Proposition 50K1648

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 23 mars 1989 relative à l'élection du Parlement européen en ce qui concerne l'indication des partis politiques au-dessus des listes de candidats sur les bulletins de vote.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Yves Leterme
Groen Jef Tavernier, Joos Wauters
LE Joëlle Milquet
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
N-VA Frieda Brepoels
Open Vld Hugo Coveliers
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Feb. 22, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

European election organisation of elections election

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Abstained from voting

FN

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 20, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The bill submitted by colleague Tony Van Parys was discussed at the meetings of 21 and 28 May and 4 and 11 June. The applicant described the proposal in broad lines.

The proposal consists in the fact that where the limitation periods in Belgian criminal law have been increased in the past, this measure appears to be insufficient to avoid the limitation of a number of very important cases. Thus, at this moment, the facts attributed to the so-called Bende van Nijvel are thus on the brink of ageing.

Collega Van Parys believes that the limitation periods as we know them so far are ⁇ short and that they are also "suspicious-friendly", in particular because of the way they are calculated. In order to prevent serious criminals from considering Belgium a safe home haven, he proposes to introduce for the most serious crimes, crimes that cannot be corrected, a doubling of the limitation period, in particular from 10 years to 20 years.

During the discussion, the Minister of Justice stated that the approach to the problem of the ageing is, in his opinion, rather of a general nature, without focusing on a specific case, in this case the Bende van Nijvel. He also argues that the government can support the bill, but it proposes a term of 15 years instead of 20 years.

Mr. Giet understands the motives of the applicants but believes that this is the second time that there is a revision of the limitation period and that in the future it would be better to think of holding a global debate on the substance of this issue.

Mrs Herzet joined and also called for a debate on the problem of the limitation and the mitigating circumstances which, of course, have a ⁇ important influence on the limitation of a crime.

Mr Erdman, the chairman of the committee, joined that, apart from the limitation periods, there has been a very recent legislative initiative concerning the procedure for exceeding the reasonable period and that this exceeding is not necessarily linked to the inadmissibility of the public claim. That means the whole problem of the reasonable period in which a conviction may also be made, all this on the basis of the European Convention.

I have joined the request for a thorough debate. There are systems in which the limitation does not exist. This depends on the view that one has of criminal law and the usefulness of coming to a punishment or not. One can adhere to the deadline — even if it is discretionary — that the government has set in advance.

Collega Van Parys stated that he is aware that the problem needs to be looked at closely in the future, but he notes that now it is necessary to work with a particular dossier. He points out that it is not necessary to be too scrupulous in determining the limitation period for certain serious crimes. Fundamental rights are not infringed.

A number of amendments have been submitted, both by the government and by the CD&V group. Some of them have been adopted. I have already talked about the term — 15 or 20 years — in which the government’s proposal to fix the term on 15 years has been adopted. This means that one can reach with shooting up to a maximum of 30 years.

The Government has used this proposal to adjust the procedure provided for in Article 24 of the previous title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With this, the government wants to change the current regulation, which was quite heavily contested in the legal doctrine. This amendment was unanimously accepted. This means that the system of suspension of the limitation of the criminal action is now addressed in a more coherent way. I refer to the purely technical text of the amendment for further elaboration.

An amendment has also been submitted to Article 9 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In fact, this amendment has little to do with the problem of the limitation periods. It is a technical amendment that actually corrects a forgetfulness in the context of police reform. I speak of the problems that have arisen because the horizontal integration of the labor audits and the parquets has not taken place. This amendment was adopted with 9 votes for and 2 abstentions. The last amendment of the Government regulates the entry into force of the bill. This makes a distinction between, on the one hand, the new rule on the extension of the limitation period, which will enter into force immediately after its publication in the Belgian Staatsblad, and, on the other hand, the new suspension scheme, which relates to the method of calculation of that limitation period. You can also find this in the articles, which, among other things, deal with whether the suspension is caused by the defendant or by other elements. That arrangement shall enter into force on the first day of the twelfth month following its publication in the Belgian Official Journal in order not to cause additional difficulties in the ongoing procedure. The amendment on police reform and labor audits comes into force on 21 May 2002. This amendment was unanimously accepted.

We have accepted the legal service’s proposal to change the title of the proposal because a number of elements have given a broader content to this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the Justice Committee unanimously accepted this proposal, submitted by colleague Van Parys.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I thank Mr. Coveliers for his excellent and clear report, which allows me to be ⁇ concise.

I would like to remind you that the CD&V group has submitted this bill with the intention of extending the limitation periods for non-correctionalizable crimes. There was a cause and a cause.

The cause is the threatening obsolescence of the first serious fact attributed to the so-called gang of Nijvel. After all, it is true that the robbery on the arms trade De Keyse, attributed to the gang of Nijvel, took place on 29 September 1982. At the same time, the attacker and a customer were seriously injured and a police officer was killed.

In the current legislation, the limitation of these facts takes place after 20 years. Ten years plus 10 years as a result of shooting by acts of investigation or prosecution, especially on 29 September 2002 and you understand that this date is very close.

Through the theory of the unity of intent one could ⁇ make an association with the last facts attributed to the gang of Nijvel, in particular the robbery in Aalst on 9 November 1985, so that one eventually reaches a limitation date on 9 November 2005, but that unity of intent would then still have to be proved.

With respect to the victims and to the public opinion, we cannot afford to let these facts age. Furthermore, the Minister of Justice himself, following a meeting with the victims, had committed to take an initiative towards extending the limitation period.

In general, it is, by the way, so, and that is, by the way, the reason for the initiative of the CD&V group, that today’s limitations for serious crimes are actually suspects-friendly. I give three elements.

First, the files are becoming more and more complex. I think of criminal organizations that are very difficult to expose in their structure.

Second, there are all kinds of delaying mechanisms — and we know that — which should not be rewarding. Their

Third, there is the regulation in the surrounding countries. I would point out that, for example, in Germany the limitation period is thirty years for crimes punishable by life imprisonment and that in the Netherlands a draft circulates which would increase the limitation period from 18 to 30 years.

By amendment, we have aligned ourselves with these deadlines by making the limitation period for these crimes 15 years which can be 30 years in case of timely shooting by acts of investigation and prosecution.

It is very clear that this is only for the most serious crimes, for crimes that are not correctional. This will be the case, for example, for murder or murder. This is an important element in the assessment. Specifically, this would mean, for example, that when this bill becomes law, the first important fact attributed to the gang of Nijvel would date 29 September 2012 so that the investigators would have another ten years to continue the investigation.

I invite you to approve this bill with the same unanimity as this happened in the committee. I would like to thank the President of the Commission in particular for his constructive cooperation. I say the same before my colleagues in the Committee on Justice and the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I agree with the words of thanks addressed by the rapporteur. I also congratulate colleague Van Parys on this initiative that is indeed very useful in the light of the threatening obsolescence in a very important matter. The Van Parys proposal was indeed weakened, but in my opinion still to a reasonable extent. I hope that there will be no other negative effects associated with which we have no sight yet. I have not been able to actively participate in the discussion of the proposal in the committee and there are still some points that call for reservations.

First, there is the definition of Article 2. Article 21 stipulates that the period of 15 years shall be "in the event that the crime is a crime which cannot be converted into a misconduct pursuant to Article 2 of the Law of 4 October 1867". I do not have the code with me, but if I am correct, according to Article 80 of the Criminal Code, every crime can be converted into a correctional punishment. However, the decision on this matter falls on the Council Chamber. Per ⁇ it would have been better to formulate the text differently: "in the event that the crime is a crime that was not referred by the council chamber to the correctional court"? Now there is: "...which cannot be converted" I think this is an insufficiently precise formulation and that there will be discussion about it. I bring that point. I couldn’t really look at it thoroughly. This may have happened in the committee. In any case, it is not unimportant that there is an answer to this question.

Secondly, Article 24 as it looks since the amendment of the law of 1998, is still largely exhausted? I know that it wasn’t an easy article — that was apparently the ratio legis for the government’s amendment — but that article 24 still made it much less easy for a number of wrongdoings that are correctionally punished to age. The new Article 24 reduces that, however, to “a suspension during the treatment of the exception of incompetence, inadmissibility or nullity of the criminal action brought up by the defendant, the civil party or the civil liable party”. I have some reservations about this reduction. I know that Article 24 was not until now an example of easy and transparent legislative work, but now, in my opinion, it still gives a opposite signal. The Van Parys proposal rightly states that for serious crimes the limitation period should be extended. However, for matters before the correctional court, i.e. for the disadvantaged companies, the proposal brings with it a relief, which I fear goes against the tendency requested and supported by the public opinion.

Colleagues, I remind you that when the law of 1998 was examined, quite a few votes rose in order not to make the sentence but the penalty prescribed by law determining the limitation period. Among other things, the current Minister of Justice said in his speech in the Justice Committee that this was a possible solution that deserved further investigation and possible attention.

In short, unless the next speaker can still convince me, I have a reservation against those two points, but I repeat that the basic initiative of colleague Van Parys takes away our full support.

First, I would like to thank colleague Coveliers for his report and colleague Van Parys for his initiative. I know, however, that we could argue for a very long time whether the specific crime to which he referred and which gave rise to his proposal contained or did not contain a risk of obsolescence, at least when one assumes that one gang committed crimes which would then qualify for obsolescence the last fact committed. I have already said during the consideration that we should not be caught by this and that we should conduct the debate.

Second, I think this is still an interim debate. Rightly, prominent lawyers have accused us last week in one of the daily newspapers that we want to climb the obsolescence once again without touching the essence of it.

Should effective limitation over time be interpreted in such a way that prosecution can no longer be instituted, or should one, as we have recorded in Article 21ter for the non-examination of matters within a reasonable time, limit itself to a declaration of guilt in which at least the civil rights are fully protected? This is a fundamental debate from which, in my opinion, we cannot escape. In the past, the Security Act was drafted. At the moment — with all respect for your initiative, Mr. Van Parys — the Bende van Nijvel law is in place. We can, of course, take corrective action again and again for each new situation. However, I believe that the debate will need to be conducted on the ground, whatever the outcome.

Mr. Bourgeois has alluded to the famous Chinese calculation of limitations that is currently valid. In the committee, I asked the minister to give instructions that the parquet should add a note of calculation to each file. No one knows when a case will be celebrated. No one can determine with certainty when a case ages. It can also be stated that a case never ages and that the opposite must be proven.

The situation of the Securitas Act was no longer feasible. The Minister proposes a simpler formula that is limited only to a particular situation. In other cases, the limitation periods are extended. After consultation with the Prosecutor General, the Minister finally agreed to maintain the buffer zone. I still have my doubts about whether this is the right method for procedural rules. It is stated that there are several dossiers with calculation method A of limitation. If in the future calculation method B is to be applied, some say the files cannot be handled. Their

Mr. Minister, those who have advised you on this subject have also given you the guarantee that the files they mean will be effectively handled when the new situation comes into effect. If that is the case, we may have taken a step towards absorbing the judicial downturn.

Mr. Speaker, very quickly, to register in the course of what the Chairman of the Justice Committee has just said. I think it’s been two legislatures that I’m here. It’s been twice that we’ve changed the prescription rules, to say things clearly, about a particular case. And every time, excellent reasons lead us to change this legislation. At the same time, it is clear that legislative technique cannot be pursued in this way. Therefore, it is clear that everyone calls for a substantial debate on the problem of rules and limitations, but also on prescription itself. It must be possible to clearly ask whether a prescription as such in criminal matters still needs to exist. The question is asked. If so, I think it would probably be necessary to make sure to find solutions that can remain applicable for a while, so as not to have to change them suddenly. If not — and one can think about the possible abolition of the rules of prescription — then we find ourselves with the problem of reasonable time as the only limit. by Mr. Bourgeois knows that we have decided here that the sanction for exceeding the reasonable deadline is a declaration of guilt. But if one day we should abandon the prescription as such, then we might have to think about changing the sanction for exceeding the reasonable deadline into the inadmissibility of the sanctions.

If we abandon the prescription rule as we know it today, we must know that we leave a regime consisting of clear, precise and known rules for a regime where, ultimately, nothing is clear a priori and everything is decided a posteriori, since it will be appropriate for the court to assess whether or not, in case-by-case, the reasonable timeframe is exceeded.

This is where the debate takes place. However, there is also fundamentally the question of legal certainty and the readability of the rules for the citizen. This is the debate that is inevitably ahead of us. It may be too late to address this issue in this legislature. Those who find themselves here after the next election will probably be able to discuss it usefully and intelligently.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief and will also speak on my bank. I will not talk about the paternity to be attached to this bill, for the simple reason that, in addition to the initiative taken in the proposal, the government had also taken an initiative during the month of March. This initiative was, by the way, subject to the opinion of the State Council. I will therefore refer to that opinion of the State Council, because it largely responds to the various statements we have heard today.

First, and which is exceptional in these circumstances, the State Council welcomes the fact that the draft provides clarity on Article 24 regarding the suspension, the so-called Securitas Act and the Securitas Article. The limitation period was calculated in a very complicated manner; from which one will be definitively freed in the future, after the buffer period. Second constatation: the Conseil d’Etat has stated that the prolongation of the prescription period was all to the fact in the logic of what had already been decided earlier, and more ⁇ on the occasion of the vote of the law of 1993 increasing the time of prescription for certain infractions. The State Council has set out two other important criteria for the limitation: the cessation of prosecution after a certain period of time in the interest of what is called social tranquility and peace, and the circumstance that the passage of time increasingly complicates the proofing.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the State Council has also linked the reasonable deadline referred to by Mr. Giet, with a statement which, in my opinion, is highly judgable and which I also support: the extension must not result in any negligence in the prosecution being justified by the competent authorities. That speaks for itself and I want to emphasize it here with so many words.

Mr. Speaker, the only thing that I think is important is that the limitation period should not be focused on a single file, but should be applied as a general rule, and that was also the intention of the government.

Nov. 6, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues — I can say colleagues, because you are with two — the proposals cover a technical but not insignificant aspect of the elections, more specifically the way in which the names of the lists are listed at the top of the ballots.

The electoral legislation now stipulates that a political party must be represented by the letter which, in accordance with the current article 116 of the Electoral Code, may consist of no more than 6 letters. In several elections it has been shown that the definition of the concept of letterword gives rise to debate and confusion, because it is vague and too restrictive. The result of this was, inter alia, that the parties, when submitting their letters at elections, gave to the initials they gave and to the words for which those initials stand, a meaning other than the usual and commonly known. An example of this is Agalev, which stands for Otherwise Going to Live. At the time of submission of the letterword, that party defined its name as "Solidarity" in order to prevent its letterword from corresponding to the aforementioned definition and in that case would not be accepted.

... ...

Do not let you distract.

Mr. Speaker, I do not receive any comments, so apparently everyone agrees with my comment.

... ...

If you invoke my experience, it becomes a little disturbing.

Mr. Speaker, another problem with the literal word concept that regularly emerged is the fact that numbers and characters should not be included in it. In municipal council elections, however, it is often the case that a political party may use numbers or signs in its name. In order to prevent such parties from being insufficiently recognizable on the ballots for the voters and consequently suffering a significant electoral disadvantage, some headquarters allowed the use of numbers in the letter in the municipal council elections, although it was not permitted under the letter of the law.

Finally, a number of political parties have recently adopted a new name that presents signs or numbers.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is recommended to modernize the electoral legislation in two ways. First, a broader definition of the concept of letter word is proposed by providing the possibility to also include numbers and characters in the letter word. Secondly, those proposals allow political parties to have their logo displayed on the ballots instead of their letter.

The logo is often used by political parties in the election campaign. In the electoral propaganda, letters, brochures, folders, posters, mention it, the logo is always mentioned. For voters, therefore, the logo is an important element of recognition.

The original text of the proposal, after discussion in a committee and consultation with the Minister of Internal Affairs and his administration, was amended and defended on a number of points. The first texts approved by the committee stipulated that the letter may contain no more than six letters and digits and no more than seven characters.

The letter word is understood as the abbreviated expression of the name of the list, composed of the beginning letters of the words that become the party name. The logo that can be displayed on the ballot note is the graphical representation of the name of the list. The maximum number of letters, characters and numbers from which the logo can be incorporated shall be the same as for the letterword. The difference with the font is that the logo does not need to display all the letters as major letters and that letters, numbers or characters can be displayed in a different format than the standard font type, though within the maximum width and height.

However, by the plenary session of 20 June, the bills were returned to the committee, which dedicated two further meetings, namely on 26 July and 16 October, to the proposals. Amendments were submitted at the committee meeting of 26 July.

A first series of amendments by colleagues Van de Casteele and Van Weert aimed to increase the maximum number of letters, numbers and characters that can be used in the letterword or logo to 12 letters and or numbers and or 13 characters, respectively. The amendments were responsible for the fact that the government is introducing a voting threshold and that as a result small parties could unite and that for these reasons it should be possible to display the letter or logo of both parties or a combination thereof on the ballot.

Collega Langendries submitted amendments at the meeting of 26 July allowing the Minister of Internal Affairs to prohibit the use of letters or logos, if they are very similar to the letters or logos used in previous elections or used by a political party represented in an assembly and which can thus cause confusion among voters.

The Minister of Internal Affairs submitted sub-amendments to the amendments of Mr Langendries, because he could agree with their objective, but not with their modalities, mainly because the criteria on which the Minister must rely in accordance with the amendment of Mr Langendries to prohibit a letter or logo were vague and vague and contained the danger of subjectivity.

During its meeting on 26 July, the committee unanimously decided to ask the Speaker of the Chamber of Representatives to ask the State Council for an urgent opinion on the texts adopted by the committee, as well as on the amendments submitted after the submission of the report.

The State Council issued two opinions on 3 July 2002. The State Council held that the purpose of the amendments, namely the avoidance of confusion among the voters, was acceptable, but that the amendments No. 31 of Mr. Langendries and No. 33 of the Minister, were not sufficiently accurate, in the sense that the prohibition may be justified on the basis of a number of reasons preceded by the word "particularity", which means that other reasons could be invoked, which are not explicitly included in the law.

More important, finally, was the note of the State Council’s note that the amendments nrs. 31 and 33 – I quote – “excessively impair the freedom of association”. The State Council therefore based on the accountability in the amendment of Mr Langendries, which states that the prohibition may apply to letters used by the formations during the course of the elections, and where a risk, however small, is sufficient to obtain the requested prohibition. The State Council thus considers that, in view of the freedom of association, the control of the minister can be only marginal. In view of this fundamental objection of the State Council, the Minister decided at the committee meeting of 16 October to withdraw his amendments. The rejection of the objections of the State Council by colleague Viseur and the new amendments he submitted could not cause the minister to humble his opinion. The proposed amendments were rejected by the committee. The amendments of the colleagues Van de Casteele and Van Weert, on the other hand, were accepted. The amended and improved bills were then unanimously adopted by the committee.

Mr Vanpoucke, thank you for your report. I will now give the floor to the members who have registered in the general discussion. Do you ask the word now, Mr. Minister, or later?

and after.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the PRL FDF MCC Federation has recently transformed into a Reform Movement. We have experienced this need to adapt the name of our political formation to the doctrinal developments that have passed through, in recent years, the reflections of society and our members and which we are now preparing to defend before the electorate.

The path we have chosen is also that of a further integration of our different components. The three political formations are now under one and the same acronym. Other formations, mainly from the north of the country, seem to engage in the opposite approach. I think of SP.A and Spirit.

In the current state of the electoral law, their "terminological fusion" is impossible since it is provided that on the ballots, an acronym composed of six letters at most indicates the political party to which the candidates belong. Therefore, it is important to give rise to more flexibility by raising the ceiling on the number of letters and/or signs on bulletins.

In a committee, the Democratic parties agreed to fix this ceiling to 12 letters and/or numbers and to a maximum of 13 signs. It is impossible to go further, given the technical imperatives. It is also necessary to be aware that the new regulation does not affect the space devoted on the ballots to political formations. Those who will therefore choose a long sigle will see the size of the elements that make it proportionally reduced.

It is another aspect of the problem that is imperfectly met by the current legislation. I have already mentioned it in part. The meaning currently given to the notion of sigle is too restrictive. The proposed amendment aims to make it possible for the acronym to now also include numbers and signs. It is also proposed to allow the reproduction not of the logo but of the logo on the ballots. Evolution is necessary when you go through the different changes adopted by various political formations. I think here again of SP.A but also of CD&V. These new acronyms come from internal reflections reflecting the image these formations want to give to the public. It makes sense to adapt the law to allow them to report on the main documents submitted to voters.

As for the logo, i.e. the graphical representation of the list name, political parties use it widely in the electoral campaign. This logo is, in fact, ubiquitous in electoral propaganda (letters, brochures, pamphlets, posters and other communication media). For voters, the logo is therefore an important landmark element. It is therefore desirable to allow political parties to display their logo on ballot papers.

We will vote this text with conviction because in this matter, it is imperative that the law adjusts to the political developments experienced on the ground: the law is here only an instrument formalizing and regulating a practice.

First of all, I would like to congratulate myself on the excellent spirit that presided over the work of the Interior Committee under the presidency of Mr. So much, from the collaboration of all political groups, majority and opposition, but also of course of my department. This is exemplary of the democratic spirit since some groups were more interested than others in changing the law. Having made the choice of a new sign, if the law had not been amended, they would not have been able to stand in the elections with this new sign. If the amendments were rejected, as stated by Mr. Vanpoucke in his excellent report, it is simply that it appeared after analysis that some proposals presented more disadvantages than advantages, that there was a serious observation from the State Council, or even that one encountered a series of technical difficulties. There are limits to the possibilities offered by the printing of the polling stations.

In order to avoid any ambiguity, I will try in three words, Mr. Speaker, to clarify the scope of this text. These bills give a new definition of the acronym called to overcome the candidate lists on the ballot. They also introduce the notion of logo and give political parties the possibility to override their list of candidates on the ballot, either the logo or the logo of their choice. The dimensions of the logo and logo are uniformly fixed for all elections to a maximum of one centimeter in height and three inches in width.

These proposals aim to put an end to the multiple difficulties that have arisen in the past with regard to the definition to be given to the notion of signs. They also face the concern of political parties that have adopted a sign or a number in their signs, as is the case for CD&V or ID21. According to the definition given by the developments of the proposals, the acronym is conceived as the abbreviated expression of the name of the party, composed of the initial of the name of the party or of the initials that form the name of the party. Letters can but should not be separated by a point, which is considered a sign, and all letters must be printed in majuscules. Only the signs on an AZERTY keyboard can be used, excluding all other signs.

The logo is defined as the graphical representation of the name of the party. The maximum number of letters and/or numbers that the logo can contain is the same as for the acronym. The only difference from the signs is that in the logo, not all letters must necessarily be reproduced in majuscules and that letters, numbers or signs can be reproduced in a form other than normal characters, for example in Italian, within the limit of the maximum height and width provided, or one and three centimeters respectively. The use of the symbol of the party, a tree, for example, Mr. D'Hondt, is not permitted.

The second extremely important element is the number of letters or spaces that were allowed. I am not opposed to the amendments which aimed to increase to 12 and 13 respectively instead of 6 and 7 the number of letters and/or numbers and signs that can be included in the signs or logos, which of course has a consequence in terms of readability, as Mr. D’Hondt said it. This increase is aimed at meeting the concern of parties that are proposing to constitute cartel lists with other parties in the upcoming elections. The amendments were voted in a committee and therefore, the bill that is submitted to your vote aims at a limitation of 12 letters and/or numbers and 13 characters maximum. I believe, Mr. President, that this will be a useful modernization of our electoral legislation.