Proposition 50K1736

Projet de loi relative à la responsabilité des et pour les membres du personnel au service des personnes publiques.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

April 18, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

liability civil servant civil service

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

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.

Discussion ¶

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

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, in the discussion of this bill in the Committee on Internal Affairs, the Minister of Public Affairs, Mr. Van den Bossche, in his explanation, once again outlined the major strengths of the draft. He pointed out that the scheme was intended to eliminate the difference in treatment in civil liability of public servants for errors made during the exercise of their duties between statutory officers and contractual contracts. In the previous system, the civil liability for statutory officials was heavier than for contractual contracts. This different treatment has already been criticized by the Arbitration Court.

The draft liability scheme that was eventually chosen derives from the one that exists for persons recruited under an employment contract, with the exception of a few differences for some categories of officials. In addition, this bill eliminates the difference between officials acting as an organ and subordinate officials. This difference has negative repercussions.

Following this general explanation by the Minister, Mr Tant noted that he could fully endorse the scope of the proposal, but still wanted some further clarifications. For instance, he wondered whether the existing specific liability arrangements would be replaced by the present general arrangements and whether the term “dading” would not be better replaced by “male settlement”. The Minister responded to these questions that the existing specific arrangements remain in force uninterrupted and he had no objection to the change of the term "dading" to "male settlement".

Furthermore, Mr Tant argued that, in his opinion, the decisions in the draft for the staff of the free education, supported by the State Council, are without subject. The Minister recalled the conflicting jurisprudence in this regard and chose to retain the provision in question.

During the discussion of the articles, Mr Vanpoucke submitted an amendment to replace the term "dading" with the term "male settlement".

The committee unanimously adopted this draft law with the proposed amendment at its meeting on 16 October last.

Mr. Speaker, the draft has a fairly important scope, since it is about defining the responsibility of officials, as we have done in the past for political mandators. It was an open conversation in the committee, which even allowed us to make a few additional adjustments. However, I have another question. The Minister is not present here, but I will not make it a problem.

He allowed himself to apologize. The [...]

I had another question. I had asked the Minister to consider the desirability of transitional measures. If there are disputes, based on the existing current statute, which are pending, at any stage or before any court or judicial authority, the question arises which procedure should then be followed. The Minister responded that the existing procedure will continue to apply to all cases pending. Mr. Speaker, however, I thought that it belongs to the established legal practice that if a system such as it is found in the new system is more favourable for the applicant, he can then invoke this new system.

Do you mean in the course of the procedure, for example?

Exactly, that is what I mean.

I think you are right in that regard.

I suggest you ask that question tomorrow before the vote. Eventually, Minister Tavernier, you can ask Minister Van den Bossche if a statement can be made on this subject. The question of Mr. Tante is important.

Also because of the sense of justice.

Indeed indeed. Your question is relevant.

If one is better served by the new scheme, then it would be logical to go into this proposal.

This seems to me relevant. I suggest that you ask this question again tomorrow, just before the vote.

If the Government makes a statement, it is part of the interpretation of this discussion, which gives more content to the whole.

I am in favor of your request, but I prefer that the government, which is ultimately responsible for the draft law, bring this forward.

Mr. Speaker, one should take the place of the applicant concerned who determines that someone who happens to come after him can claim a different and more favourable treatment.