Proposition 51K0327

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne la médiation.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Tony Van Parys
LE Joëlle Milquet, Melchior Wathelet
MR Richard Fournaux
PS | SP Thierry Giet

Submission date

Oct. 23, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to reject

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 ¶

June 24, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

For the article-by-article discussion, I will refer to the written report.

Donc, Monsieur Courtois, vous faites votre rapport maintenant and you, Mrs. Van der Auwera, will you report for the article-based discussion?

As I said earlier, I will refer to the written report.

That is excellent.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I think that the proposed mediation legislation was an important step in the fight against judicial backwardness.

The Justice Committee examined the various bills during ten meetings (14 January, 17 March, 31 March, 20 April, 4 May, 18 May, 26 May, 1 June, 8 June and 15 June). Three bills were submitted.

The first is referred to in document 0327/001. According to M. Fournaux, the principal author of the bill, mediation should be generalized to all matters. For this purpose, the general principles should be set out in the Judicial Code. Mediation is a process of voluntary consultation between parties in a conflict, managed by an independent third party that facilitates communication and tries to help the parties develop a new solution themselves.

1 of 1. The present bill introduces in the Judicial Code a seventh part entitled "Mediation", aimed at articulating mediation with the other instruments of judicial law, in particular the enforceable title. The choice to include a new part is based on the desire to make mediation applicable to all matters and not only family matters.

2 of 2. The strength lines of this bill are as follows. Mediation is applicable to all conflicts, except in matters of public order. Mediation is a voluntary process. However, if a contract contains a pre-mediation clause, the material implementation of that clause is an outcome obligation. The completion of the mediation process is an obligation of means. The parties may terminate this procedure at any time.

3 of 3. Status of the Ombudsman. The authors of the proposal believe that the lawyer or notary should not hold the monopoly of mediation. However, the mediator must be able to bring together a number of guarantees of honesty, probity, qualification, experience, independence and impartiality. The mediator must therefore be major, not have been the subject of a conviction for infringement of honor, probity and good morals, possess the qualification required for the nature of the dispute, justify a training and experience appropriate to the policy of mediation and present guarantees of independence and impartiality.

4 of 4. Competence of the Ombudsman. He has no power of instruction, but he may, with the agreement of the parties, surround himself with specialists capable of educating him on the technical aspects that escape him.

5 of 5. professional secrecy and confidentiality. The mediator is naturally bound to professional secrecy, in accordance with Article 458 of the Criminal Code. Third parties hearing must respect the confidential nature of mediation. Unless the parties agree, the contestations of the mediator and the statements he collects cannot be produced or invoked in the aftermath of the proceedings or in another instance.

6 of 6. The bill provides two types of mediation: voluntary mediation and judicial mediation. The author of the bill detailed the procedure for these two types of mediation and I refer to the written report in this regard.

In the second bill, document 51 669/001, Ms. Marie-Christine Marghem, principal author of the proposal, notes that the cost and slowness of judicial proceedings are the two recurring evils that affect the functioning of the judicial machine, for the greatest dissatisfaction of the parties.

During a trial, the defendant also increasingly has the impression that he is not the master of his affair. In an increasingly individualist society, the slightest conflict can lead to a trial. The possibility of discussing this conflict and finding a common solution is increasingly unlikely. In this context, the mediation procedure is a ⁇ interesting way of thinking. Interested parties expose their dispute to a person, a mediator, who encourages them to discuss it. This person presents matters objectively and in a new day, outside of the conflicting situation and does not decide on the substance of the dispute. The parties themselves are invited to seek a solution to their problem, with the help of a person who is not part of the judiciary.

The mediation procedure is not a new thing in our judicial system. In fact, mediation in family matters already exists and bears its fruits. However, this method is not yet well known to the justiciables. By inserting a new chapter in the Judicial Code, the authors therefore propose to extend the possibility of mediation that already exists for family cases to all disputes that may arise in the civil, commercial or social sphere. The speaker stresses that mediation is not mandatory in the system provided for in the proposal. It cannot be imposed by the judge, so mediation can only be used with the consent of all the parties. Mediation may be requested and applied at any time, both in first instance and in appeal, as long as the case has not been deliberated. The aim is to leave as much width as possible with regard to the choice of mediator.

It goes without saying that lawyers and notaries, who are familiar with the law, can be designated as mediators. However, the proposal does not reserve this function only to these groups of lawyers. Other natural persons may also be designated, provided that they can prove that they are qualified for the nature of the dispute, that they have the practical experience that makes them capable of carrying out the mediation task and that their independence is sufficiently guaranteed. However, the judge may make suggestions to the parties regarding the qualities of the mediator sought.

Mediation is under the sign of confidentiality. The mediator is bound by the obligation of secrecy within the meaning of Article 458 of the Criminal Code. Only a time limit is provided, as a three-month period is set to reach an agreement. As soon as the mediator has completed his task, successfully or not, he informs the magistrates in charge of the case. When the case is re-examined in hearing, the parties may, on the basis of common findings, request the judge to take note of the agreement they have concluded, either on the whole of the dispute or on certain points of the dispute. The judge will give an enforceable force to the agreement.

Finally, Ms. Marghem points out that as regards the cost of the proceedings, the parties ask the mediator in advance how much mediation will cost.

I refer to the development of Proposal No. 51 0694/001 and its written report.

Then we arrive at the introductory exhibition of Ms. Onkelinx, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice.

The Minister pointed out that one of the Government’s objectives – recognised in the Government Declaration and more specifically in the Themis Plan for a Rapid Administration of Justice – is precisely to provide a legal basis for mediation. It is important to create a mechanism that allows citizens to resolve their disputes without judicial intervention or, at least, by intervention reduced to the necessary minimum.

This applies to litigations of small importance but also those that cause great tension for their protagonists. Searching together for a solution will provide more guarantees for the future. The parties will not cut the bridges, they will look together in a constructive way for a solution that brings them to each satisfaction. The feeling of frustration experienced by the losing part of a trial is thus avoided. To ⁇ this objective, however, it is essential to provide the mediation with the essential legal guarantees. The parties must be able to rely on the technical competence, independence and impartiality of the person who will try to advise them. They must have the guarantee that they will be able to speak in a privileged space of confidentiality. The information exchanged during mediation must remain confidential, even if no agreement has been reached after the mediation and a judicial follow-up is inevitable. However, due to an obvious concern for procedural economy, certain measures of instruction must be able to be used in subsequent judicial proceedings. The Minister considers in particular the expertise in construction disputes.

The voluntary nature of mediation will greatly facilitate the spontaneous execution of the agreement negotiated by the parties. Unfortunately, there will still be certain cases in which it will be necessary to resort to a forced enforcement procedure. It is therefore essential to provide for a simple and efficient transformation of the mediation agreement into enforceable title.

If the parties do not reach an agreement, their legal situation must not be affected by their choice of having first wanted to find a consensus solution. It is important that any limitation periods to which the parties would be subject are suspended during the mediation period. Furthermore, mediation cannot in any case be used as a dilatory procedure. Simple gateways must exist between mediation and litigation. These principles are necessary conditions for an operational mediation or conciliation procedure.

The Minister specifies that the debate must take into account the February 2001 law on family mediation. It would be possible and preferable, it seems, to take the opportunity to gather in a single code of rules the principles applicable to mediation in general, without, however, losing sight of the specificities of each type of mediation.

The Minister believes that in terms of training and recognition of mediators, it would be much more efficient and consistent to create a federal mediation institute or a federal mediation commission within the SPF Justice.

This committee would be composed of representatives of mediation actors and would be responsible for the approval and training of mediators. The Minister is convinced of the need to guarantee both the technical skills of mediators and their skills of listening and conflict management. These qualities must be demonstrated during an accreditation procedure and accompanied by continuous training during the exercise of the functions of mediator.

A distinction between the two types of mediation (voluntary and judicial mediation) in two separate and complementary chapters will ensure the necessary clarity and enable mediation in all its declines to be subject to a single law. This approach is a factor of legal certainty. In the same order of ideas, legal certainty also justifies that mediation is the subject of a new seventh part of the Judicial Code to give it a separate place, on an equal footing with the civil procedure of arbitration.

Access to justice in the broad sense is one of the ministry’s priorities. It will ensure that the most disadvantaged have access to mediation. The Minister took the initiative to consult numerous mediation practitioners as well as specialized institutions. Their observations have been made available. The work of the committee will also need to be guided by existing European instruments, namely two recommendations from 1998 and 2001, as well as by the Code of Conduct for Mediators, which is being developed at European level.

Finally the hearings. Two sessions were dedicated by the committee to the hearings of prominent experts. A first meeting allowed the hearing of magistrates: Mr. Christian De Vel, First President of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, Mr. Marc de le Court, first president of the Brussels Court of Appeal, Ms. Katherine Allegaert, adviser to the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, and Mr. Henri Funck, President of the Labour Court in Brussels. I refer to my written report for the content of these hearings.

A second meeting allowed the hearing of professionals with experience in mediation: Mr. Patrick Van Leynseele, lawyer at the French and German-speaking bars, Mr. Hans Van Houtte, Professor at KUL Leuven, Mr. Hugo Leman, lawyer at the Order of the Dutch-speaking bars, Ms. Marie-Anne Bastin, lawyer, member of the Brussels Business Mediation Center, as well as Mr. Michel Gonda, lawyer and Monique Stroobants, mediator. I also refer to my written report for the content of these hearings but I use this report to thank all those people who helped to shed light on the work of the Justice Committee.

I leave to my colleague Mrs. Van der Auwera the care to continue the presentation of this report with point 2 on the procedure and point 3 on the discussion and vote.

Mrs Van der Auwera, you refer to your report, but you are asking for the word in the general discussion. You have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, CD&V, together with Mr. Fournaux, Wathelet and Giet and Mrs. Milquet, submitted a bill on mediation that led to the text which is being voted here today in the plenary session of the Chamber.

As you know, our party has always preferred an amicable settlement of disputes in which prosecutors themselves participate in the settlement of the conflicts that confront them with each other, rather than delegating this to judicial bodies to which they have little control. The law on mediation in family matters of 19 February 2001 which was an initiative of CD&V testifies to this. Since this law has always been carried by the whole Parliament, we have always regretted that the implementing decisions of this law have never arrived, although the law has already been in force for 2.5 years.

The legislation to be voted today is a global text that applies to all matters and also takes into account the handling of family disputes. We believe it is a good thing to include a section in the Judicial Code that specifically deals with mediation. Applicants who wish to end a conflict, whether it is before, during or after a judicial procedure, will be able to find clear rules for this in the Judicial Code. They shall choose, by mutual agreement, a mediator without any condition to be met and who, simply as an independent third party, facilitates communication between the parties and leads them to reach a solution. This is also poured into an agreement and can then be homologated by the judge. They may also choose, on their own initiative or on the suggestion of the judge, to resort to a recognised mediator who must meet specific requirements and is recognised by a federal mediation commission. Even the least beneficial persons who receive legal assistance can turn to a mediator for the resolution of their conflicts.

We believe that mediation can lead to a faster and less conflictful solution that satisfies the parties involved. We therefore deeply hope and wish to insist that the Minister of Justice will work swiftly to take the necessary implementing decisions and release the necessary budgets so that the law can enter into full force.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will not repeat all of the things that have already been said, but I will limit myself to raise one or the other point.

First of all, I would like to highlight the positive way in which our work in the committee has been conducted. It is pleasant, for a young parliamentary, to be able to work this way as part of the analysis of a bill. All discussions were fruitful and interesting, each having been able to exchange views in mutual respect of opinions.

Then, I would also like to emphasize that we remained within the framework of a bill that contains as the main element the will of the parties. It is truly the will of the parties, the will they will demonstrate to find an agreement that will be the engine of this mediation. At any time, the parties may decide to enter mediation, before or during a judicial proceedings. At any time, the same parties can say “stop” if they feel that mediation is not the best way to ⁇ a result. Mutual respect and the will of the parties are the basic elements for advancing in this mediation.

However, I must highlight, in this bill, two small reasons for dissatisfaction. The first concerns the training and the criteria that certain mediators must meet. This issue has been the subject of a number of discussions in the committee. We believe that it would have been more appropriate to guarantee a number of selection criteria for mediator, even in voluntary mediation. Indeed, we believe that the profession of mediator is not improvised; that is why, there would have been a minimum guarantee of skills and experience, a minimum guarantee regarding compliance with the code of good conduct for mediators, whether in the context of an approved mediation, judicial mediation or also voluntary mediation.

The second reason for dissatisfaction is that we would have preferred that, within the framework of the mediation protocol, certain elements could be mentioned, in particular the competent judge and the maximum duration of the mediation.

However, I will not extend on those points that should not be too highlighted in order not to hide the legislative advance that is now on the table and which will allow to create this framework for mediation. It is in the very heart of the Judicial Code that this mention is inserted, which is quite positive. In any “civil” mediation, I insist on this last word, mediations will be able to start. The legal framework is ready.

Also, I want to make an appeal to all the justiciable, the actors of justice: "Use this procedure, resort to mediation!". This is faster, less expensive, and it allows the parties to sit around a table, talk, dialogue and reach an agreement that can be a real reason for satisfaction for everyone. For all these reasons, it is necessary to promote mediation, to ensure that this legislative framework is not left empty. It is a motor that must not replace justice, but help it in its activity.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, today we have an important bill on civil procedure law.

This bill is important because mediation should contribute to the arrival of a new culture in Justice. Mediation imposes a part of responsibility on the applicant. Although one in Belgium now goes to the court for the slightest problem to hear its judgment and then appeal twice, there is still gradually a noticeable evolution, in other parts of the world however faster than in our country. That evolution to a new culture implies that the right-seeker himself takes the heft in his hands and himself seeks a solution to his problem. This is also a better solution for the applicant, as the settlement of the dispute is sought together and is more acceptable for that applicant, resulting in better enforceability and less frustration for the parties. That bill may hopefully serve as a catalyst to accelerate that evolution in Belgium.

A second reason why this is an important bill is that it can be an important tool in the fight against judicial lag. During the previous legislature, unfortunately, it was not possible to proceed to a thorough reform of the Judicial Code in relation to this downturn, although a draft was ready. This proposal was submitted again by the VLD. However, it has now been decided to go step by step further. The first step was mediation. It is hoped that mediation can help reduce the influx to the courts.

A legal arrangement was needed. Although the regulation for voluntary mediation should be as limited as possible — I refer to the words of Professor Vanhoutte: “Mediation is the oldest form of right speaking. This ancestral form of dispute settlement must therefore not be subject to excessive regulation” — it is also necessary that there be clarity. Indeed, it is not possible that certain magistrates would feel uncomfortable with mediation, which would hinder a positive evolution and increased use of mediation.

The bill is "limited", both in form and content, although it can be used for a full range of issues, not just for family mediation, as in 2001. There are, of course, guarantees for impartiality and confidentiality, but the formalities are minimal. A registered letter and a protocol of mediation are sufficient to proceed to the actual mediation. The final agreement can be quickly homologated through a unilateral petition procedure. Furthermore, it remains possible for the parties to choose any person as mediator, as long as he is only competent to conclude an agreement, is not a minor and has not been added to a judicial counsel.

Legal aid can only be claimed if a recognised mediator is appointed. The parties have a greater responsibility for voluntary mediation in all areas. That is essential. The voluntary mediation scheme should only provide a framework. However, it is important that a quick declaration of enforceability is possible. The field has always pointed to this in the discussion. This is also the case with this bill.

Furthermore, it is precisely the strength of voluntary mediation to resolve the dispute in joint consultation and make it enforceable, apart from suffocating rules. The procedure for judicial mediation is also relatively simple and sufficiently flexible, although mediators must be recognised here.

This legislative proposal has, according to the VLD, a lot of potential. The law of 19 February 2001 on procedural mediation in family matters was also promising, but unfortunately we all know what happened with it. Because of the absence of the implementing decisions, nothing happened.

In its general policy note, the Minister of Justice wished that the Royal Decree concerning family mediation could come into force as soon as possible. We therefore hope that, once the Parliament has approved a global arrangement, the Minister will fulfill his wish and that this bill, once it has become the law, does not have to wait years before it can enter into force on the ground.

In fact, a federal mediation committee will still need to be established, consisting of representatives of the mediators, who exercise neither the profession of lawyer nor that of notary. It is noted that not one or two specific associations are considered to represent the mediators and will sit in the committee. It will not be an easy task to provide for an adequate representation of mediators. However, we will ensure that this is completed, but above all that it does not last indefinitely before this arrangement comes into force. Until then, the VLD fully supports this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, it is unnecessary to emphasize the importance of the proposal that we are discussing today in the plenary session. For many years, it has been insisted on all sides on the need to facilitate access to justice by providing a legal basis for an alternative way of resolving conflicts.

First of all, I would like to welcome the excellent collaboration between Parliament and the Executive. The Minister of Justice has made every effort to ensure that the text, originally of parliamentary initiative, comes into effect as soon as possible. The committee was also able to benefit from the field experience accumulated by the specialists.

The fruit of this collaboration seems to me to be a very satisfying text. In this regard, it was essential not to legislate too precisely, and therefore too restrictive, but rather to establish a general framework conducive to the development of mediation. Therefore, some flexibility was essential. The desire to enact minimum rules was the red thread of all this reform.

Nevertheless, in order to be effective, certain essential rules must be imposed by law: 1. Mediation is already possible without any legal framework. 2 of 2. Some laws allow magistrates to use mediation in specific areas. This is ⁇ the case with family mediation. But very soon after the vote of the law on this family mediation, it was a matter of generalizing mediation to all matters in which the parties can transact. This is what we are doing today by inserting a new Part 7 of the Judicial Code that constitutes the common law of mediation, whether it takes place before or during a judicial procedure.

Mediation should be seen as an additional form of dialogue. It is not, I insist, a way to privatize justice, or ⁇ even to fight against judicial backwardness, but it is a new space for dialogue. It must necessarily be exercised in a spirit of openness and will enable disputes to be resolved as satisfactorily as our jurisdictions.

Searching for a solution that is accepted by both parties will ⁇ reduce the trauma inherent in each litigation procedure. Justice must always separate pretending antagonists, and it cannot give righteousness to some without giving wrong to others, and therefore without legitimately inflicting pain. Therefore, those who suffer it will always criticize justice, because it is easier to curse its judge than to admit that one is wrong. This criticism is all the more vivid, since we generally make acquaintance with justice only in painful circumstances that drive us to go there to make respect for our rights.

Mediation, a consensual process by excellence, does not encounter such criticism. In addition, the search for a negotiated solution will offer more guarantees for the future. Thus, the parties will seek together, constructively, a solution that will bring to each satisfaction or limit at least their frustration.

The negotiated character of the agreement will necessarily increase its spontaneous execution since it is commonly accepted that one respects more easily a solution that has been negotiated rather than what is imposed on us. Although it can be thought that, in a general way, the protagonists will respect the agreement reached, it appears nevertheless necessary to provide for an enforcement procedure. That is why we have planned for a simple and flexible transformation of the agreement to be executable.

We must also ensure that mediation cannot be used in a delaying manner and that the possibility of initiating or resuming judicial proceedings is ⁇ ined. In other words, mediation must meet the wishes of the parties.

I would also like to stop for a moment on the role that the mediator should play. Certainly, some will always prefer that it be the judge who resolves the conflict. Therefore, the role of the state justice remains essential. The role of the mediator is different from that of the judge. It will be to help the parties to elaborate themselves, in full knowledge of the cause, a fair agreement that respects the needs of each of the protagonists. In this regard, there will never be enough emphasis on the importance of continuous training and the appreciation of the experience necessary to effectively play the role of mediator. As such, continuous training is a fundamental guarantee of mediators’ quality. We also hope that the Federal Mediation Commission, which is responsible for training and approval, will soon be established.

Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two observations.

1 of 1. The amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an important first step. But we all know that legal texts are not enough and that it is necessary that this reform be accompanied by a change of mindset among all relevant actors. As I already pointed out before this Chamber, in the debate on family mediation, we must convince all the actors in the judicial world to demonstrate more boldness. Mediation must no longer be seen as a procedural curiosity but as a possible solution to the problems encountered by the prosecutors. This change of mindset will undoubtedly have to be accompanied by an information campaign that specifically affects the most vulnerable social groups regarding the very existence of mediation. In fact, it is a common place to see that poverty and marginalization are largely caused by the lack of information, in particular regarding the rights that can be claimed. I would like to emphasize in this regard.

2 of 2. If the reform that we are about to vote on is, without a doubt, a non-negligible advance in the access to justice that every citizen is entitled to expect, we must be aware that a number of improvements still need to be realized quickly. I know I can trust you in this regard. This includes simplifying the judicial language.

It is therefore in the hope that this reform, as well as so many others that are found in your general policy note, will soon be effective, that the PS group will vote unfailingly in favour of this text.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to repeat all that the previous colleagues have already explained to you, in length and wide, about mediation, its benefits and the hopes that underpin our bill as adopted today by Parliament.

I would just like to spontaneously draw your attention to a few points. First of all, it is the beginning of a parliamentary initiative, taken back in the Justice Committee and supported by the Minister as an essential element in access to justice, this has just been said by Mr. by Giet. Mediation is an interesting alternative to other forms of dispute resolution such as the procedure in the traditional sense, the conciliation by a judge and the arbitration as practiced in commercial matters.

I will add that family mediation is an embryo of what we would like to extend to all subjects. This is precisely what this proposed bill proposes you to do.

In the essential elements, I see, from my point of view - and this has already been said by some, but I want to recall it anyway - that it is sufficiently extraordinary as a way of resolving a conflict to try to institutionalize a way of doing radically different from those used normally. Usually, it is the confrontation, even in conciliation, between two opposing theories.

Here, what is proposed is a way of "triangulating", that is, putting a third outside the parties in "triangulation" with them so that instead of confronting each other, they try to find together a solution and appropriate it. As they find it together, there will be neither winner nor loser. In any case, this perspective of the gain or loss of the trial will be much less vivid, the solution will probably be better accepted and better applied in the future.

This will, of course, decrease the course of the debate that leads to the solution in time. This will also reduce the cost because if it goes faster, one can hope that it will cost less. Also at the level of execution, if the solution is appropriate or belongs to each of the parties that have actively participated in its occurrence, there will automatically, one can hope, lower or nonexistent execution costs.

Access to justice, in what it may have to reject for a justiciable, the fact that institutions take in its place the decisions that are imposed, the fact that it is expensive, that it takes time; all these aspects will be tackled, hopefully, through an alternative such as that of mediation.

The second element I wanted to emphasize is confidentiality. This is radically different from what happens in traditional judicial proceedings. Here, it is a parenthesis in the resolution of a conflict and all documents, the statements will be considered confidential but may, with the agreement of the parties, be produced later in one procedure or in another situation.

It was always said, and I learned in the classroom as all the lawyers who are present in this homicide, that the civil trial is the affair of the parties in relation to the criminal trial, which is conducted by the office of the King’s Prosecutor. I think that through this system established by the bill, it will be the more and the better the affair of the parties. And they will be able, thanks to this possibility that is given to them, to fully appropriate their problem and find the solution that they consider appropriate.

My third and last comment concerns the communication on this new process of conflict resolution. It is known that in the Netherlands, Great Britain or Canada, these are methods that are used much more widely than in Belgium. Culturally, these populations are much more fit or, in any case, have encountered this way of proceeding earlier. It can be seen that on the old continent, at least as far as France and Belgium are concerned, we are still in a way of thinking that is based on the confrontation of two opposing theses. It will be necessary, so that there is a very broad use of this mode of conflict resolution so long before, while after the trial, that one can communicate as much as possible at all levels, whether here in the Chamber, in the courts, in the houses of justice, in the professional orders, etc., so that this procedure is well known and that the family mediation which constitutes its embryo and the starting point is not seen as the only possibility of mediation in our judicial system but that, on the contrary, both the judicial and the magistrates, have no fear of resorting to it in the usual way.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, after these remarks, which I have tried to condens as much as possible to avoid repetitions harmful to the diligence of our work, I will add that the MR group can only fully subscribe to this bill. Indeed, in 1999 already; the MR had filed a bill aiming to introduce in our judicial system a broader mediation than family mediation, which came later in 2001. Today’s vote enables somehow to close a case that has been open for five years. It will allow – I hope – to enter a new era of conflict resolution for all citizens. I can conclude by stating that a good mediation is better than a long trial. I will quote the words of a theatre writer, a philosopher who said this: "It is important first of all to learn to agree." This is the procedure that will best enable all our fellow citizens to learn to agree.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, I will be brief because many things have already been said today, all of which are more interesting than others, and I do not think it is necessary to repeat everything. I would like to make some clarification maybe or at least the participation of an elected majority on this important topic.

First, Mrs. Minister, I have already done this morning in a press conference but I want to thank you in this chapter for your collaboration and for respecting the role and work of parliamentarians and those and those who had previously helped them to work and to file a text that I would dare to call credible at first.

As it has been said, this proposal came first from Parliament and it gave rise to the organization of a conference at which many of our colleagues were able to participate and during which, Mrs. Minister, you supported the parliamentarians who organized and managed it. by Mr. The chairman of the House must also be thanked for having been able to organize this conference thanks to the material, technical and financial support of the House of Representatives.

In our speeches, we all said, especially a few years ago, that it was imperative to reform the Justice. Eventually, everyone had their own or their own solutions and, say it, it could sometimes go in every direction. We have often talked about ways to give justice to reform itself, often relying only on financial means. As you have said yourself many times, you cannot change this huge passenger ship that is Justice without financial means. The government has done what was necessary in recent years and in recent months to refinance justice. However, reforming the judiciary is not only a matter of “fric”, of financial means; it is also sometimes in the method of management and through new procedures that one can innovate and contribute to the reform of the judiciary and to the resorption of judicial backwardness.

As I said this morning, I am not a specialist in these matters, I am not a member of the Justice Committee, but if I wanted to modestly contribute to this bill, it is simply because I have too often seen, in my capacity as an entrepreneur, files slipping into the judicial deals. This enclosure, in turn, generated disastrous consequences for all parties to the cause. It happened and it still happens too often today that even the person who wins a procedure is not satisfied with the result because the time required to obtain cause gain has itself generated costs that sometimes annihilate the possible gain of the trial. It is from this justice that the citizens no longer want, that justice that does not appear, in the facts, effective.

In addition to the slowness and costs associated with justice, we also talked about access to justice, especially for the most disadvantaged. I am one of those who are convinced that mediation will reduce costs by helping to ensure better access to justice. Mediation will also avoid the too frequent appeal to the judge, the idea being in the head of the citizen that it is always necessary that someone come to solve the problem in his place without being able to contribute himself to the solution. I am convinced that, in order to solve the difficulties I have just mentioned, mediation can be an interesting tool, as it exists in other countries; my colleague Marie-Christine Marghem referred to Canada. It is one of the models that I have most monitored because it seems to me advantageous; moreover, it fits pretty well with what is proposed by the Justice Committee today. In this regard, I add that it is the first time in Europe that a parliament votes on such a text.

Let us also say that, for years already, some lawyers practiced, in Belgium, mediation, but without a net. Today, as Mr. Wathelet very correctly, it is also the officialization of a method of conflict resolution, officialization that will be integrated into a legal framework that will secure the approach of one and the other.

Regarding the benefits of mediation, it should be noted that there will be a way to go much faster and that it will be less expensive. In addition, there is also the element relating to the citizen’s accountability, an element on which I would like to insist. The citizen is no longer the person who is subject to the resolution of a conflict by third parties (magistrates, legal specialists); he himself becomes an actor in it. In terms of cultural fashion to understand what justice can be in a democratic country like ours, this is a considerable change.

Mr. Minister, you informed us this morning of your willingness to implement the communication to citizens of this new way of resolving conflicts. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to the need to inform the citizen and convince him that the first advantage of mediation is the fact that he himself becomes the actor of the resolution of a conflict and that he no longer has to suffer the “tool” judicial, sometimes with all the difficulties that this can generate. I would dare to say that the result that the commission has reached seems to me excellent. Indeed, and this was the most important and consecrated element of the draft law, we speak of both voluntary mediation and that which is called judicial. And this voluntary mediation can be homologated by a judge, which obviously gives it a strength, a much greater credibility than what currently exists in mediations operated voluntarily, “without a net”, as I have already said.

The proposal is also excellent by the fact that the role and qualities of the mediator are excellently well specified and at the same time allow for some flexibility. As heard this morning, neither title nor diploma: it is the question of the quality of men and women likely to become mediators that is consecrated. It is an art to organize a mediation and to ⁇ a result.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for this work. I would also like to thank all my colleagues in the Justice Committee who have managed this important construction site. The work was important, but the result was excellent.

I would also like to thank Mr. The dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Liège who contributed greatly to the writing of the initial bill. I am also grateful to the associations of mediator lawyers who also contributed enormously to the writing of this first bill.

So I would like to thank you all and I am convinced that, on a democratic level and in this famous justice reform, we are today marking a very important step for all citizens of our country.

The report of Mr. Courtois and Mrs. Van der Auwera say that the reasonable interventions of the various members of the Justice Committee have been able to enlighten the Chamber on the importance of the mediation bill.

I would just like to point out that this way of conflict resolution is to be preferred. It is good, as the speakers said, for the justiciable. It’s a less expensive, faster and everybody wins. In fact, there is neither winner nor loser since the procedure is initiated on a voluntary basis. This procedure must also be privileged because it will weigh for the reduction of the judicial delay that we so need in the current situation of our justice.

by Mr. Gary asked me, just like Mr. Fournaux, on the campaign to be conducted so that this path can be adopted by our fellow citizens. I can therefore say that after the royal decree to establish the Federal Commission for the Accreditation of Mediators, we will launch a campaign against judicial professionals, including magistrates and lawyers, as well as a broader campaign to warn our fellow citizens that there is now another method of conflict resolution than the recourse to justice.

Here, Mr. Speaker, are these few words to thank Parliament again for its extremely constructive work. Indeed, from bill proposals, with the help of the Justice Administration, we end up with a well-finished project that will be well understood on the ground, since specialists have come to help us to constitute a law that was truly expected for many years by the justiciables.

It required ten committee meetings and the key components of the Parliament collaborated in a remarkable way.