Proposition 51K0175

Projet de loi relevant de caducité certains projets de loi réglant une matière visée à l'article 77 de la Constitution.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Aug. 18, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

dissolution of parliament legislative procedure government bill

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

Nov. 6, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

I have an amendment. I will explain it later.

Are you already discussing the amendment? It is the 5th amendment to article 2 of document 174/1.

Mr. Minister, the amendment is actually, literally, a resumption of the amendment of colleagues Giet and Frédéric in the committee, which was not accepted there to my surprise. It aims to derogate from the expiration of a draft law, which was initially a bill of mine and which was unanimously approved in the Committee on Justice and in the plenary session. It is a bill on which we have spent a lot of work, for which the Court of Cassation has come to the meeting. It is, Mr. Speaker, Colleagues, a transposition of a recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe which stipulates that each country should provide for the possibility of introducing a new procedure for those who have given their right before the Court of Strasbourg. If the Court of Strasbourg finds that a person’s fundamental rights and freedoms have been violated and there is no other remedy possible than through a new procedure, then, according to the Committee of Ministers, a new procedure should be possible in the internal legal order.

I was ⁇ grateful to colleagues Giet and Frédéric for submitting the amendment. I do not know why the committee rejected this. I appeal to all my colleagues. This is a bill that was unanimous, in the committee and in the plenary session. So I would find it very logical that we should not overdo all that work. We are obliged to do so. We have been repeatedly condemned by the Court of Strasbourg. There have been several repealing judgments of revision after Strasbourg in the country. So, colleagues, I would like to ask that common sense may triumph here and that this draft, which we unanimously supported, would also be exempt from decay here. It is a little pointless to do double work.

Mr De Crem, you have an amendment to Article 2.

Indeed indeed. I would add our design to the fixed book price. This would honor the gentlemen’s agreement concluded in the Senate, in particular to continue the discussion of the draft in the new legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say for a moment — especially to the colleagues of the majority — that the people of our party, including in the Senate, just before the elections, have reached an agreement to continue to address this point after the elections. I think they are now breaking their word. I regret that, because at the time we believed what was agreed. If this is no longer possible, then I wonder how to continue. I find this actually a bit of deception, also with regard to the voters who have believed that what was agreed would happen.

Now there is still time. We have an amendment here that should only allow discussion. Which attitude one then adopts afterwards, everyone can decide for themselves, but in fact this is about considering a text that very many colleagues turned out to be behind.

I would therefore insist that at least one should show the willingness to conduct the conversation on this subject. In a democracy it is necessary to at least be willing to conduct the debate. Therefore, I urge people to think again about commenting positively on the amendment.