the provisionality, I would like to refer to the discussion in the Brussels Capital Council on a resolution submitted by the French speakers concerning the judicial lag and the additional judges. All parties, Dutch-speaking and French-speaking, have defended the provisionality of the measure. Ms. Mouzon of the PS — she knows what she is talking about — has fervently defended the temporality. In the resolution of the Brussels Capital Region the provisionality is recorded. This resolution was signed by all French-speaking parties.

Mr. Speaker, a resolution was effectively voted in the Brussels parliament, but without the support of CD&V. We are called to vote on the urgency, temporary and provisional character of the two measures which, initially, should not be so given that the idea was to take the time needed to conduct a more serene debate allowing structural measures, rather than temporarily appointing supplementary judges. For me, the temporaryity of supplementary judges is a function of judicial retardation. As long as there is a judicial delay, these supplementary judges will be justified.

Mrs. Lalieux, I have to contradict you. The resolution of the Brussels Capital Region is on my bank. If you want, I can pick them up and read them. Every speech of a French speaker in the Brussels Capital Council begins with "the temporary nature of this measure" or "in view of the temporary nature of" or "the need to temporarily find a solution for". I could read that. All French-speaking parties emphasize the provisionality.

Mrs. Creyf, Mr. Van Parys wishes to interrupt you briefly.

Mr. Speaker, in support of what colleague Simonne Creyf has excellently stated, I would point out that the Minister of Justice himself made a written commitment in this Chamber that the measure would be temporary and limited to four years; he expressly stated this. He has pledged that the government would submit an amendment in this sense, following the discussion on the conflict of interest. In this way, he has tried to shake the problem of the conflict of interests from himself. So he clearly sent us with a clutch in the roof. It is very important that the minister has said here that it will be temporary, that it will be limited to four years and that the government will submit an amendment in that sense. But now he does not do that anymore, and why? Because, in that respect, he is completely for the French speakers. It is weight. So he has not only taken the Parliament in the eye, but has here completely and completely denied the Flemish interests.

Mr Van Parys, a short interruption must be possible, but the case must also have its course.

( ... ...

You have also been a minister; if you would have answered everything at that time... I have not done that before either.

I want to even reinforce this demand for temporaryity. The Chairman of the Flemish Parliament, Mr. De Batselier, also wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice. He called for the measure to be temporarily taken. But I repeat: in the draft law, there is no mention of a limitation of the measure in time.

As our colleague Mark Eyskens often said very eloquently: nothing is more lasting than a temporary measure. The added judges will have a fixed seat over time, and after a few years, a definitive appointment of single judges at the Brussels courts will be undertaken.

That the Dutch-speaking colleagues of the majority accept and will approve such a thing is nevertheless unbelievable. I have already asked myself why the Dutch-speaking colleagues of the majority pick this. I think, for example, of colleague Coveliers, who — ⁇ in a too distant past — still owes a part of his political career to his Flemish-national attitude. I also think of colleague Valkeniers, who is no longer present, or of colleague Borginon, who is also not present. They indeed owe part of their political success to their Flemish-national attitude and now accept such a thing. Mr. Coveliers, is it because it is about Brussels? Is Brussels far from your bed? Will the Flemish majority parties leave Brussels? It would be short-sighted and, in addition, a bad signal for the judiciary in general.

However, I think there is another hypothesis. Is a purchase closed? The French-speaking people swallow the law on the regret-optants, and the Flamings must accept the refraction of the Brussels courts. Mr. Coveliers, you laugh, but if that were the case, the Flamings have made another kneefall for the French speakers and lose the Dutch speakers twice.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I also wonder what the reaction will be in Flanders, more specifically in FlandersBrabant. For Halle-Vilvoorde, which belongs to the judicial district of Brussels, there is no good judicial administration anymore. The prosecutor from Flemish-Brabant is being made too short in an increasingly single judicial district.

We have an alternative to these problems, namely the division of the judicial district.

You are quite late with it!

During the discussion, we submitted Hugo Vandenberghe’s bill submitted to the Senate as an amendment to the first bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hear colleague Cortois say that CD&V is late with its proposal to split the judicial district. Better late than never! In the meantime, CD&V has submitted its proposal.

Mr. Cortois, your party has submitted a similar proposal at the conclusion of the Flemish Government Agreement. The division of the judicial district is in that agreement! Now you had a chance to do that, but you don’t. You have CD&V so there is nothing to blame.

We have a few years of time.

Mr. Cortois, do you have a few more years of time? How long will it still last? You have a Greek calendar.

Mr Cortois, you are from Flemish-Brabant. The prosecution policy in Flemish-Brabant is becoming increasingly difficult. The characteristics of Brussels and VlaamsBrabant are not the same. For example, look at the crime figures or the small and large crime figures. The profiles of Brussels and Flemish-Brabant are growing apart. Flemish-Brabant is no longer in power to carry out its own, authentic prosecution policy. You have been the mayor and you know the problems. Better than anyone else, you should know that this is indeed a problem.

Mrs. Creyf, it is normal that Mr. Cortois wishes to interrupt. You asked him quickly.

Mrs. Creyf, you may be able to accept that I find your approach quite one-sided and pure party politics. What interests me, as well as everyone in VlaamsBrabant and everyone who falls under the judicial district of Brussels, is the following. First of all, there is a language problem. Secondly, it must be done work to ensure that justice is spoken, that the judicial practice continues.

Absolutely absolutely .

Well, that is not the case at the moment. Correction is our first goal. You are talking about experience. Well, the great complaint of the people, beyond all community problems, is that there is no right at the moment. This is a problem in our district. Unfortunately, the figures prove this. We must immediately do something about this.

As far as the subject matter is concerned, I can follow you in part.

This applies only to French speakers.

This does not only apply to French speakers. You can see how the judicial retardation evolves. This is not just about French language, but about safety. Nothing is done about it. We think that is important now.

The [...]

Please allow me to intervene. I find Mr. Cortois’s statement so grotesque that it deserves a replica.

Mr. Cortois, I apologize, but with your explanation you prove that you do not have any insight into the causes of the judicial lag in our country and primarily in Brussels. This problem is much more complex. In Brussels, the framework is tight. If you intervene on a topic, try to do so at least with knowledge of business. In Brussels, the framework is fully occupied by the additional judges. In Brussels, by the way, there is a devastating report on the functioning of the parquet, which I will talk about later.

You use all these ideas. You know that everything is artificially raised; it is plotted; there is a culture of conclusion; there is a culture to disrupt the sessions; there the Minister of Justice is summoned to the ongoing band — he says himself —; all this is done to drive up the judicial backdrop.

Finally, I noticed that Mr. Cortois received warm applause from the FDF after his presentation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly. This is Flemish-Brabant. Leuven also belongs to this, soon ⁇ even more significantly than before.

I would like to assist Mr Cortois on the figures, which I have with me.

Mr Bourgeois, the current occupation rate of the judges in the Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde district is 78, of the substitutes 68%. At the moment, not all additional judges provided for in the framework are also employed. Therefore, the framework is not firm, as you say.

Second, I call the figures of the degree of backwardness. This is very important. Today, only in correctional and criminal cases, there are 3,600 cases hanging in the French-speaking role versus 309 in the Dutch-speaking role. Thus, a Dutch-speaking case appears in Brussels within two months and for a French-speaking case this takes at least one year.

Mrs Creyf, which also means that a Flaming who works in Brussels, shops or goes out and becomes the victim of a violent crime in Brussels by a French speaker, also has to wait more than one year for his right. Conversely, if a Flaming is the perpetrator of a violent crime against a French speaker, he is convicted within two months. Also the Flemish interest is thus served in the mixed arrondissement of Brussels with a faster handling of criminal cases on the French-speaking role.

Mr. Goris demonstrates that he did not handle the case himself in the committee. That was Mr. Coveliers. I gave in the committee the figures I received from the Chairman of the Court of First Instance. It was not contested by the Minister. There are 105 seats at the Court of First Instance of Brussels. The 21 added judges currently occupy 104 of the 105 seats. There is no problem with occupation. All places are occupied. If there was a delay, it will be entered at the moment. What you are now doing is opening the door for dozens of new single-sided magistrates...

Mr. Laeremans, Mr. Goris, an interruption is an interruption and not a discourse in discs.

First, this is a personal fact. Mr. Laeremans disputes my presence in the committee. I would like to point out that I was present during the discussion in the committee.

Secondly, our group in the committee has conferred on this.

Thirdly, the figures I cite come from the report just read by Mr. Bourgeois.

The word is again to Mrs. Creyf. Mrs. Creyf, you are causing the interruptions.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the compliment. I think this intense discussion proves that it is a very sensitive and important matter. The Dutch-speaking colleagues of the majority must struggle in all sorts of curves to accept that they will approve these bills.

I had come to the CD&V alternative, namely the division of the judicial district. We opt for a functional division of the judicial district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde with a territorial division of the prosecutor's office into, on the one hand, HalleVilvoorde and, on the other hand, Brussels-Capital and a division by community of the seat.

Ladies and gentlemen, Mrs. Creyf was speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I was interrupted again and this time I did not provoke it.

I was talking about the fact that for Flemish-Brabant there is a territorial division of the parquet in Halle-Vilvoorde, on the one hand, and Brussels-Capital, on the other, and a division by community of the seat. Mr. Cortois, in this way there will be a language-homogeneous court for Flemish-Brabant and the Dutch-speaking prosecutor’s office will be able to respond more efficiently to the needs of the territory of HalleVilvoorde. The bilingual parquet can specialize in the metropolitan problem.

This division constitutes a structural approach, something that is constantly requested in these dossiers, based on efficiency, legal certainty and uniformity of the prosecution policy in Flemish-Brabant. The bills we vote on today do not offer structural solutions, even the opposite.

First of all, I would like to thank Mr. President. Bourgeois for his faithful relationship.

Montesquieu, addressing the Parliament of Bordeaux in 1725, already said: "The injustice is not in the judgment but in the time."

Since the work of the Dutroux Parliamentary Commission, the media, and through them the public opinion, have been rightly concerned about certain dysfunctions in the judiciary. If there is a dysfunction that endangers the foundations of the rule of law, that undermines the confidence of citizens in their institutions, that breaks the social pact, it is judicial backwardness.

In order for the judgment to make sense, in order for it to fulfill its function of ensuring social peace by resolving conflicts, in order for it to still be useful to persons engaged in a trial, it is important that it be delivered within a reasonable time.

In civil matters, backwardness can lead to disastrous human dramas. Think of family conflicts, disputes between individuals and companies or banks, those opposing insurers and insurance companies, conflicts between tenants and owners, ...

In criminal matters, the lack of reaction or the late reaction to certain forms of crime — which some parties are very concerned about — leads to a feeling of misunderstanding and frustration in the victim, a feeling of impunity in the perpetrator and the loss of meaning of the punishment.

Finally, the judicial delay and its harmful effects insidiously lead to bad solutions such as the abnormally long and abusive use of preventive detention, the accelerated procedures that often degenerate into faulty procedures, self-defense or even the fact of making justice yourself.

The reality of judicial back-up is very different depending on the districts and types of courts. The situation in Brussels is quite specific in this regard. Particular attention must therefore be paid to it, since this reality now engenders an unacceptable discrimination among the justiciable.

The causes of the delay have been often circumscribed: lack of resources, insufficient personnel, sometimes lack of will of the judicial actors and dilatory and procedural behavior of some lawyers, but also and above all, the considerable increase in the number of disputes brought before the courts.

Our society no longer knows how to resolve its conflicts without recourse to a judge.

Remedies have been proposed and efforts have been made. Encouraging, or even remarkable, results were recorded in some judicial districts outside of Brussels, which tends to demonstrate that backwardness is not a fatality.

We are aware of the particular situation at the Brussels headquarters and at the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Contrary to what Mr. Laeremans, there are 1/3 of employees missing both at the prosecutor’s office and at the headquarters, at least in terms of French-speaking employees.

No administration, no public service could function with such a recurring shortage of personnel.

The inevitable consequence is obviously an increase in judicial delay and to remind, Mr. Chairman of the Justice Committee, I am not talking about the slowness of the establishment but rather about the abnormally long period between the moment when a case is ready to be pledged and the moment when it is actually fixed to a hearing for pledging and obtaining a decision.

The latest figures received by the president of the court of first instance are eloquent: - in the civil, 2,709 French-speaking cases in state on the waiting list, or 767 hearings, for 205 cases on the Dutch-speaking side; - in the correctional section, 3,590 pending cases handed over in May 2003 at the earliest, for 309 cases on the Dutch-speaking side.

The same applies to the youth court where the president of the court of first instance requests a minimum of four French-speaking youth judges.

Given the seriousness of the situation, urgent measures are needed to resolve this Brussels judicial backwardness.

In this perspective, the two bills we are discussing, namely, on the one hand, the increase in the number of supplementary magistrates for the jurisdiction of the Brussels Court of Appeal and, on the other hand, the adaptation of the linguistic examination to the function exercised by the magistrates and its organisation by the SELOR are obviously very positive signals.

Regarding the use of languages, the Socialist Party is and will obviously remain attached to the principle that a judge must sit in the language of his diploma, as the minister has rightly recalled during our debates in the Justice Committee.

Without wanting to hurt my Dutch-speaking colleagues, I would like, figures to support, to put an end to a tense prejudice regarding bilingualism of one and the other, even though at present, I grant you, Dutch-speaking legal bilinguals are the majority in the judicial district of Brussels. Indeed, during the language examination carried out in 2001, there were 18 French-speaking candidates for 38 places to be secured, of which only five succeeded in both tests, while there were 27 Dutch-speaking candidates for twelve places to be secured, of which only four succeeded in both language tests.

In my view, the low overall success rate demonstrates that it is the language exam as designed that poses a problem rather than the actual knowledge of the language. This applies to all judges, regardless of their language origin. by

These figures also demonstrate the shortage of candidates for Brussels. Indeed, the majority of them prefer to apply for unilingual districts, with less backwardness and better working conditions.

This simplified linguistic examination corresponds, however, to the functional needs of judicial practice and, therefore, to the needs of the justiciable. Therefore, it can be expected that this examination will motivate our magistrates and future magistrates discouraged by this low rate of success and will allow for the future to fill in part the cadres.

Let us clarify that this future linguistic examination does not harm the interests of the applicants, whether they are French or Dutch-speaking. by

Mr. Minister, it is also illusory to believe or make to believe that this reform alone will solve all the problems of the judicial district of Brussels. by

Furthermore, the increase in the number of supplementary magistrates to the Brussels Court of Appeal will allow, at least partially, to remedy quickly, legally and provisionally the lack of magistrates within the Brussels Court of First Instance and its prosecutor’s office.

This last project, which has taken a considerable delay, should be implemented as soon as possible. It was decided by the Council of Ministers on 17 March 2000. by Mr. The Minister withdrew it on its own initiative and resettled it in June 2001. Put on the agenda of the Justice Committee at the return, the Flemish parliament voted a motion of conflict of interest.

We had to wait two years and three months. In July 1999, the federal government already expressed itself in these terms in its statement: “Judicial retardation causes human dramas.” Over a period of two years and three months, there have been many human dramas and wrong-treated prosecutors in Brussels. I am afraid there will be a lot more before these two projects bear fruit. Therefore there is urgency.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, please do not forget that at some point I asked for the emergency. Unfortunately, at that time, you were absent.

I am talking about the supplementary judges and not the linguistic examination. As for the emergency, remember, Mr. Coveliers and I were the only ones to be raised. Therefore, I have no lesson to receive.

That said, I will conclude my speech by telling you, as I have already said in the committee, that what we cruelly lack, today, are objective, standardized and comparable data on both the judicial backward and on the burden of work. This problem of assessing the workload is also the subject of many discussions. by

It is for all these reasons that it is indispensable and urgent to evaluate objectively and independently the nature of the extent of the judicial delay, the workload and the volume of cases to be handled in French and Dutch for the Brussels district.

This work is indispensable because the two above-mentioned projects cannot constitute a sustainable solution on their own.

This objective assessment would allow, following a serene debate and respecting the interests of all eligible persons, to develop structural solutions and adapt the staff framework.

Our medium-term goal, a goal that should also be shared by all those who want a correct justice for our justiciable, making a public service worthy of that name, is to bring structural and sustainable measures in order to curb the judicial backdrop and above all not to create a new one.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, without a doubt, the Flemish majority parties will do their best to present today’s debate as an ackefietje, as a limited discussion on a few petty adjustments to make life in Brussels a little more pleasant, to promote good justice and to satisfy all stakeholders. In reality, we find in these bills the combination of the worst character traits that this government, this purple-green majority, has been characterizing for three years. It is about the wrong solutions to the wrong problems: manipulation of the facts, violation of the existing language legislation and incivism. It is a story of word breaking and extreme cynicism among the Flemish majority parties. In particular, it is again a question of unilateral, excessive and extreme concessions to the French speakers and of a definitive blocking of legitimate Flemish aspirations. In short, it is the perfect illustration of the absolute anti-Flemish policy, the absolute mis-policy of the government-VerhofstadtMichel. I explain myself more closely.

First, the easing of language examinations as a wrong solution to false problems. The simple story of the French speakers goes as follows. There is a lot of judicial backwardness in the French-speaking chambers in Brussels. This is due to a shortage of judges. This is the result of the too strict language legislation, of the too difficult language examinations. The Flemish majority parties add, in all their mistrust with the file, that those exams are difficult for the Flemish too and that the French speakers are therefore right. Thus they carry out with the slave courtesy which is their own from what the French speakers command.

As for the judicial lag, it is indeed greater on the French-speaking side than on the Dutch-speaking side. However, this is only true if we look at the current figures resulting from a temporary shortage of judges from the past. If we ask in the committee about the evolution of that backwardness over the past years, we will not get an answer. While Justice scrupulously checks whether this is reasonable in all cases where legal intervention is requested or where additional resources and people are requested, one does not want to give a serious overview of the evolution of that backwardness. There is, of course, a reason for that.

This brings us to our second conclusion. The shortage of French-speaking judges no longer exists, it is completed past time. The French-speaking press has written for years that it is a shame that the French-speaking rooms are empty because of the lack of judges. Today the framework is established. It was the President of the Court of First Instance himself who put it on paper for me. The Minister could not contradict these figures. There is a framework of 105 magistrates and in practice 104 of these seats are occupied, part of course by the 21 magistrates added on the basis of existing legislation. Therefore, there is no acute problem, neither in the labour court nor in the trade court. However, if we propose to hear the presidents of these courts and to ask how they can remove the backwardness with the current potential of judges, this path is rejected.

A discussion about the essence of the case should not be carried out.

Third, there is also the story of the language exams that would be impossible to be heavy for both the French speakers and the Dutch speakers. We will not completely overcome this debate today. We will also not claim that there has been no problem. Certainly, in any case — which has been sufficiently demonstrated by Professor Frans De Pauw, among others — that there were ⁇ many fables woven around them and that the exams were usually much more difficult for the Dutch-speaking candidates than for the French-speaking candidates.

Yet here are again the naked figures of the presidents of the courts. Of the 52 Dutch-speaking judges at the Court of First Instance, the Court of Commerce and the Labour Court, as many as 48 have passed the French exam, or roughly 92%. Of the 77 French-speaking judges, only 34 or 45% have passed the Dutch exam, although according to the law no less than two-thirds of all judges must provide proof of language proficiency. It is essentially a French-speaking problem that is the result of a years-long reluctance of the French-speaking ministers of justice to comply with the law in combination with a general disrespect that in certain circles still exists for Dutch. The result is a sadly low level of education in the second language – if it is already the second language – in the French language education. If we today unilaterally give in to the demands of the French speakers to drastically reduce the level of examinations for the overwhelming majority of magistrates, then this scrupulous neglect of Dutch is rewarded. This is the signal to the French-speaking education that it can calmly continue, that it is not all so serious.

Nevertheless, it continues to be said that the problem is also situated on the Dutch-speaking side, because — as they say — there are too few Dutch-speaking parket magistrates. This too is a drogreed, because the shortage of candidate parket magistrates in Brussels has nothing to do with the language legislation but rather with the shabouwelly misstatements for which most young people who want to go into the magistrature celebrate thanks. Who wants to get acquainted with the nineteenth century who does not need a remote time machine. That person just has to step down at the Brussels parquet. After all, the prosecutor’s office in Dejemeppe is struggling not only with the typical neglect of the prosecutor’s office as we see it everywhere – too little administrative support, too little resources, weak informatization – but also with a poor housing and an archi-bad, chaotic leadership. I have already repeatedly said that this is partly due to the incompetent Dejemeppe, but at the same time that it is not only his fault. This park is simply uncontrollable due to its size. The only solution to end this is the territorial division with separate parkets for Brussels and Halle-Vilvoorde. This, however, must not be from the French speakers and so one continues to encourage, the demotivation remains present and the request continues to rain to be allowed to leave this mastodont park. Simplified language exams will not put any problems here, because whoever wants to work at the Brussels Parquet today is either a madman or a hero. Certainly the latter are not too thick.

The problem of the language examinations is initially a French-speaking problem which is also caused by the French speakers themselves. As usual, they shout the loudest, in a united offensive of lawyers, the press and politicians, they strike these problems out of all proportions, they manipulate the facts and they ultimately succeed — thanks to the benevolent collaboration of VLD, SP.A and Agalev — that their demands are fully unilaterally met. They also realize that nothing is being done to address the numerous other problems of the Brussels court. First, there is the judicial downturn. Instead of finally putting on foot an instrument that can measure that backwardness in a strict and above all uniform manner and only then draw conclusions to the staff, this problem is pushed on the long run and the Brussels court can immediately be completed with magistrates in overtal.

There is the backwardness at the Court of Cassation on the Netherlands-speaking side and consequently the much longer waiting times for Flamingen, and even the handling of Netherlands-speaking files by Netherlands-speaking magistrates. But nothing can be done about it, for it must not be tormented to the holy, all-sacrifying parity at the Court of Cassation. When we ask questions about it in the committee, the answer remains out, it is simply said that this debate is not on the agenda. There is the problem of internal communication at the Brussels court where the Dutch-speaking magistrates at meetings must always adapt again and speak French, because too many French-speaking colleagues simply do not understand them. In the court of Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde there are still masses of magistrates who do not even have a basic knowledge of Dutch, who can not even follow a deadly ordinary conversation, can read a judgment of their own court or can read Dutch-speaking articles. The Dutch-speaking judges themselves demand that the weakening of the language exams would be at least partially compensated by requiring from all new judges an elementary, a minimum receptive knowledge of the other national language. But even this reasonable question is too much: amendments in that sense were also rejected by the Flemish majority parties.

There is the problem of language premium. Also there are the Flamingen asking party, but there is no satisfaction there either. The minister himself acknowledges that they actually deserve it, the magistrates who provide proof of their knowledge of the other language, but says that this is not the issue now. In other words, for three years he has not had the courage to force the budget necessary for this. Their

There is the problem of the unfair distribution of language requirements within the language groups. Two-thirds of the magistrates must have a language certificate, but in practice — I have just given the figures — it is the Flamings who deliver the majority of the patents. This has as a perverse consequence that today no single Flaming can be appointed to the court, whereas in the French speakers more than half of the judges are single-language. The paradox is that precisely the Flemish have more reasons to push single-talk magistrates because Halle-Vilvoorde is a single-talk Dutch-speaking area. If this formed a separate arrondissement, there would simply be no language requirement for most magistrates. Their

This leads us to the last problem that remains unresolved, that of the unitary judicial district. VLD, SP.A and Agalev put in their Flemish government agreement that the division of the Brussels court on a horizontal basis, according to the model of the court, is a priority for them. What will those parties do if they finally get a chance at the federal level to realize that requirement? They let this Flemish demand fall, they vote with an outstretched face against the amendments of the opposition to realize that division. However, it was the selected moment. Do French speakers want the abolition of bilingualism? Okay, you should have said, but then the logic requires that we go to two unitary courts and to a split of the prosecutor’s office. Then you had finally also come to meet with the grievances of the dozens of mayors from Halle-Vilvoorde, Mr. Cortois, who complain stone and foot about the Dutch parket magistrates and about the stepmotherly treatment of this region by prosecutor Dejemeppe. What is done in practice? Only the uplifted problem of the French speakers is addressed and the Flemish aspirations are wiped off on the scratch. For once when the French speakers were the requesting party and you were in a favorable negotiating position, you have cowardly refused to meet even the slightest request from your own magistrates, your own lawyers, your own mayors and municipal councillors. It is just shameful!

And as if that is not bad enough, there is the whole story of the dozens of added magistrates. What is happening here is unimaginable hypocrisy. On the one hand, a draft law is approved which drastically eases the language exams and expressly arouses the expectation that a bunch of new magistrates with knowledge of Dutch will be appointed. On the other hand, it is said: “Do you still not want to participate in the relaxed exam, that doesn’t matter, hear. We are creating 25 new seats for judges and 17 new seats for prosecutors where you do not have to make any effort to learn Dutch.” Dozens of completely single French-speaking candidate magistrates are allowed to enter in this way. It’s like the shopkeeper who wants to cheat his insurance company. After having confirmed to his pleasure that he had been robbed 17 times and was obliged by his insurance company to place a lock on his front door, he now simultaneously hangs a poster on the front door with the message that the door on the back is being opened across the car. I dare suppose that a majority has never before, on the same day that it approved a bill, so flagrantly and so openly that it undermined and undermined the same bill, so openly and so clearly shown that its own law will hardly be applied in practice, because it will immediately be exhausted by another law approved at the same time.

In fact, the Act on Additional Judges results in the fact that one simply again falls into the old practice as it existed under the French-speaking ministers Moureaux, Gol and Wathelet, in particular that single persons can be appointed unlimited in the Brussels court and that the language law, despite its very clear content which states that two-thirds of all magistrates must deliver the language certificate, and despite the jurisprudence of the Council of State, can be raped at heart. The incivism of the past is not only rewarded today, it is reintroduced.

Minister Verwilghen naturally makes use of the weak side of CD&V, since that party, at that time under Stefaan De Clerck, initiated the system of additional judges and, therefore, regrettably admitted that those magistrates fall outside the language legislation. CD&V is now in trouble because it must now claim the opposite of what its current chairman claimed four years ago. (...) Collega Creyf, it has been sufficiently cited in the committee: at that time, Stefaan De Clerck claimed that those magistrates fall outside the language law. It has been said so.

But there is a difference, and that stretches you to honor. The added judges of the time were intended to provide flexible support judges, who would pendle within each Court of Appeal and would jump into emergency situations, for example when pregnant judges need to be replaced. Therefore, their number was limited. Today is the fence of the dam. Their number is simply doubled in Brussels, so that we will have a total of up to 84 additional magistrates, who will not pendul between the courts and the prosecutors of Leuven, Nijvel and Brussels, but who are specifically, at least the overwhelming majority of them, intended to bypass the language law in order to further grow the mass of single French-speaking judges and to frenchize the court.

Furthermore, the perverse of the system is that those unicorns are installed in their unicorns and encouraged to remain unicorns, because they receive a premium for that. It is not just a habbekrat. No, the premium is between 130,000 and 190,000 old Belgian francs per year. Those who have passed the language exam must, by the unwillingness of the Minister of Justice, pass it without a single cent incentive premium.

The Minister may then say another 100 times that the arrangement is temporary and that it will only last as long as the current need exists, the Minister may then swear another 100 times a costly oath that he will not appoint any additional judge anymore, if there is no need for it anymore, every Christmas sign knows that those judges are appointed for life and that the appointment of additional judges in each jury de facto constitutes an extension of the framework and that it will never be returned again. Their

Who believes this minister when he says that he will no longer appoint additional judges when it is no longer needed? What is such a promise worth if no one knows who will be the next Minister of Justice? Who says, Mr. Minister, that you will be the next Minister of Justice? I hope from the bottom of my heart that you will not be the next Minister of Justice; that you will not succeed yourself.

If one aspect is clear about the current Minister of Justice, it is that his promises, his expensive oaths, are not worth cutting. After all, he is not afraid to commit flagrant fraud, especially in this uncomplicated dossier.

The Minister himself announced, both in relation to the delegation of the Flemish Parliament, led by Mr. De Batselier — who was then compared by Mr. Coveliers, in a very denigrating way, which is, by the way, typical for him, with Mr. De Croo, in which he was labeled as the local version of Mr. De Croo — and in relation to our committee that he would submit an amendment to limit the entire operation to a maximum of four years in time, because afterwards the easing of the language examinations would be sufficient. This was not simply a loose announcement by the Minister; but that statement was included in a document signed by him that was essential in the conflict of interest with the Flemish Parliament. When point by point came and the article-based discussion of this law was started, it suddenly turned out that there was no amendment at all. The minister had changed his mind; it was no longer necessary, for it was sufficient from the provisions of the law itself that it was not destined for eternity.

The word of the Minister of Justice is worthless. Even documents signed by him that contain a very concrete commitment on behalf of the government, he pulls under pressure from the French speakers.

This is not the first time we experience this with the Minister. Marc Verwilghen committed speech breaking against his voters with his quick-Belgic law. Marc Verwilghen broke words on numerous levels with his security plan, which is quite different from the V plan with which he attracted the voter. In a grotesque way, Marc Verwilghen said goodbye to his right to youth sanctions. “If our partners continue to boycott youth rights, then I don’t know what we are still in this government to do,” the minister said in De Morgen on April 27.

Today, Verwilghen is still part of the government, but the youth sanction law is in the garbage basket. Their

This Minister of Justice, who shamelessly denies his own signature, is not a man of honor. Just like Flanders with Vanderpoorten has never had such a bad Minister of Education, Marc Verwilghen is the weakest Minister of Justice in the last fifty years.

What still pleads in favor of the Minister of Justice is that he apparently was born without a spine and understands nothing of the Flemish sensitivities. This does not apply to other members of the VLD group, and in this regard I am more specifically addressing Mr Coveliers. This is especially not true for you, Mr. Coveliers! Mr. Coveliers owes his political career to a formerly Flemish-minded party and thus to the employment of thousands of anonymous idealist Flemish movements. Where individuals such as Hugo Coveliers and Jef Valkeniers could have given the VLD a Flemish reflex, the opposite happened: they themselves became the support pillars of the belgitude; they became the spokesmen of French-speaking demands, the marionettes of PRL, FDF and PS. They today vehemently deny the VLD demand and the claim of the Flemish government of which they are part, regarding the division of the judicial district and regarding the division of the electoral district.

In fact, yesterday they also spread false notes in which they try to make the press and public opinion aware that the split would be detrimental to Flanders. In fact, they throw away in both the file of the electoral district and that of the judicial district – by accepting all the French-speaking demands in a single blow with a gentle hand – every break iron that the Flamings could ever help forward.

Mr Laeremans, you understand that Mr Coveliers would like to interrupt you. You have taken care of it yourself a little.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Laeremans, as always, speaks too long and he is completely wrong.

If that is the only thing that

Bart Laeremans (FLAAMS colleague Coveliers can counter, then it is especially scalable and poor. We thought you would argue, but you do not. You do not provide substance for discussion. That is your responsibility and it will be stated in the report.

Mr Valkeniers, you usually speak loud, but you must first ask the word.

Mr. Speaker, why are all those bilingual Flemish Blok lawyers not coming to Brussels as candidate judges?

Would you like me to submit my candidacy? It will not be allowed.

If you want to apostolate in French-speaking Brussels, you must sacrifice yourself. I see this also in the OCMW centers. There, the positions of the Flamingos are also not filled because there are simply no candidates, Mr. Laeremans. This is also the problem with these bilingual judges. There are not enough candidates.

Colleague Valkeniers, you seem to be talking about the OCMW centres in Brussels.

The [...]

Mr. President, Mr. Erdman did not use the microphone. God preserve us from such judges! It is only that we know. Thank you for your compliment. If you say that, I am very upset, colleague Erdman.

Colleague Valkeniers, if people are only appointed when they provide evidence of a thorough knowledge of the other language — bilingual judges are a different story — and get rid of those added judges, then there will be enough candidates. As standards are repeatedly lowered and language laws are weakened, the French speakers do not have any need to take advanced courses in Dutch. They are not driven, because the demands are further weakened every time, here and in the language fairness agreement. Wherever you are in power, you weaken the demands.

I will not start with the honoraries of the psychiatrists, colleague Valkeniers. That is not the matter.

Where one could blame the CVP of the time as a Januscal head because of its ambiguous attitude — the Belgian wing of Dehaene and the Flemish wing of Van den Brande — this is with the VLD today...

Mr. Valkeniers, les jeunes mariés! Mr Van den Eynde, Mr Annemans, there is a speaker from your group at the floor.

He attracts it out.

Mr. Valkeniers, now let Mr. Laeremans speak.

If one could accuse the CVP of a Januskop at the time — what one can only do today with regard to Brussels — the situation with the VLD is much worse. There, the unitary wing is completely dominant and we have on the Flemish side only cynical slippers. There is no one in that party who still stands up for the Flemish interest. The VLD of today differs in nothing from the food party of 15 years ago, which had an eye only for the self-interest and the own profits and which looked down on...

( ... ...

Mr Annemans, listen to the speaker of your group. What you say is lost to history.

Collega Valkeniers, if we talk about the bilingual folders in Brussels, I can only state that your own party and all the other Flemish parties that have been spreading long before us and that it is simply the Brussels reality that all parties are there in both languages to the voters. It belongs to courtesy. The FDF does not, but the other parties do. In the 1960s, this may not have been the case, but that has changed because very many Flamings from Brussels are going to run. Your party mate, Mrs. Neyts, had that Flemish Block, by the way, occurred for a long time. All the other parties had already done so, including the People’s Union at the time.

In any case, in that part of the profits, one looked down on those who came up for the general interest or for the Flemish interest. The VLD has a unanimous front of haunted French-speaking negotiators who always re-think strategically and prioritize the common Wallish and Franco-speaking interests. The logical outcome of that confrontation is that it is always again the French speakers who can pass through the box office. That does not prevent the liberal growers from still feeling like a fish in the water in this anti-Flemish government, in this most anti-Flemish political constellation that we have known since the beginning of the 1960s, a government that from the beginning has granted to the French money hunger in education, a government that through the Lambermont agreements has blocked any expansion of Flemish autonomy and played the Brussels Flamings forever in the hands of the crushing French-speaking majority there.

That government wants to eliminate all language laws: from the administrative language law and the language legislation in the military to the language law in court proceedings. She extends the deadliest language fairness agreement even further and extends it to the Brussels police. That government wants to leave 2 million Flemish unrepresented in the new Senate and block the split of the electoral district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde for years. This government also wants to stop the necessary division of the judicial district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde.

Colleague Coveliers, what a devastating palmares! Be assured that in Brussels and in the rest of Flanders you will be charged very hard on a bad day.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, “Brussels is still waiting for its magistrates”, “The magistrates grumble and the lawyers act”, “Judicial Arrest: Brussels is stuck.” "The judicial retreat, put an end to it quickly", "The justice dragged into justice", these are the headlines of our newspapers for now several years. The problem of judicial retardation in Brussels has indeed become recurrent.

Everything accelerated in 1995 when the then Minister of Justice, the current Chairman of CD&V, Stefaan De Clerck decided to enforce the 1935 Law on the Use of Languages in Judicial Matters under a restrictive interpretation of this linguistic legislation. His successors will not be able to walk backwards. by

In Brussels, two-thirds of the ordinary staff of magistrates must be legal bilinguals. It is absurd when one knows that the golden rule under which a magistrate cannot sit in a language other than that of his diploma is always respected. by

From its establishment, the rainbow government decided to seriously address the problem and reversed the logic of CD&V. It was in 1999 that the so-called “commission of the wise” was created. She examines the problem and submits us a report recommending crisis measures.

In July 2000, the first solutions were presented by the government. A way out? Not yet, since the Flemish Parliament considers its interests damaged. In other words, a new obstacle. Meanwhile, the Belgian State is condemned for the moral damage suffered by the justifiable victim of judicial delay. by

May 2002 – and I want to say “Finally! The Justice Committee adopts two draft laws: one concerning supplementary magistrates, the other amending the 1935 law on the use of languages in judicial matters. by

Results of the failures I recalled above: 35 seats out of 117 are not provided for the framework of magistrates. Thus, there is a lack of 30% of judges in the court of first instance and 30% of substitutes compared to the existing framework. Ten thousand cases are in a position to be pledged but will only be fixed for one, two, even three or even four years. The citizen victim of a road accident must therefore wait five to ten years before being compensated. There is a proportion of 23% of bilingual magistrates where 66 are expected and this while we are announced an increase of 12% of cases handled in 2001 compared to 2000.

Only one possible finding: this situation suscits the disarray of the magistrates but also – and I was almost going to say “especially” – of the justiciable. The magistrates wait for their daily life to become livable again and the citizen expresses his distrust of the judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, if I recalled where we came from, it is to better mark the importance of the step that the House of Representatives will ⁇ take today. Although the previous governments did not dare or rather wanted to open the debate, the current government has, from the beginning of the legislature in 1999, announced that it wants to resolve this problem as a priority. Today, two bills have been adopted by the Justice Committee and are submitted to the House vote.

These two bills should not be perceived as "the" solution to the problem of judicial delay in Brussels, as its causes are multiple. They are part of a set of measures that have been adopted or are in the process of being adopted and that will contribute to enabling our justice to truly move into the 21st century.

What needs to be highlighted today, beyond technical advances, is the symbolic advance made by our majority in this area that has long been blocked by certain political groups present in this assembly. Today we can say that the will of this government allows us to move forward towards an outcome that had become almost unexpected.

First draft: the replacement of article 43quinquies and the insertion of article 66 in the law of 15 June 1935. Currently, two-thirds of the magistrates of the Brussels judicial district must have passed a language exam, both fearful and unsuitable for the exercise of the profession. The numerous failures therefore limit the possibilities of recruitment and explain, in part, the lack of magistrates.

The proposed law aims to adapt the content of the linguistic examination to the functional needs of judicial practice. A judge may sit only in the language of his diploma. This rule is common sense, it is a requirement of good administration of justice. This principle implies that the same level of language knowledge cannot be required for all judges. In fact, a double level of linguistic competence will therefore be organised: a thorough knowledge of the second language will still be required for some magistrates, including for example corps heads, and functional bilingualism will be required for others.

In addition, the organization of these examinations will be entrusted to Selor.

We will hear the Flemish opposition — we have already heard it — try again to accredit in the public opinion that in Brussels, the conditions for nominations have a disastrous effect on the only French-speaking side. In this case, however, the community conflict comes back in a childish and counterproductive way. We must see — Ms Lalieux recalled it recently — that the conditions imposed on bilingualism are as harmful to Dutch-speaking magistrates as to French-speaking magistrates. The figures from 2001 are speaking: 5 French-speaking candidates out of 18 passed the Dutch exam. At the same time, only 4 out of 27 Dutch-speaking candidates passed the exam in French.

Numbers are cited to prove that both Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people fail to pass those exams. However, that does not automatically mean that they are too difficult, but ⁇ that they are not adjusted properly. However, now this bill states that Selor will be responsible for those exams, so they will also be identical for Dutch-speaking and French-speaking people.

Why would it not be enough to first consider how those exams would run under Selor. It could be that there would have been very different results, without the need to weaken the law. Now you do everything at once: you switch on Selor and you make the exams so easy that there will automatically be a lot of people pass, instead of waiting for what Selor would bring. That would have been much more logical.

The exams will not be easier. If you had listened to me recently, you would have understood that there will be two levels. It doesn’t make sense to ask everyone for in-depth knowledge of the other language. As I said recently, in-depth knowledge is required for certain functions, such as body heads. For others, functional bilingualism is sufficient. This will give reasonable results. by

You are not going to tell me that all these candidates, both French and Dutch-speaking, who have passed all their university exams and are sometimes brilliant lawyers, become idiots when they pass the language exam to become magistrates. It is false. This is simply because the required level is completely inappropriate to the function they will occupy. This is what needs to be corrected.

The law entrusts the organization of these tests to Selor, considering that it is an independent institution that has expertise in the matter. We insist that it contributes to the rapid implementation of the review procedure and the necessary tools.

Similarly, we emphasize the usefulness of organizing the passive examination of effective language knowledge for all magistrates who only intervene in unilingual proceedings. Passive knowledge of the other language may indeed be indispensable for the understanding of the documents in the file and the examination of the case-law. However, the active oral test, which deals with a topic of everyday life, must remain a test of basic knowledge and could not disguise another form of selection of candidates. by

As legislators, we can only lay the foundations for a new system. We therefore count on the benevolence of each stakeholder involved in this new process of organizing examinations to allow, in practice, light examinations and to allow magistrates, already bilingual in the facts, to be also recognised as legally bilingual. by

We will remain vigilant and concerned to see the objective of this legislation be respected.

The second draft amending article 86bis of the Judicial Code and the law of 3 April 1953 aims to quickly remedy the lack of magistrates for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal by appointing supplementary magistrates. These magistrates form a temporary framework outside the legal framework. They will therefore not be subject to the linguistic requirements of the Law of 1935. The State Council has confirmed that the legislature has the possibility to increase the number of supplementary judges in anticipation of structural measures to resolve the problem definitively. He therefore has the possibility to take temporary measures with a view – this is indeed the primary objective – to remove the judicial delay.

The conflict of interest which has again been raised by the Flemish Parliament does not serve the cause of the Dutch-speaking justiciable. The development of the linguistic frameworks of the judiciary shall not prejudice the communities as such. Their interests are not damaged. We are all concerned with the judicial backdrop and all means must be used to contribute to its resorption. by

We support the adoption of this bill, which will allow the Minister to immediately appoint unilingual magistrates and delegate them to the courts, which cannot deliver justice within reasonable time due to the lack of staff.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that if these provisions do not bring the long-awaited magical solution, which would allow to resolve the judicial delay in one day, they represent for us a not negligible advance in terms of appointments, a consistent advance in symbolic terms. The main cause of the judicial delay in Brussels is the lack of staff. by

As soon as these new laws come into force, the Minister will have the possibility to appoint within the framework of recognized bilingual magistrates and supplementary magistrates. The framework must be filled. We live in a bilingual country and we have to take the price. The expectation of the judge is great. We must adapt the public service of justice to the needs of citizens. For the surplus, we encourage the Minister to continue his steps towards the establishment of an effective measure of the workload.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to not unnecessarily interrupt my dear colleague, Mr. Van Weddingen. Only, as a non-specialist in this dossier, I am still afflicted by a sense of uncomfortable and somewhat also of substitute shame towards the French-speaking colleagues. Of course, this file must be viewed from the position of the legal subordinates, both French speakers and Dutch speakers.

I would be ashamed if, as a member of a national community in a bilingual country, I would have to expressly advocate to be able to demonstrate and provide proof that as a university student I am not able to be sufficiently powerful in the second language of a country to carry out a job. In addition to all possible rational, intellectual and jurisdictional arguments. Their

The man in the street, the citizen of this country, no longer understands, Mr. van Weddingen, how you have the courage, and almost jokes that you must create an exceptional situation for people who have completed university studies and are apparently unable — that is also true for some ministers — to be the second language sufficiently powerful to properly perform the job they ambition for all citizens in this country.

I can understand this philosophy coming from you, but I do not think that it is fully shared except at the level of a passive or active knowledge sufficient for the work to be done. It is therefore not a matter of perfectly mastering a language for pleasure if the function performed does not require it. And that is the only thing that is offered here. This has been proven on both sides.

It is true that in the beginning, for the people of my generation, the only victims were French speakers. Today they are on both sides. I have provided statistics on this. From the moment we find that the percentage of success does not exceed 15% both on the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking side, it is that a problem arises. You can have an ideal. I would like to speak 18 languages, but I can’t. One might wish that some people reach these levels of knowledge, which would indeed be preferable. But in concrete terms, statistics show that neither in the French-speaking community nor in the Dutch-speaking community the percentage of success exceeds 15 to 20%.

Under these conditions, the frameworks cannot be filled. Therefore, a basic service for the citizen cannot be offered to him. Mrs. Lalieux recalled Montesquieu to say that it is not judgment that matters but speed. It is just! Giving right with ten years of delay to someone who has been the victim of an exaggeration or giving him wrong is the same.

This is a priority for citizens. That is all that is said. But I agree with you, Mr. Leterme, that if everyone could be perfectly bilingual at a higher level...

Mr. Van Weddingen, perfection is not the world.

Montesquieu was bilingual.

There are still a few gasses in the room!

Per ⁇ one might consider organizing exams in gascarbon! There should be an amendment! and smiles)

As soon as the framework made available to justice is complete, optimum management of these resources will be necessary.

Similarly, we welcome measures in preparation within the government, aimed at easing and accelerating the procedure, as well as giving judges an active role. We hope to see them vote soon in this assembly.

Finally, we would like to highlight the speed of intervention of the Minister of Justice who has, from the beginning, made an objective finding of the judicial situation in Brussels in order to address the direct causes of the problem. Even though his action was hindered by the conflicts of interest raised by the Flemish parliament, the minister ⁇ ined a consistent and faithful action to the expectations of the Brusselsers.

I will conclude by affirming the support of our group as these measures aim to provide an urgent response, in the interest of the justiciable but also in the interest of the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, my discussion will cover the two drafts.

After years of attempts — and not just two years and three months, as PS said — it is finally here. The language law of 15 June 1935 is repealed. Paars-goen closes a monument, which is a symbol of Flemish deprivation.

Allow me to remind for a moment that the Rechtskundig Weekblad originated in this language struggle, in this movement — and colleague Erdman confirms this — in order to come to a closing decent language legislation, which indeed came into effect on 15 June 1935. This was a monument that was a symbol for this Flemish deprivation and also a symbol for the bilingual character of Brussels-Capital.

For the people in this hemisphere who are slightly less old than Mr. Erdman, I would like to remind that Belgium was founded as a single French-speaking country both in its administration, its court and in the military. Belgium intended to eliminate the Ménapiens patois definitively. Belgium would be Latin or it would not be. Belgium was in its public organization a French-speaking country. Flemish countrymen received no legal administration in Dutch, no Dutch-speaking administration and had nothing to say in their mother tongue in the army. An essential human right, service and legal administration in their own language, was denied to the Flemish at the establishment of this state. Their

Therefore, it is all the more remarkable that the Flemish Movement has succeeded to see gradually — it has taken a very long time — and through language laws finally recognize the right of existence of the Dutch in public life. It has lasted until 1998 — Belgium existed almost 70 years — before the Equality Act came into force and Dutch was officially placed on an equal footing with French. In practice, little has changed. However, the principle was there.

In 1925, a step further was taken. In 1925 it was determined that all officials from the level of department chief must be truly bilingual. During this debate, many — including Mr. van Weddingen — have already talked about bilingualism. Colleagues, the language legislation in court cases is not about bilingualism. In 1935 there was no bilinguality. I will return to that later. In 1925 it was considered necessary that officials should be bilingual from the head of department. I don’t have to tell you — ⁇ it is not unimportant to repeat this — that this law was not applied because the French speakers already at that time — I know it sounds a little monotonous — suggested that they would not comply with that legislation. This law remains dead letter.

As the Flemish people increasingly demanded that language legislation be applied, in 1932 at the request of the French speakers — a historical moment — the country was divided into language regions. This classification is the basis of the federalization of this country and any further state-form evolution. Wallonia became single-language French, Flanders became single-language Dutch and Brussels became bilingual. From 1932 this was the rule in administrative affairs, with a limited bilinguality of services in the central administration. I don’t have to tell you that it came down to the fact that the Flemish in those services were bilingual and the Flemish were the service. Their

The same principles of 1932 were applied in the Language Act of 1935. In 1935, the principle was established that Dutch was the legal language in Flanders, French in Wallonia and Brussels was a bilingual area with adapted legislation. In Brussels, they did not impose bilingualism but asked a number of magistrates to provide proof of knowledge of the other language. French-speaking judges who demonstrated a thorough knowledge of Dutch could speak in Dutch law because there were still insufficient Dutch-speaking graduates. We had only a Dutch-language university education. Previously, Dutch was a language in which one was considered not to be able to receive university education. A cardinal had proclaimed that Dutch was not suitable for this purpose.

In 1935, a simple rule was established:

At least one-third of the magistrates must have a French-language diploma; at least one-third must have a Dutch-language diploma and of the total two-thirds must not be bilingual, but have a functional knowledge of the other language, as the Minister also sets out in his draft. Previously it was about functional knowledge and now it is also about functional knowledge. It is only the question of what is required for that functional knowledge and what standards are imposed. As before, this whole design is based on functional knowledge, with this difference: in 1935 there was also a category for which a thorough knowledge of the other language was required, in other words, it was considered necessary for a number of magistrates in Brussels to be perfectly bilingual. We still see living examples of this, even in this hemisphere. President Erdman of the Justice Committee always boasts that he is one of the last to pass that exam. As can be seen in investigative committees, there are investigative judges in Brussels who transition smoothly from one language to another, who are able to question individuals in both languages and who demonstrate their in-depth language knowledge. That was the strain on which everything was based. Now, in 2002, this language legislation is underestimated.

For approximately twenty-five years, there was a practice in this country in which the ministers of justice committed incivil acts. The successive ministers of justice, Moureaux, Gol and Wathelet, did not follow the language law in Brussels. They appointed magistrates in Brussels against the language legislation. They did so uninterruptedly, only occasionally hindered by a number of interpellations. Colleagues French speakers, this is precisely why the mistake has begun to run: this requirement was no longer imposed and an atmosphere was created in which French speakers could be named without learning Dutch. I will quote an unmistakable source to prove that, because if I say it, it may be received on unbelief. I quote what Prosecutor Dejemeppe of Brussels wrote in the Journal des Tribunaux of 1 March 1997, No. 5.833, page 1:

"Since the entry into force of Article 43 §5 of the Law on the Use of Languages in Judicial Proceedings on 1 January 1970, the successive Ministers of Justice had joined the idea that, in the absence of bilingual candidates, only single candidates should be appointed. Abuses have been observed, and it may not be unnecessary to emphasize that the most flagrant among them arose from the fact that some ministers had also, through politicization, proposed one-time candidates for appointment by the King, and on some of them a reserve opinion or an unfavorable opinion had been issued. For twenty-five years, the majority of the appointments thus made in Brussels did not meet the requirements of the aforementioned provision, so that the quota of two-thirds of bilingual people could never be reached.” Procurator of the King Dejemeppe of Brussels.

Of course, he is also mistaken: he also talks about bilinguals. It is not about bilingualism, it is about the knowledge of the other language. That practice thus flourished uninterrupted, until suddenly during the previous term under Minister Stefaan De Clerck someone who felt disrespectful in a appointment procedure entered the Council of State. It was someone with an interest, someone who provided proof of the knowledge of the other language. That candidate was given the same from the Council of State. The State Council annulled the appointment of the single candidate. Then the Minister said, “The law is the law. The law is of public order. I, as a minister, will execute him and I will obey him.” Well, colleagues, keep an eye on the Acts: from that moment on, in our hemisphere and in the Committee for Justice, French speakers of all parties, with the regularity of the clock, have interfered with the language legislation.

From that moment, when the illegal practices were put to an end, the French-speaking people wanted to change the law. The French-speaking people did not want to adapt to the law by ensuring that they knew the other language adequately. Whoever ever makes a history of that legislation will be able to draw on it with fruit all the acts, annals, oral questions, interpellations and statements. Again and again the same refrain was sung and those false arguments came up, which are being developed again today. From that moment on, it was said that the exam was too difficult. Then the Indian stories came up: whoever wanted to take the exam in the other language would, among other things, be questioned about all the parts of a sailing boat and those kinds of things. Those who dared to talk about their hobby were interrogated about it endlessly until the person in question stood with his mouth full of teeth.

Professor emeritus De Pauw of the VUB, not of my political colour, has made the effort to take the oral exams, report on them and carefully note the questions asked, as well as the way in which they were examined. His conclusions are not contradicted by anyone in the Chamber and ⁇ not by the Minister. His conclusions are that there was indeed some arbitrariness in those examination committees. The Dutch speakers who took an exam were put on the grid much heavier and much harder questioned. At times, they were questioned about their hobbies. On the French-speaking side, the interrogation remained strictly limited to functional knowledge. Nevertheless, the French speakers failed or very rarely succeeded. These are verbal recordings of those exams. I can deliver those documents. You can request them from Professor De Pauw, who will confirm their truthfulness.

In addition to the argument that the exams were too difficult, the second false argument was that this was the cause of the judicial lag in Brussels. This has been cited all that time. Objective arguments did not help. Minister De Clerck actually went through his knees. In the previous legislature, there was indeed a breach in this language legislation. Minister De Clerck submitted a draft to amend the language legislation. Fortunately, at the CVP, a number of senators had a Flemish reflex, so the design was cracked. This amendment of the language legislation was then withdrawn. However, a second disaster came upon us. The excellent idea of colleague Vandeurzen to appoint additional, so-called flying judges, who can jump in where it is burning, where there is need and where there are problems, was benevolently supported by us in the Chamber. It was indeed a very good idea. However, in the Senate, the proposalVandeurzen, which had become a draft, was not formally changed at this point. In the parliamentary discussion, it was added that the language legislation was not applicable to those added judges.

Mr. Erdman, I have that report with me. I don't know if you intended to talk about it. I can quote what you said, if you want to. I have the report of my homonym with me. He is my professional fellow, name fellow and city fellow, but he did not belong to my party. He then made the report on those added judges. Apparently in this country it is necessary to be called Bourgeois in order to be a rapporteur on language legislation in court proceedings. The report dates from 1997. I quote from it: “There is also a long discussion about the application of the language legislation on the added judges. An amendment was submitted to the Committee on Justice, which stipulates that the additional judges must meet in the language of their diploma.

In fact, the applicant pointed out that the language legislation may not be applicable at the time of their appointment, since the addicted judges do not become titularis at the court to which they would be assigned. The subsequent discussion showed that the involvement of the added judges will indeed be separate from the current distribution according to the language role of the staff formation. This question of course concerns the courts of Brussels.” There is the venom. The additional judges are subject to a special arrangement, so-called for Brussels. Now it comes: "According to the Minister" — that was then Minister De Clerck — "the non-application of the language law is necessary because of the flexibility envisaged by the draft". This is where the bres has been hit. I know you have been much more cautious, colleague Erdman. I read what you said about it. I will read later what others have said about it, who have made a much sharper move against it.

During parliamentary discussions, the Minister said that the language legislation was not applicable to the added judges in Brussels alone. On that it was based. That has opened the door for the appointment of the one-sided judges who are now supplementing the framework, Mr. Goris, that is correct. The framework is not filled with statutory judges, but with statutory and supplementary judges. You cannot say that judges are too short. There is one judge too short in all of Brussels. I think there are many smaller districts where there is a proportional shortage of more magistrates.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is the brake. It was said there "and dustlessly" in a proposal for additional judges that the language legislation was no longer applicable and this contra legem. I continue to say that a minister in a parliamentary preparation and senators, who, by the way, contradict each other, cannot say that the legislation that is of public order is not applicable. That is not enough. This is again mentioned in the parliamentary preparation. I can assure you that we will go to the Arbitration Court because there is an inequality created in terms of the added judges in this country. I will come back to that later.

I received today a press release from Senator Vandenberghe of CD&V in which he calls on the members of the Chamber not to approve the bill on the added judges in Brussels. He believes that the project makes too many concessions to the French speakers. I regret having to quote what he said in the Senate in 1997: “The CVP group agrees that the involvement of additional judges in the courts of Brussels will take place independently of the current distribution of the staff formation according to language role. Indeed, the appointment of a supplementary judge is, by definition, temporary and only for the purpose of addressing exceptional circumstances. We recognize them before the courts in Brussels. This means that in Brussels there will be single-talk, additional judges, which otherwise is not possible because according to the language law two-thirds of the formation must be bilingual and that bilingual, additional judges will be able to take sessions in both languages. For example, a Dutch-speaking supplementary judge who has passed the French language exam with a thorough knowledge will be able to take a session in the French language. There was no longer a thorough knowledge exam. It was abolished in 1970. Here Senator Vandenberghe joined in 1997 on behalf of the CVP and so this claim has started to live a life of its own.

It was not enough. During this term, on 27 June 2000, a bill was submitted by the Minister of Justice to appoint 25 additional judges and 17 additional replacement judges. You all know the fate of the bill. It was discussed here. There is a conflict of interest submitted by the Flemish Parliament. This was in the pre-Lambermont phase. Then the majority still needed the votes of what is now called Spirit. We are curious what Mr. Borginon, who is not present here by a lucky coincidence, would have done today. I wonder if he would have voted with the VLD. I see Mr. Coveliers knocking. In this case, he would have quickly dropped his old designs. He should either abstain or vote against. This would indicate that this party is not a reliable factor on the Flemish level. His colleagues in the Senate will be able to prove what their attitude is.

They may abstain or vote against, thereby proving that their transition to that party from the Flemish point of view is not so obvious. They move to a party that does not defend the general interest at the Flemish level. In any case, the first draft was withdrawn. The Minister has informed. It was cancelled due to a conflict of interest. Thus, the Flemish public opinion was shaken for a while. Once Lambermont was through, the unwavering pressure of the French speakers to change the language legislation came back through interpellations and oral questions. Of course, the game was played more behind than in front of the coulisses. In the end, the government committed to changing things. It was at the PS meeting in Charleroi or Namen that the current Minister of Justice called on the Flemish Parliament to drop its opposition to that bill. In exchange, he hoped for commitments from the PS for one of the drafts in the context of organized crime. Mr. Di Rupo did not commit himself to anything at the time, but the Flamings have committed themselves to approving and enacting the present legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I come to the first draft that aims to amend the language legislation itself. I have already said that the reason that is cited is a drug misconduct. The real reason lies in the years-long violation of the language law. The framework in Brussels is de facto solidified. I want the debate here to be held. I have been saying for years now that there are not too few judges in our country and that as in the Netherlands with fewer magistrates one must be able to address the judicial backwardness. Of course, we have to have a different culture. There must be parket magistrates who are dealing with their main task. The judges and the substitutes should be surrounded by staff as is the case in the Netherlands. In all of our country, there is no objective evidence that there is a shortage of magistrates, let alone that this would have been proven in Brussels. It is not even proven that there is a judicial lag in Brussels. There is an interim report from 1999, but there is no objective measurement. What is the cause of this? There is a different conclusion culture in Brussels. The lawyers present here can confirm that. The whole books are used as conclusions. There are pleasures that last days. The case-Assubel has occupied a Chamber of the Court of Brussels for a year. This makes sure that the judicial process does not progress. One amuses himself with the regularity of the clock to call the Belgian state in the person of the Minister of Justice in order to increase the workload even a little. He is told that he is responsible for the fact that it does not progress. There is, therefore, a certain unwillingness and even a boycott.

Colleagues, for those who are less familiar with the matter, I will go into the examination of the prosecutor’s office in Brussels. The Supreme Council for Justice has already conducted one inquiry, that of the prosecutor’s office in Brussels. I will not read them completely. I’ll give you some important findings that explain why it doesn’t work there. First, it is said that despite the underoccupation, six substitutes have been deployed. Apparently they are not needed. Secondly, a significant part of the substitutes in Brussels no longer appear to function properly, but one relies on them. They do nothing about it anymore. Third, Brussels already has the assistance of 32 parquet lawyers. In the meantime, there have been more. These parquet lawyers also do not have to provide proof of knowledge of the other language. Antwerp, a district with many problems, had 12 at the time. Fourth, there is a suboccupation of the administrative staff. Fifth, the relationship with the parket general is negative. Sixth, the organization of the correctional sessions leaves something to be desired. This leads to a disproportionate waste of capacity at the prosecutor’s office, at the lawyers and at the judges. This is stated by the High Court of Justice. I give you the order of size. If on day x thirty cases are called, only ten are effectively handled.

On average, 20 out of a total of 30 cases are simply postponed again even though the prosecutor’s office, the judges and the lawyers had them prepared. Their

The Prosecutor’s Office in Brussels is unable to implement the general, criminal policy and it also does not carry out its own priority policy which threatens to age large, important cases of, for example, white board crime.

The autonomous police procedure – about which colleague Karel Van Hoorebeke has asked you this week, Mr. Minister – which was introduced by Mr. Schins in the Gent district where it works well to everyone’s satisfaction and which was adopted throughout Flanders, is not applied in Brussels. Furthermore, this autonomous police procedure is not applied throughout French-speaking Belgium. They are used only for traffic matters. They continue to charge the parquet magistrates with all sorts of matters that do not belong to their main business.

Where are the general measures to eliminate the judicial lag? Why should it be fixed in Brussels if necessary? Why can’t structural measures be taken across the country? Look at the Netherlands where with fewer magistrates there is no judicial retardation. More and more judges are being appointed. Let’s work on that autonomous police handling. Your predecessor has already said that the College of Attorneys-General would impose this across the country. We are between 2002 and this has not yet happened. Let us do the work of framing the magistrates. Let us finally give that nineteenth-century secretary a modern twenty-first-century task of referendary, judgment preparer and policy supporter. Let us make it possible for the parquet to limit itself to fulfilling its core task. I have met Brussels substitutes who tell me that they must stand in line to make copies by their own hands. 80 to 85% of their tasks have nothing to do with the core task: the search and prosecution. They are primarily administrative; they do not even have a servant. Let us create a district court — one of the dreams formulated during the octopus negotiations — like in the Netherlands and Germany so that modern management is possible. First of all, change the procedural rules. Instead of working with a judicial code that means an obstruction, we should take care of a modern code. I know that you share our ideas on this subject. My legislative proposal on this subject is now about 2 years old. We are in June 2002 and we are still on this point.

What are the changes to the language legislation? First of all, I would like to point out once again that the thorough knowledge of the other language is no longer included in the language law. This requirement was abolished in 1970. Excuse me for the words, colleague Erdman, but after an extinct race, there is no one who can still provide the proof of thorough knowledge. The exam no longer exists. In other words, there are no more bilingual magistrates who can sit in the language other than the language of their diploma. That is the reality today.

The minister says with so many words in his bill that the basic principle now is that a magistrates sit in the language of his diploma. Those who have a Dutch-speaking diploma sit in Dutch and those who have a French-speaking diploma sit in French. This is the basic rule, but the deep knowledge no longer exists. This basic rule, however, is an elementary human right that is stepped in foot on a daily basis in this country. I refer in this regard to the article in De Morgen of professor De Pauw, which, however, does not belong to my political obedience. The Court of Cassation has magistrates who deal with Dutch-speaking cases without knowing Dutch. According to him, this is a violation of human rights. Well, this basic rule is also not transmitted in the Court of Appeal. If one had been consistent, one should have decided that the magistrates of the Court of Appeal could no longer sit in mixed chambers. Furthermore, it had to be decided that it had to be done only once that in the Court of Cassation alone French-speaking councillors were seated. Such judges still exist. A few years ago, Mrs. Lieckendael was here, together with the then first president, Mr. Stranard. The first chairman of the Court of Cassation did not speak Dutch and did not even understand Dutch because he needed simultaneous translation to understand the Dutch-speaking Chamber members.

This basic rule, which is so-called the basis of this draft, is not passed on to the Court of Appeal, is not passed on to the Court of Cassation and our amendments have been rejected. This is the reality. The wishes of the French speakers are met, but the legitimate interests of the Dutch speakers in appeal and in cassation are not met.

Then comes the two-third rule. The two-thirds of the magistrates will only need to have a basic knowledge, a passive written knowledge. They must be able to display, summarize and evaluate text in the other language in their own language. They can therefore comment in French on a text in Dutch and will have to conduct a conversation on a topic from everyday life. This will fulfill the requirement of functional knowledge. I tell you that those magistrates will not be able to understand a witness in the other language and understand the nuances. They will not be able to understand a piece set in the other language, with sometimes very difficult nuances. They will receive a syllabus with words and terms in Dutch and French. The examination on the legal terms will focus exclusively on the words from the curriculum. They will have documents in the session that they do not understand. This is the reality: one screws back the knowledge of the other language.

These people will of course not be able to keep sitting when the language of the procedure changes, which is very common in Brussels because a language change is often requested. In the past, there were magistrates who could sit unhindered. They will not be able to do this. That is the second reason why this is a decline. That is a second reason why this will lead to the fact that the judicial process will go backwards instead of moving forward, that the judicial lag will increase instead of being degraded.

Mr. Bourgeois, do you want to come to your decision slowly but surely?

This is so important!

Everything is important, Mr. Bourgeois.

I have to come to the second draft. I am going to the second exam, type 2. There is the only difference that someone who needs to have sufficient knowledge of the other language will need to be able to summarize the text he receives in the foreign language. That is the only difference. His oral exam is also limited to a conversation on a topic from everyday life. If you have to have bilingual peacekeepers, if you have to have bilingual police judges, if you have to have corpse chefs who can lead a corpse in the two languages, I give you on a sheet that this will not be possible. Their

The only positive thing that especially the Flamings should be pleased with is that the language exams will be objectivized. It was so that the French speakers were de facto favored by those commissions. Now Selor will impose uniform standards and examine everyone on an equal basis. That is the only positive thing about this design, the rest is decline.

I now come to the second draft, that of the added judges, and on this I will be able to be shorter. I have already told you that the draft presented today is in fact the re-acceptance of a draft that was submitted in July 2000, but which was withdrawn after a conflict of interests. It is ⁇ interesting to read the memory of explanation with this design. I quote two paragraphs. It is about the problem of the backwardness in Brussels. I quote from the government’s explanatory memoirs: “This problem, which has existed for a long time and paralyzes the proper functioning of these institutions, has its origin in the language problem. Indeed, it is impossible to find sufficient candidates who meet all the legal conditions for appointment.” Then it comes. I ask your attention for this. Why are additional judges in Brussels, in July 2002 and now? This is the only reason in the bill. It reads as follows: “Only a modification of the law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in court proceedings could lead to a structural solution. Such a change, however, requires important and delicate legislative work.”

Well, my colleagues, we are here. The first draft amends the Language Act of 1935 to satisfy the French speakers in the Committee for Justice. All French speakers agreed with the amendment of the language law. They have what they ask. The Language Act of 1935 is amended. Nevertheless, this draft continues on the added judges, single judges, to whom no language knowledge requirement will apply, although that condition, which was expressly stipulated in that memorandum, has expired. It will therefore be a massive violation of the language legislation of public order in Brussels and that soon there will be the possibility of appointing 84 single judges. The slack of temporaryity has long been washed away. It has disappeared. The temporary does not come. The Flemish Parliament has been misguided by saying that it will amend. There have been amendments announced by the government but the provisionality of that legislation has not come.

You are very concerned about the constitutionality of the laws. So I come to the crucial question. I asked the Minister — repeatedly, I had to insist — the question whether the language legislation of 1935 applies to additional magistrates appointed in the Dutch unicameral territory? Does the language legislation of 1935 apply to additional magistrates in the French-speaking monolithic territory? The Minister responded affirmatively, although after insistence. This means that an unconstitutionality is committed. It has been added in one breath that those added judges in Brussels, for whatever reason, do not fall under that language legislation.

This means that one would have two types of added judges. Those who are subject to the language legislation of public order; they may only speak right in the language of their diploma. They must have a Dutch-speaking diploma to be appointed and must, of course, speak Dutch law. This does not apply to the supplementary judges in Brussels, as for Brussels the language legislation applicable to the diploma requirement and language knowledge would suddenly cease to apply. This is an inequality that we will indeed challenge before the Court of Arbitration. There is no valid reason, ⁇ not now that the language legislation is being amended to argue that the language legislation in court proceedings does not apply to those added magistrates in Brussels.

It is purple-green not to do the Flames.

Mr. Bourgeois, I do not want to enter into the context of your argument, but I think there should be a distinction between two aspects. First, I think that language legislation indeed applies to what I could call “basic conditions”. If, within the framework of the requirements of the law, a French-speaking or a Dutch-speaking person is required in Brussels, the same conditions will have to be met as for an additional judge in a single district. He will have to obtain the diploma and the knowledge of the language and can only sit in the language of his diploma. What you are right about, but that is exactly the essence of this debate, is the question of whether that two-thirds rule should be applied to it? All other rules will continue to apply. It’s just the two-thirds rule: that’s the key to the whole problem.

You will not be surprised when I tell you that I disagree with this view. Why not ? I refer to the opinion of the State Council on the draft that says that if this legislation is adopted, it must indeed be something temporary, something exceptional. Now, however, with this draft, one will have a full corps of additional judges appointed in Brussels, while the language legislation of 1935 which is of public order states that on the framework in Brussels the rule of two-thirds must play. There is no temporary derogation. This is a deviation of a whole generation. Here magistrates are appointed who will not have to meet the requirements for the rest of their days. In that sense I tell you — we will see who gets right — that this is a violation of the language legislation and consequently creates inequality. We will indeed be able to discuss this further, if we know the decision of the Arbitration Court on this subject. Their

As I said, it is purple-green not to do Flanders. This is another consecutive decline in the position of the Flaming in this country. Start with education financing. It continued with the Lambermont Agreement, with the Lombardy Agreement, which eliminated the double majority position. It has continued with the language legislation in administrative matters, with Copernicus. It continues with the language fairness agreement in Brussels, which is now apparently also intended to apply to the police officers in Brussels. It continued with the legislation in the judicial cantons. It is so with the electoral reform that is on the lookout, where one promises to the French speakers, in addition, a paritary Senate, the constitutive autonomy for Brussels, a full-fledged Brussels capital district, the Flemish autonomy on the treaty competence, where one as a blow to the firepile for the first time in history as a Flemish majority against the Flemish government agreement inscribes in an agreement, even in the draft law inscribes that the division of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde on the administrative level does not come.

No wonder Louis Michel in La Libre Belgique recently stated that he wants to continue with purple-green. No Flemish majority will give you such gifts; no Flemish majority will go so far to give a paritary Senate, to give Brussels a constitutional autonomy, to let Dutch-speaking seats disappear in Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde without this district being split. All French speakers in the Chamber Committee for Justice are in favour. Mr. Arens even delivered the presence quorum when nine Chamber members were not present, which occurred regularly. So far it went.

All our amendments were rejected. All legitimate Flemish interests expressed in the amendments submitted by us were rejected. The amendment submitted together with the CD&V and aiming at the division of the judicial district was rejected. The amendment aimed at introducing a 60/40 ratio in the Court of Cassation — a basic rule of justice — was also rejected. The amendment to impose a requirement of bilinguality on the first president of the Court of Cassation and on the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation — which I consider the evidence itself — was also rejected. The amendment to temporarily appoint the additional judges was also abstained. All amendments from the Dutch speakers were rejected.

Mr. Coveliers once again wanted to say that we are the cheek-slash flamingos. Well, I will once give a flower reading of the pleas of his predecessor in the Chamber, of the current prime minister-president of the Flemish government, then group leader of the VLD, who with the regularity of a clock at every important debate on this tribune exhibited against the PS-state, against the French-speaking domination, against the fact that the Dehaene government once again bowed for the French-speaking people. Of course, that wasn’t flamingantism! It was a hard VLD language.

There was a time when the journal of Marc Grammens circulated on the VLD banks and was eagerly read, and the leader of the VLD faction was inspired by it. There was a time when Mr. Coveliers in the Senate — and I don’t want to remember you, friends — when the draft on the added judges was discussed there, said: “I want to warn the minister in all humility. If, either directly or indirectly, a change is made to the language legislation or its application, or if one chooses to have in Brussels no longer bilingual courts, but exclusively French-speaking courts with a Dutch-speaking appendix, then one strives directly at the division of this district. This is not unthinkable.” He concludes his plea for division as follows: "It is only necessary to say that today in all clarity, so that we can discuss it quietly. What one ⁇ should not do is a change of the language law smuggling through this draft on the added judges.” End quote of those who accuse us of being jaw flamingos.

We will not make any complaints. We will ultimately appeal to those at the SP.A with Flemish reflexes. In this regard, I will address you more specifically, Mr. Erdman. I know that you think these designs are imperfect. You have shown that, but you are a little too loyal and you carry out what the majority decides, even if you disagree with this in your heart. I could feel that. You have repeatedly demonstrated in the committee not only your social but also your Flemish reflexes. Their

This is a final call to the SP.A who is flirting with a part of Spirit. Minister Stevaert even pushes it to the point that the NMBS should be regionalized, but I learned that the SP.A-ers held themselves in the committee of the Chamber yesterday and did not make any statements about it.

This is a final call to those of you who still have Flemish and social reflexes.

I dare not ask the Greens. I see, to my great regret, no single Flemish reflex among the Greens. To my great regret, I dare not ask them to support this project. If it did, I would be very grateful to them. Their

I will not ask the VLD, but I want to assure Mr. Coveliers — who is not present here — that we will not raise a complaint. We will very assertively defend the general Flemish interest. We will address the Flemish voters of the VLD. I refer to the Flemish and Democrats who have been deceived and deceived by the VLD with a strong Flemish program, with civil manifests that would overthrow the State and a prime minister that would change everything. There are still a lot of conscious Flammers who do not accept that this monument of 1935 is taken down. We will — with the support of the Association of Flemish Balies, the Flemish Economic Association, the Flemish cultural associations, the mass-reacting legal profession and the magistrates — explain everywhere in Flanders that the VLD damages the Flemish interests in general. We will place there the alternative of N-VA opposite, without singing complaints, but in all clarity and assertivity.