Proposition 51K0596

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 3 avril 1953 d'organisation judiciaire et autorisant temporairement la nomination de magistrats en surnombre.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 16, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Voted to reject

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Party dissidents ¶

• Willy Cortois (Open Vld) 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.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 5, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the Justice Committee has devoted three sessions to the consideration of the bill aimed at increasing the staff of magistrates of the Charleroi Court of First Instance and that of the Mons Court of Appeal, both at the headquarters and at the prosecutor’s office. The decision to extend the cadres to Charleroi is based in particular on the general audit conducted by the Supreme Council of Justice in the course of 2002.

In fact, this extension decision will result in the appointment of two additional judges to the Charleroi Court of First Instance and three substitutes to the prosecutor’s office. At the level of the Court of Appeal, an additional counselor will be appointed and a general deputy to the General Prosecutor’s Office. The situation of the Court of Appeal of Mons must be addressed taking into account its specificity, in particular the Court of Appeals of Hainaut. The temporary reinforcement in human resources will enable the sum of the cases to be processed within a reasonable time and thus strengthen the credibility of the institution in the eyes of the defendants.

During the general discussion, the interventions of the various parliamentarians can be summarized as follows. First, some members of the PS group recalled that the bill embodies the government’s will, in consultation with the local judicial authorities, to continue the efforts already undertaken to resolve the judicial backdrop. They also stressed the feeling of insecurity and impunity that prevailed ⁇ in this district and the need to take immediate measures.

The representatives of the MR group, for their part, considered that the project was part of a multi-annual plan and that we should all pursue the same goal, namely the improvement of the judicial system. Speakers from the VLD and sp.a-spirit said the project was the first in a long series and insisted that a solution should be quickly found, especially for the Termonde district. Some members of CD&V and N-VA have highlighted the discriminatory character of the project against the needs existing also in other districts. They requested that the Minister provide an overview of the measures taken following the investigation committees and asked about the effect that the specific measures already implemented in Charleroi had on a possible displacement of crime to neighboring arrondissements. They also asked the committee to organize hearings. These requests for hearings, however, were rejected by 5 votes against 4 and 4 abstentions. The same speakers proposed several amendments aimed at extending the scope of the project to other districts and thereby giving it a wider scope.

During the discussions, the Minister stressed that the project under consideration is part of a forward-looking approach and confirmed to the members of the committee that the necessary measures would be taken with regard to the arrondissements of Antwerp and Termonde.

Finally, the minister recalled that a study on the workload in the prosecutors and the general prosecutors was in progress and would be completed within 19 months.

In conclusion, the entire bill was adopted, without amendments, by 13 votes against

I ask for the word by ordemotie. Their

I thank the rapporteur for her report, but this report is necessarily incomplete since yesterday, when dealing with the conflict of interest in the Flemish parliament, the leader of the VLD group addressed the conflict of interest with the announcement that he had due to the Prime Minister the commitment that Deputy Prime Minister Onkelinx would make an additional statement today in the Chamber. You know that this was related to the very shameful discrimination of the Flemish magistrate in this file. Their

Mr. Speaker, I cannot imagine that we will first conduct the debate and that we will only then get acquainted with the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister, who apparently has already made commitments to some members of the Chamber of Antwerp. By the way, I have seen that there have been some contacts in this hemisphere. For the good order and for a good debate, here really needs to start with the supplementary statement of the Deputy Prime Minister on this subject.

I can hardly report something that apparently happened elsewhere. You can ask the question, but the reporter can do it hard.

Mr. Speaker, I can agree, especially since I had submitted a question before this afternoon to Prime Minister Verhofstadt who had announced by letter, in the context of the conflict of interests in the Flemish parliament, that he would take a number of initiatives. You have declared this question unacceptable in view of the debate. That is a bit strange, Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister does not participate in this debate. He could have given an interesting added value to this debate. If the Prime Minister has not been able to give an explanation, it may be useful that the Deputy Prime Minister gives an explanation.

I suspect that the Minister will answer after the general discussion. That is the normal course of affairs. Then there is also the possibility, if necessary, to summarize interventions on the articles, in particular on Article 1. I will keep the debate going normally.

This is indeed the normal course of affairs. I have no comment on the report of colleague Deom. It is a report of what happened in the committee. There has been a significant evolution in this after the discussion in the committee. You know that a conflict of interest was invoked and that this was reversed in the Flemish parliament precisely on the basis of the communication that the Prime Minister has confirmed that Deputy Prime Minister Onkelinx would make a statement here today in the Chamber. In that sense, I think that we cannot start the debate if the Deputy Prime Minister does not begin with that statement and it is not clear about the point — you will have read the report, Mr. Speaker, as always — which has been a huge debate in the Committee on Justice and which will soon be a lot of discussion.

You are already working on your intervention in the general discussion, Mr. Bourgeois.

This is preliminary, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me essential.

Mr. Speaker, you have heard the two questions of Mr. Speaker. Bourgeois and Laeremans. I suppose you will react at the end of the general discussion, on all that we have discussed.

Mr. Bourgeois, if you wish, you can intervene on Article 1. In this way, the debate is organized in a more consistent manner. Their

The incident is closed. The incident is closed. A number of members are included in the speaker list, namely Mr Laeremans, Mr Marinower, M. Massin, Mrs Claes, Mr Bourgeois and Mr Van Parys.

The President,

The VLD has no opponent in the Chamber for Minister Onkelinx. Where there once was a Coveliers in the chamber faction, who could make some wind and save the appearance in the face of the Socialist Party, there is now no one who dares to oppose Onkelinx or to go against the implacable arrogance and the unimaginable indulgence of the Socialist Party. Only the jacquard remains.

I do not even want to talk about the extreme weakness of the sp.a and spirit. By the way, there is no representative of spirit here. This should ⁇ be noted in the report. Their slave submission to the all-powerful Socialist Party is simply legendary, we have had to reaffirm it in the past weeks in this file.

We must have concluded that a hearing at our request with the presidents of the courts of appeal of Antwerp and Ghent — however not anybody, yet no insignificant, insignificant or banal figures — was not possible and was also not foreseen in the future. The chamber members of sp.a, spirit and VLD came no further than an abstinence. The chairman of the committee even agreed with the Wallonian parties against the hearings. If Fons Borginon had been consistent with his Flemish past, then he could have made the difference and then the result of the vote had been 5 for and 4 against. Now it was just the opposite. We could at least have heard the opinion of those important Flemish magistrates.

We must have found that the request for a hearing with Brice De Ruyver, the justice specialist of Verhofstadt, was also rejected, following a suspension in which the minister himself came to play genderarm. It was an unprecedented show. In the nine years that I have been a member of the Justice Committee, I have never experienced such a humiliation of Flemish commissioners.

We must have found that in the committee the real reasons for the NET for Antwerp and Gent were exposed, when PS Chamber member Perpète clearly said that there was no money for new magistrates in Flanders, while the money — which comes from 70% of Flanders — apparently is in the hands of the Wallish cadres. Onkelinx also confirmed that there will be additional funds only in the longer term. Not one member of the majority parliament had the courage to oppose this and to require Onkelinx to request the necessary additional resources in the next budget control.

We must have concluded that Onkelinx without any reluctance confirmed that other courts of appeal can only be discussed after a new workload measurement and that the only perspective it offered was the end of the legislature. That means that Antwerp and Gent may have to wait until 2008, dear colleagues, for an actual framework extension. Even then, it is not clear in the distant distance how large that framework extension will be.

In the Flemish Parliament, we must have found that yesterday, when dealing with the conflict of interests, VLD and sp.a. behaved like Verhofstadt’s shoe dogs and, after a bit of murder, satisfied themselves with a dead mouse, with vague election promises that can be swallowed again after 13 June.

There is nothing black on white on paper. Nothing is guaranteed. I had wanted to ask this question this afternoon to Prime Minister Verhofstadt in order to clarify to this Parliament what concrete commitments he had announced in his letter with regard to the VLD group in the Flemish Parliament, but I was not allowed to ask this question. Prime Minister Verhofstadt must be silent about concrete commitments in all languages. Minister Onkelinx does not allow Prime Minister Verhofstadt to interfere with this case. Their

Colleagues, the more you look at this dossier, the more you wonder if sp.a-spirit and VLD are still able to recognize the interests of the Flemish, of the Flemish legal subordinates. Concrete figures have shown that the productivity – the number of cases per judge – in the Wallish courts is much lower than in Flanders and that in Flanders we would need 20% more judges if we worked at the same pace as in Wallonia. Their

With equally concrete figures, the President of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp demonstrated that one is in an emergency situation there. He even felt compelled to send out an emergency signal, a Maydays signal, in the Senate Committee on Justice – where he apparently was allowed to speak. In fact, until 2010 the criminals in Antwerp must be in line for their assistance process, until 2010 please. Their

Nevertheless, the mountains can unilaterally make a graceful depreciation. Additional judges are allowed to go to the mountains. This can be done without the Minister having seriously justified the need for this. In her bill, there is no serious motivation for that increase in Bergen. Of course, she can increase this in Bergen without any perspective for the Flemish Courts. Their

The MPs of VLD and sp.a-spirit let all this happen and give their unconditional approval. They simply do not seem to realize that this Wallish inhalation has caused immense indignation among the Flemish lawyers and magistrates and among all who in any way have to deal with the court. They tolerated that this Minister of Justice has so far failed to speak personally to the Presidents of Antwerp and Gent on this matter. Their

In any case, this file makes it clear that this Minister of Justice is nefast for Flanders. Instead of doing anything for the real needs of the Flanders, everything is referred to the Greek calendar. Instead of doing anything, this minister is developing a system of legal assistance in which our justice will be transformed into an Eastern Block court and our lawyer’s office will become a state body. That is something that in Wallonia is apparently a requesting party for, but which the Flemish lawyers very rightly mourn. Such a system can only ensure that the system becomes completely entangled and that the judicial backwardness becomes completely uncontrollable. Their

For us it is clear. This PS Minister of Justice is incompetent to exercise this important mandate. It is guided by a completely outdated and rigid ideology and acts exclusively in the functions of the Wallish interests. Instead of responding to the socialist party’s plotting, the members of parliament of VLD, sp.a and Spirit acted submissively. I think in particular of the colleagues present here: Ms. Taelman, Mr. Borginon and Mr. Marinower. Those of spirit are still partially absent. Mr. Muls has arrived. That is new. This should be included in the report. Their

You weren’t there then, now. You have just arrived.

They act like subjects.

Mr. Speaker, I do not argue that I am incredibly worse at the attitude of members of Parliament who know very well that we can follow the debates here in our office and yet claim that we do not follow the debates. Mr. Laeremans, at the time we heard our name being named, we have all come here to debate with you, if necessary, if you would at least say meaningful things.

It is quite easy to refer to your interphone. It is not to attend the debate. At the beginning of the debate, you were absent. Now I note that you have arrived. However, hearing is not enough. Being involved in the debate also means being present, Mr. Lambert. I assume that you are present.

Nevertheless, I must note that you are acting in the file as slippers and lackeys of the red passionaria.

This was not the case during the hearing.

of course .

You can also not enter when there is a hearing, look around for a moment and go out again. Attending hearings is also part of the work of a member of Parliament.

Last week’s hearing coincided with the debate on the right to vote for foreigners. In that debate, you are again the collaborator of the French speakers. In the debate on the right to vote for foreigners, you once again join the French speakers. In this debate, it is necessary that we use all our forces.

I have no lessons from you in this area.

Of course not, but in Brussels I find that all new Belgians systematically do not vote for sp.a-spirit, but for the Socialist Party. You also collaborate there, as in the case of the Wallonian judges, with the Socialist Party. That is very fitting. We found it more useful to be present at the debate on the right to vote than at the hearing on the extension of the additional chambers of the courts of appeal.

This is about existing rooms. Furthermore, colleague Gerda Van Steenberge was present at part of the hearing and at the vote.

Are you going to talk about the project we are discussing?

I hope that you will speak about this later and clarify why you say that.

In any case, we voted and we were present in the person of Gerda Van Steenberge for an important part of the debate.

Both in the file of voting rights and in this file, you are acting as slippers of the Socialist Party.

Mr. Lambert, you need to know one thing. If you approve that draft today unchanged, but do not approve the amendments, you deny yourself for five years the right to continue to complain about the judicial delay in Flanders. You are responsible for that from now on.

Anyone who comes to us complaining about the poor and extremely slow operation of our court, we will be happy to refer to you. Today you have the opportunity to reverse the situation and call on Minister Onkelinx to stop. If you do not take that opportunity, you are complicit, Mr. Lambert. We have warned you clearly enough.

I give the word to Mrs. Hilde Claes and then to the Bourgeois, Massin, Marinower and Van Parys.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, much has been said about this draft in recent weeks and also today in this parliamentary debate, one of which is undoubtedly much more meaningful than the other.

Today, for the first time, I can speak to the Parliament from this tribune. I must confess that I had made a different picture of it. I had somewhat hoped that a minimum of intellectual honesty would be displayed. I assume that this is not the case. So allow me to put something in a row and show everything clearly.

First of all, this design is not new. It dates from the previous legislature, from the time when the then Prime Minister and the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Verwilghen, had made a working visit to Charleroi at times when there was very serious crime there, to such an extent even that there was a very strong sense of insecurity, almost impunity. During that working visit, many promises were made in response to a lot of efforts made by the magistrates of Henegouwen, specifically in the fight against the prevailing crime. This is a first observation.

Second, the draft to be discussed — which is important — is based on the report of the High Council for Justice. At that point, I think we can only say that it is positive. The present draft is in line with the fight against crime, thus also with the increase of citizens’ confidence in justice.

Has it solved all the problems? No, of course not. The sp.afractie says very clearly that there are clear needs and needs in Flanders in the various districts and districts. I have two fundamental concerns. First, the problems are not new. They date back years ago when Mr Van Parys was still Minister of Justice. They are a result of the structural underfinancing of the department. More resources are being allocated today. However, these problems cannot be solved from today to tomorrow. Our group therefore says that we should see this as a process, as a step plan. We cannot solve everything today.

Second, the study underlying the current draft is the report of the High Council for Justice. I would very much like to resolve the other problems in Flanders today. However, I regret having to conclude that the necessary objective reports are not available for all problems. For Dendermonde, we have received a report from the High Council for Justice. Mr Van Parys, we have also held extensive debates on Antwerp, but that report is not in place.

Mrs. Claes, I have listened to you with great attention so far. But now you say something very extensive. The MUNAS study was drawn up in consultation between all the first presidents of all the courts of appeal of this country and concludes that there is indeed a 40% shortage of councillors in Antwerp. That study was done on the basis of objective parameters and output where one has omitted all non-intellectual judgments, judgments of interception, omission or agreement. Do you now claim that this is not an objective study? Do you dare to defend this in your province, in the jurisdiction of Antwerp?

Mr. Bourgois, I will return to this in detail later. I would like to say now that I do not want to put that study completely aside from me, but that it is just a little too vacillating to give an objective calculation of the frame extension. I will return to this in detail later.

Mr. Bourgeois, you have the word after Mrs. Claes.

The SP-A group will not leave this. In recent weeks, we have noted that a number of factions have blasted extensively, blasted high from the tower, and figuratively targeted the bazooka on the Minister of Justice. We will not do this. I think we have taken our responsibility in this regard. We have told the Minister that there are also very clear needs for Flanders.

I think we have achieved a lot. I refer to the statements of the Minister in the committee meeting in which we held the article-by-article discussion of the present bill and to the discussion in the Justice Committee last Monday. I will begin with the article-by-article discussion in the committee meeting. At that meeting, the Minister made clear statements regarding Dendermonde.

She explicitly stated, first, that there were very serious needs for Dendermonde; secondly, that she would work on it without delay and, third, and, in my opinion, very important, that she would do so on the basis of the report of the High Council for Justice, although where she had previously taken the position that she would wait for the results of the workload measurement, with which we would easily be two years further. At that point, you cannot deny that we have achieved a lot. The Minister will base himself for Dendermonde on the present report of the High Council for Justice and has even set a timing for it at the request of the sp.a. group.

With regard to Antwerp, the Minister also stated that there are a whole range of serious needs that are very important and that need to be fulfilled. Unfortunately — I would like it to be different for Antwerp — there is no report from the High Council for Justice and we only have the MUNAS report. Now, Mr. Bourgeois, I come to your question.

You say that for Antwerp there is no report from the High Council, only the MUNAS report. This also applies to mountains. The only thing that comes ahead is the report of the Supreme Council concerning Charleroi, just as there is concerning Dendermonde. For the courts of appeal there is no document from the High Council.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond only to this point. Mr. Laeremans will, I suppose, yet have read with the necessary attention the report of the High Council for Justice on Charleroi — I will quote from it later — in which a separate paragraph is devoted to the problem of the current employment of personnel of the Court of Appeal and of the General Prosecutor’s Office in Bergen. I will return to that later.

Mr. President, I will continue. There is only one MUNAS report that, unfortunately, does not provide an objective basis for a frame extension, for the simple reason that this is not a workload measurement, but only a measurement of what I can call an average production standard: a quantity measurement, a quantity, but not a quality measurement. What has been done? Well, one simply looked at the number of incoming cases and then made a comparison with the number of final judgments made. On this basis, the framework required to determine the number of councillors has been established. On the basis of this, it was decided for Antwerp that nineteen councillors were needed. I also noted that on the basis of the standards used in the MUNAS study, Mrs. Minister also took a sample at an arbitrary court of first instance. That made a strange difference. At the level of the Court of Appeal, the MUNAS study showed an average of 105 judgments in criminal matters per year for a counselor, and an average of 157 judgments in criminal matters per year for the courts of first instance.

Is there a difference in efficiency? No, I am not going so far, but we must at least infer from this that the MUNAS study is a too vacillating basis to come up with an objective calculation for the framework extension.

Therefore, I must continue with the statements and promises made by the Minister in the committee. We have said very clearly that the Minister should also take clear initiatives for Flanders. These statements were positive for me.

The Minister has very clearly stated in the committee meeting that she will proceed with respect to Dendermonde. He even set a timing for it. It will be based, as you said later, on the report of the High Council for Justice and it will terminate its work on 31 March 2004. From this I understand that she will very soon come up with a clear bill for Dendermonde. Therefore, I believe that we as the SP-A-Fraktion have already achieved what we have requested in the committee.

Second, with regard to Antwerp, I think that the minister will also fulfill what she announced in the committee. She has announced that she will hold talks with the first chairman of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. These talks took place this week. It would also hold talks with the city administration of Antwerp, with the aim of reaching an agreement on a clear, necessary framework extension.

I can only say that the Minister kept his word. She will work with Dendermonde on the basis of the report of the High Council for Justice and Antwerp on the basis of the talks she is conducting. Therefore, in the committee we gave the Minister the confidence and approved the present draft. We do this again today, but here I say again expressly that we will follow the dossier with arguments and that we will make sure that she actually upholds the promises she has made.

It was her real maidenspeech. Mevrouw Claes, congratulations to you! Keep so on. (Applause) I congratulate Ms. Claes for her first speech in the House. (The applause)

Geert Bourgeois’s maiden speech has long been behind us. Then came the gentlemen Massin, Muls, Marinower and Van Parys.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, my maidensprache is indeed from a while ago, but that does not prevent me from still speaking here with the same conviction.

Not as long as for me, Mr. Bourgeois. It dates from 1968.

I fear that I will never catch you at that point, Mr. Speaker, but it will not prevent me from saying here what I have to say.

I apologize a little to Mrs. Claes. I don’t have the habit of interrupting someone who keeps her or his maiden speech, but it was too strong for me. I thought she was telling so many inaccuracies about that workload measurement that I had to intervene. I will try to demonstrate this in my speech.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It is one of my greatest concerns — if not my greatest — that we would come to a justice system that is comparable to the other European countries. The quality of government in this country is unfortunately undermeasurable and so is the case with justice. Even yesterday, Mrs. Vice-Premier, we had the opportunity to engage in a comprehensive dialogue with the First President of the Court of Cassation and with the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation. They too — you will undoubtedly know it through your cabinet employee, Mr Vandewal — have again expressed their concern about the under-functioning of Justice.

They acknowledged that the citizen first and foremost expects that law be spoken within a reasonable time, and this on the basis of a compelling reason. That was its summary. They have expressed concern that the procedures take too long. When they were asked about this, they confirmed that people seem to see every day the difference between our country and other countries, especially in criminal cases. Large spectacular criminal cases abroad lead in a very short time to prosecution, to trial. With us, big affairs are drawn up for years and are sentenced beyond any reasonable deadline. Colleagues, you know well that we have already been repeatedly convicted by the European Court of Justice in Strasbourg for exceeding a reasonable deadline. I think it should be a concern of all of us.

When I see these types of designs, I keep repeating that we are doing the wrong thing. I look forward to the structural reforms of the judiciary. I have already had the opportunity to have a conversation with you on this issue several times and you actually confirm that structural reforms need to come. However, we can only say that structural reforms remain purple after so many years.

This was also the subject of the discussion with representatives of the Court of Cassation. I continue to regret that the real measures that need to be taken are missing. We must modernize the judicial organization, but unfortunately, a vast Flemish majority that has long advocated for district courts, for a real management, for real structural reforms on the French-speaking side. We need to bring about a drastic reform of the civil procedure with a more active role of the judge, with mediation, with progress in the process of conclusion deadlines and advocacy.

First of all, we need to modernize the criminal law. This was also confirmed yesterday by the highest representatives of the Court of Cassation. The major problem in this country is that often complicated criminal cases are handled in a very slow manner compared to abroad. It is no exception that studies take five, six, seven, eight years. That is unacceptable.

The criminal procedure needs to be fundamentally worked out, but that too remains. There needs to be a different setting of the magistrates. We will undoubtedly, after the motion that Mr. Van Parys and I submitted after the interpellation concerning Phenix, have the opportunity to come back to it. We are also waiting in vain for the electronic justice, the informatization of Justice. The law of 20 October 2000 should have entered into force on 1 January 2000, but unfortunately it looks like it will be 2007, 2008 or later before e-justice can enter into force.

Colleagues I am not one of those who say there should be more linear judges. I’m not just saying that today, but I’ve been saying it for years and days. There was a time when there were objective allies on the left side in this regard. There has been a time, in 1998, that there came a frame extension of 250 magistrates and that because of the left side there was massive protest and almost sworn that it was the last time. They would first reform the judiciary and introduce other measures. The number of judges increasing linearly could no longer. In fact, they were right. The then Minister Vande Lanotte gave Mr Landuyt, who was the SP spokesman, right on this point.

I also defend the view that it is very often so that much more can be achieved in Justice with fewer people on condition that the right reforms are implemented. One of these reforms, Ms. Vice-Premier, involves surrounding the magistrates by referendums, analysts, judgment preparation documentaries. Your cabinet employee will undoubtedly have informed you that Cassation did not ask for more councillors at the Court of Cassation. I see that you agree. I assume that we both wait with impatience for the measures...

Mr. Bourgeois, Mrs. Claes wishes to interrupt you.

Mr. President, Mr. Bourgeois, I do not fully understand you. You have spoken in your discussion about efficiency. You say we need to pursue a more efficient court. However, at the same time you are asking for Antwerp 19 additional councillors. I find these two points of view incompatible. Can you explain that?

Mrs. Claes, if you let me further develop my argument, you will understand it.

Mr. Bourgeois, this was also said by Mrs. Claes later.

Mr. Speaker, I remain in my view that a linear increase in the number of magistrates is not necessary. This does not mean that there is no shortage of judges in certain places. This will have to be demonstrated by means of objective studies, of objective workload measurements. I have no problem with all of that.

Mrs Claes, I anticipate the core of my argument. If one finds that the structural measures have not been taken for years and days — I have then sketched them in bird flight because one can continue on this matter for hours — one is in the situation that, nevertheless, something needs to be done to address the judicial downturn. We must note that it is only mediated by appointing additional magistrates. To my annoyance – apparently not to yours – I must state that only in Bergen and Charleroi additional magistrates will be appointed despite the fact that objective data – I will prove it later – show that that need in Flanders is much higher in many places. However, I would like to emphasize, first of all, that there should not necessarily be a linear increase in magistrates. Their

Mrs. Claes and Mrs. Vice-Premier, I would like to say that the members of the Court of Cassation yesterday once again confirmed that they are not asking for more councillors but more referendaries. They refer to the Netherlands where magistrates at their level receive assistance from 2 to 3 referents per magistrates. In this way, the output per judge can be much better. This is the argument I have repeated for years. For years, I have been of the opinion that the function of the officer as it existed in the 19th century should be radically abolished and that every magistrate should be surrounded by expertly trained personnel who can analyze the problem, prepare the judgments and provide documentation. Their

This also applies to the Parquet Magistrate, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, the members of the Court of Cassation answered my question that it is still the sad reality that prosecutors carry out 70 to 80% of administrative work and are not engaged in their core task of tracking and prosecuting. They must perform all kinds of administrative acts that can normally be performed by qualified administrative assistants.

Colleague Claes, having said this, I, of course, cannot ignore the fact that we are facing a judicial downturn and that people do not get a judgment within a reasonable time. They are waiting in vain for efficient justice. I note that the current majority is unilaterally and in a single way remedying by appointing additional magistrates in a certain place in one jurisdiction. It does so on the basis of an examination by the High Council for Justice. However, she does this mainly — let’s be honest, you have already mentioned it — on the basis of a blitz visit by the prime minister on the spot in the previous reign. He stated at that visit that everything would be resolved by providing additional magistrates.

Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, I will continue: in fact, the French speakers are doing self-service here. You serve yourself. You make an advance reduction, which is irresponsible to the much larger needs elsewhere in the country, especially in Flanders. The self-service was offered to you on a scale. You had to take the dish—if I can use the word—only from the silver bowl on which it was offered to you by no one less than Prime Minister Verhofstadt. In his well-known way and in his well-known style, he went to the place and asked what the problems are. When he was told that the Supreme Council for Justice had said that more magistrates should come, he promised to settle this in the shortest possible times and unilaterally. He therefore based on a report from the High Council for Justice.

Mrs. the Deputy Prime Minister, who reads the report of the High Council for Justice on Dendermonde, must admit in all objectivity that the High Council for Justice says that the problems and needs in Dendermonde are greater and more urgent. The High Council for Justice’s request for additional magistrates in Dendermonde is much more explicitly formulated than its request for expansion in Charleroi and Bergen. I am citing. Apart from all other measures, the High Council for Justice says: “Apart from the realization of the higher, general recommendations, a short-term expansion of the framework of magistrates is necessary. Given the circumstances in which work is needed today, the Supreme Council considers that an enlargement with at least seven magistrates is a reasonable requirement to meet the most immediate needs.”

This is stated in the report on Dendermonde. As regards Charleroi, the High Council for Justice stated: “Given the findings in this report, the staffing of the Court of Charleroi should be adapted to the current situation, where two additional judges are full-time.” The formation must therefore be brought from thirty-eight to forty units. In other words, according to the High Council for Justice, the additional judges must become statutory and he does not advocate for additional judges. To the extent that the circumstances remain unchanged, 6.5 out of the 8.5 supplementary judges currently assigned constitute a necessary basis for addressing temporary problems with employment, including the fact that there are some people who are structurally absent, long-term sick, and the like.

Read both reports. Then you must agree with me that the urgency in Dendermonde is much more urgent and that the High Council for Justice proposes an extension much more explicitly.

Colleagues of sp.a-spirit and VLD, I would like to point out that the report of the special investigation in Dendermonde dates from 24 October 2001, while the report of Charleroi dates from 6 November 2002.

In other words, a year later, Charleroi finds that there are certain needs. There was rightly an internal act in Charleroi, I am the first to say that. I was a member of the Investigative Committee on Missing and Murdered Children. Mr. Annemans, I have read the report long enough and probably with more attention to structural reforms than you yourself to know that there were enormously many dysfunctions in Charleroi. What is happening there is actually just an operation on management, on order, on a minimum amount of internal control and measures needed to get Charleroi back on track. Their

Well, colleague Claes, if you say that you have received a lot from the Deputy Prime Minister, that she has made a concrete commitment, then I ask you to read this now from the report of the discussion in the committee. I read there, Mrs. Vice-Premier, that you are organizing a meeting, that you are holding work meetings, that you are speaking with the people of Dendermonde and that you hope that you can complete those discussions by 31 March. This is stated in the report of the Justice Committee. I don’t see any concrete commitments regarding a budget or a bill that will be submitted. These are all vague promises. The deputy prime minister has said that she does not let herself be put under pressure. Their

Mr. Prime Minister, this is a constant for you. One should actually congratulate you for so persistently defending your views and for being pressured by nothing or anyone, not even by the prime minister. You have said that after your discussion with Dendermonde Brussels will be discussed, then Antwerp and then simultaneously Gent and Luik. This is what you said to the Justice Committee. In other words, the necessary needs in Flanders will be filled after you have performed a workload measurement by De Witte & Morel, undoubtedly again a very, very expensive study where again a number of parameters will be introduced about which I have the biggest doubts and — I do not regret it — even a lack of confidence. If I hear you say that De Witte & Morel should also take into account some delicate data, with the most delicate and the most specialized files, then I already have questions about the criteria that will be charged to that workload measurement. Their

Colleague Claes, I must tell you that your attitude and your point of view amazed me. You say that the investigation of the High Council for Justice is objective while the MUNAS report as such would not be objective. Well, look at the reports. On what basis will the High Council for Justice work? Has the High Court of Justice developed a system of workload measurement?

No, the High Court of Justice begins by saying in its report that there are no workload measurement systems in this country.

How will the High Council for Justice work in its investigation in Charleroi and in Dendermonde? Based on the produced judgments and on the existing framework. They make simple divisions. They say neither less nor more and I quote: "There is, however, no appropriate instrument for working load measurement in Belgium. This makes any attempt to accurately determine and compare the workload of a given court with other courts, into a fairly hassle undertaking."

I quote literally from the report of the High Council for Justice: “In order, however, to summarize some indicators relating to workload and performance as objectively as possible, the data relating to the number of judgments and orders issued were requested from various sources, namely from the various courts of first instance of the jurisdiction of Ghent through the first chairman of the Court of Appeal of Ghent, from the Prosecutor General of the Court of Appeal of Ghent and from the Ministry of Justice. On the basis of, on the one hand, the number of judgments and orders issued and, on the other hand, the actual degree of occupation, the average number of judgments per magistrate is calculated.

Colleagues, I think that is the basis of the MUNAS report with the understanding, Mrs Claes, that you must agree with me, if you have read this report, that the MUNAS report is much more balanced and much more objective. It is unique in this country that the first five presidents of the five courts of appeal agree on a system of measurement. This is not a workload measurement per magistrate. Such a measurement does not exist, and we do not want to do so. It is about the workload per court, per district and in this case per court of appeal.

For colleague Claes and others who have doubts about the MUNAS report — which uses no other key than that of the High Council for Justice — I would like to point out that this report worked on what the first presidents call “judgments with intellectual contributions”. In other words, they have left out all the “ballast” themselves. They know very well that there are judgments of omission, judgments of passing, judgments of agreement, and so on. The first presidents say, I quote, "We have only taken into account those judgments with an intellectual input. In other words, where the magistrates really had to make a judgment with motivation to which they had to devote prior study.”

They say that they are leaving away the following things. One: judgments confirming an agreement, granting an act of withdrawal from proceedings or legal proceedings, or only budgeting the costs. Two: the official omissions. Three: the sentences of interruption. Fourth, the judgments issued by the Assise Court. Five: the judgments made by the Office for Legal Assistance. Six: the judgments made by the additional chambers. Seven: the administrative decisions of the first president. Eight: the decisions based on Articles 747 and following of the Judicial Code. In other words, all lawyers in this room know that MUNAS has weighed the number of judgments produced per court of appeal by omitting all judgments without intellectual contribution.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is the result? You all got the numbers. For the period examined by the first presidents, there were a total of 33,889 such judgments in Belgium, of which 8,404 were made by Antwerp, 8,287 by Brussels, 7,545 by Gent, 5,857 by Luik and 3,797 by Bergen.

If one divides this by the number of magistrates determined in all objectivity by all the first presidents of the Court of Appeal — 48 in Antwerp — this means that there have been 175 judgments made per magistrates in the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. In Brussels, there are 148 judgments per magistrate – I am around a little downwards – by 56 councillors. They produce in total fewer verdicts than the 48 councillors in Antwerp. In Gent there are more than in Brussels: 151. In Luik there are 162 and in Bergen 146. These are figures they agree on. On the basis of this, Mrs. the Vice-Premier, these councillors indeed decide that there should be in Antwerp, with a current occupation of 48, 19 additional councillors, in Brussels 18, in Gent 7, in Liik 5 and in Bergen 1.

Considering that one additional councillor in Bergen you will now appoint and include in the annex to the law, despite that objective study shows that the need there is not at all the highest. The highest rate is in Antwerp. I have the same figures for the judges in the courts of first instance. In Flanders there are 289 judges; 5.3 per 100,000 inhabitants. In Wallonia there are 219 judges; 6.5 per 100,000 inhabitants. In Brussels there are 105 judges; 6.8 per 100,000 inhabitants. What is the output? For Flanders, there are annually 438 judgments per court of first instance, in Wallonia 381 - only 87% of the output in Flanders - and in Brussels only 352 per judge or 80% of the output in Flanders.

Colleagues, these are the only objective data we currently have: the output per jurisdiction, per court and per court of appeal. I know that there is an unequal distribution of workload between magistrates. There are hard-working magistrates and there are line tractors. There are magistrates who are duty-conscious and there are magistrates who make sure they walk a bit on average. However, it is not about this. That workload measurement will indeed allow us to go to work more sophisticated, but I challenge you here, colleagues of VLD, sp.a and spirit, to demonstrate that there is currently a larger objective parameter than the output as it is crystallized by the first presidents of the courts of appeal, who omit all judgments with non-intellectual contributions and give only the figures, the output and the workload.

The High Council for Justice — I would like to emphasize it for all those who spread misinformation about it — also assumes the number of judgments and judgments.

Mr. Bourgeois, can I ask you to decide?

Mr. Speaker, I am almost at the end of my speech, but this is a ⁇ important issue.

Everything is ⁇ important.

Mr. Speaker, however, it does not happen every day that the Flemish Parliament is about to invoke a conflict of interest, but at the very end it decides not to do so on the basis of the fact that the group leader of your party in the Flemish Parliament informs that the Prime Minister has confirmed by telephone that for this assembly today an important statement will be made by the Deputy Prime Minister, which is of the nature to remove the concerns in the Flemish Parliament. So do not blame me.

I want to give you this. You, like me, are quite familiar with the judiciary world. Well, the disturbance and dissatisfaction about this file is very large in the magistracy, in the legal profession and, in extension, in the whole Flemish public opinion, the latter thanks to a number of people in the press who have stressed this. The dissatisfaction is very large. Their

So go on, members of the majority, members of the VLD. There were the Francorchamps Act and the Arms Trade Act that were unilaterally approved. There is the immigrant voting right that goes against a Flemish majority. Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde is not divided. Unilateral, priority and exclusive measures are taken in Charleroi and in Bergen. This happens while you know that the Flemish prosecutor is the biggest victim at the moment. You know that the workload at the Court of Cassation is 57% on the Dutch-speaking side and 43% on the French-speaking side, due to parity.

So go ahead like this. I would like to congratulate you on this. Are you satisfied with the statements of the Deputy Prime Minister in the Committee on Justice, who promised to continue to inform the working group and to continue to talk with the working group in Dendermonde and who promised that after the settlement of Bergen and Charleroi she will also start talking with the other jurisdictions?. Of course, this must be preceded by a study and a workload measurement must be carried out. After all, imagine that in Flanders adjustments would be made before De Witte & Morel carries out a very expensive and comprehensive study with a number of parameters - which I, by the way, wonder what they will be. Their

If you agree, if you are satisfied with it, then I congratulate you. I was elected to defend the interests of the Flames. That is why you were elected. Colleagues from Antwerp, colleagues from the VLD and from sp.a-Spirit, I am very curious about what your voting behavior will be.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, my dear colleagues, I have already had the opportunity to clarify this in a committee, but I consider that with regard to the increase of the framework in Charleroi, it is necessary to recall somewhat the situation that prevailed at a time unfortunately not so distant in this district.

First of all, I suppose that I should not remind anyone of the murders of the Wallon Brabant that were the subject of two parliamentary investigation commissions. I believe that the number of victims is just as high in Flanders as in Wallonia but the file, at the level of instruction, is located in Charleroi.

I also do not have to remind you of what marked Belgium at an even closer time and of which, in my opinion, we will still talk abundantly. This is the case of Marc Dutroux and the disappearance of these unfortunate children. Unfortunately, this case is located in Charleroi.

In addition, in the years 1998-1999, we witnessed a ⁇ specific violence in the Charleroi district which resulted in car-jackings, home-jackings, ⁇ significant thefts. This is, among other things, what has been called “the band of mass thieves.”

As I have already stated, Parliamentary Investigative Committees have been established. It highlighted some problems relating to the justice in Charleroi, the way the services of the King’s Prosecutor function, as well as the way the courts function. Reforms were then undertaken by the magistrates themselves, and that, first of all — it must be emphasized — and before any specific measure or any other analysis! Unfortunately, unfortunately, I can no longer see Mr. Bourgeois—how there has been, in Charleroi, reform at the level of the prosecutor’s office, reform at the level of the magistrates, active role and management too! I want to prove that this is highlighted in the report drawn up by the Supreme Council of Justice in Charleroi, following the events of 2001.

I would like to recall and affirm that all the work had been done in advance and the Supreme Council of Justice had, unfortunately, to take a decision on the Charleroi court in 2002, compared to a wave of violence that spread to Charleroi in 2001. If you read the newspapers a little, we still talk today of this wave of violence, whether in Charleroi, in Wallonia, in Brussels or in Flanders. This is the band of the Basse-Sambre: home-jackings, car-jackings, very serious facts, very hard, very violent, extending over a very short period. There was absolutely an answer to this.

What really happened? Things must be said as they are! In 2001, after these reforms, the Prime Minister, Mr. Verhofstadt, and the Minister of Justice of the time, came down to the scene.

It was not the minister who is now in front of me, it is Mr. Verwilghen who came down on the spot. The services of the King’s Prosecutor, the judicial services, the management of the judicial police, all together decided to put in place other types of reforms, to act differently.

I am ⁇ pleased with this and address my Flemish colleagues. At present, in relation to the problems that take place in Antwerp and to which a response must be given, we will be inspired by what was created in Charleroi by the King’s Prosecutor, by the police, by the judicial director. We must face and fight against the violence that exists today in Antwerp. This is a great thing, a good result that should be emphasized. We are progressing.

What happened afterwards? Legitimate claims have been made. Marc Verwilghen, Minister of Justice, said they should be objective. This was addressed to the Supreme Council of Justice. Facts dating from 2001, the Council delivered its conclusions at the end of 2002: there is a lack of magistrates in the Charleroi Prosecutor’s Office, there is a lack of magistrates in the headquarters, there is a lack of magistrates in the Court of Appeal, at the level of the Court of Assises. Why Why ? The police played their role, the prosecutor’s office played its own; therefore, decisions must be made, sessions of the court of assises must be held. If we want to avoid the reasonable deadline, if we want to avoid highlighting large criminals, to say that Charleroi is a black spot in Belgium, that there is a dangerous crime, that it is "Mafiasur-Sambre", we must make decisions and we must act. The Minister of the time makes the decision to act and I give him the right; I want to emphasize that he is Flemish.

You mentioned Dendermonde recently. The Minister of Justice whom I heard in the committee indicated that there was an audit report of the Supreme Council of Justice on Dendermonde. The Minister will promptly take the necessary steps to take the necessary measures also for Dendermonde. Mijanvier 2004, she planned a meeting on the situation. She hopes to present the results at the end of February 2004.

by Mr. Bourgeois said it recently, the report dates from 2001. This Flemish Justice Minister, concerned about what is happening in Flanders, what did he do? This is one thing you have to see. He is no longer a Minister of Justice and I was not a parliamentary at the time. I suppose you questioned him at the time about the situation in Dendermonde. So, it’s very good, it’s a great thing.

I would like to emphasize that the Minister of Justice says today that solutions will be found and that actions will be put in place. There is no reason to say that what she says at the moment does not correspond to the truth. By knowing her, I know that she keeps her commitments.

At the moment, we are facing a problem. In Charleroi, an answer can be given. The Minister of Justice told you, a response will be provided for Dendermonde. I am very happy and very satisfied. This is the least of things. There is no two-speed justice, a two-speed justice with two types of answers and two types of expectations. It is exactly the same for the police. If there are waves of crime in Antwerp, a response is given. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice have moved to Antwerp and answers will be provided. This is the least of the things and we must have the intellectual honesty to emphasize it.

For the rest, amendments are submitted. I suppose, Mr. Van Parys, that you will have the opportunity to explain them but they are exactly the same as those you submitted to the commission. Nevertheless, I expected that amendments would eventually be submitted in order to increase the framework in Liege. In the context of the MUNAS report, there is also a framework problem at the Liège Court of Appeal.

Why didn’t you inform me of this in your amendments? At the Brussels Court of Appeal, the MUNAS report also shows a certain difficulty. Why didn’t you mention this in your amendments? You demand the increase of the framework and you say that expectations must be met. So let’s do it clearly, in a global way. But this is not what I read in your amendments. I am especially disappointed because, at the level of collaboration, this interpells me.

I would simply say that there have been answers. Some answers are relevant, but we must remain correct in the debate. There is no question of saying that we invest only in Wallonia and that we will do nothing in Flanders. This is not the case. This is by no means the will, it is not the steps initiated, it is not what is shown.

Now we have to answer and answer, this is evident from political responsibility. If, for a while, there was no increase in the budget of the Ministry of Justice, if, for a while, we could not complete the frameworks, if, for a while, it was impossible to ⁇ certain things, I am sorry because I suffered it as a lawyer, but there is also a responsibility at the political level. I believe that the Minister of Justice now takes this responsibility, we must at least acknowledge it.

Mr Muls, you are given the word. After you come the gentlemen Marinower and Van Parys and then the minister.

Mr. Muls, you said you would keep it short. We will be happy to confirm this.

Mr. Speaker, I have said that I will be concise. However, there are a few things from my heart.

On the screen, I see: "Draft 596: judicial structure — appointment of magistrates in overtal". I thought the debate would be about that. However, I have already seen the debate evolve in all sorts of directions, which surprises me.

One thing states everyone unisono — that is not new today: we have already discussed this in the budget and in the program law — namely that there is a problem with Justice. This is a problem of backwardness, infrastructure, poorly functioning parquet. But there are also well-functioning parquets, let’s not forget that.

All this is not new. I ask myself: what has happened with this in previous legislatures, if it is adopted now? The debate seems to be so evolving that we only today realize that there is a problem. What is being done on this issue today is apparently not enough.

Today we are discussing a bill based on an audit by the High Council for Justice. It must be from my heart that I am very amazed at the reasoning of Mr. Bourgeois, who is not here right now. He says: when weighing the MUNAS study and the report of the High Council for Justice, that of the High Council still weighs lightly. Per ⁇ Mr. Bourgeois should talk to Mr. Van Parys. Mr Van Parys regularly reminds us in the Committee on Justice of the duties of the High Council on Justice.

For me, one thing is no more valuable than the other. For me, both studies are important and useful for the work we need to deliver today.

It seems to me that the study of MUNAS says that it is a quantitative measurement in the five courts of appeal. We are warned that other measurements are also possible, as evidenced by the hearings with the corps chiefs. They themselves said that Antwerp and Gent themselves, on a different basis, are engaged in additional measurements.

We have an objective audit from the High Council for Justice on which we can rely.

We have a draft law that provides a solution for one area in this country. We will soon receive a draft law that, also on the basis of an audit by the High Council for Justice, will provide a solution for another area.

I have heard no one here today say that one cannot argue that, on the basis of the audit of the High Council for Justice, there is a problem. We have heard from the Minister that Dendermonde is addressed. We ask when it will be. Will it be in two or three years, next year or at the end of this year? The Minister has already given a hint at the committee meeting. If that hint is not enough, and if indeed it will not be until next year or within five years, we will determine our voting behavior in that sense. There is an audit. We ask the Minister today to make a clear decision on when Dendermonde can be discussed. The case is urgent.

We can still say that the opposition has submitted a number of amendments and that these can be discussed again. However, it must be my heart that one is not intellectually very correct. If one submits amendments linking districts together, where one has nothing to do with the other and where for one is an audit of the High Council for Justice and for the other not, I find that one is doing wrong. One speaks, on the one hand, of a workload measurement that occurs at the parquet, but there is no other side. They talk to each other. The measurement of the workload of the parquets, in other words the lines that are placed on the number of judgments and judgments, one talks with one another, after which one says that there must be people. However, it is not said that there is a problem in a public prosecutor’s office or in a court of first instance. The numbers and the terms are confused. I think this is intellectually incorrect and unfair in this debate.

We specifically ask the Minister for a timeline. We want her to tell us when, on the basis of the current audits, we can expect new bills and approve them in the plenary session. We want the Minister, based on the objective data available to him, to take a number of measures. We will determine our voting behavior based on the Minister’s response. We will also verify afterwards whether the response that the Minister gives us satisfies us and whether it is respected. We do not hide that if this is not respected, Article 77 of the Constitution could even play.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Premier and Minister of Justice, colleagues, at the general discussion, I think it is good to take back to the report of the Commission-Dutroux — Mr. Bourgeois, unlike you and other colleagues, I was not a member of that committee — because it can serve as a starting point, I think, for the discussion that is being held here today. I will quote a little from that report. Please do not misunderstand me: with this I do not mean to say ab initio: "Charleroi est justifié". I will return to this in detail later. Anyone who wishes to interrupt me in this regard may better wait until I have come to the part of my argument about Charleroi.

What was the situation? I think I do not have to tell my colleagues in the Dutroux Commission that a very large number of dysfunctions were found in the Charleroi jurisdiction.

Allow me to quote a small passage from that report of 1996-1997, under the point "Extraction of the judicial lag": "Since October 1995, the prosecutor of the King of Charleroi constitutes that 3,000 files await a date-limit at the Charleroi prosecutor's office. All substitutes complained about the impossibility ... The committee recommends that the Minister of Justice be asked to determine in which districts the problems relating to judicial lag are most pronounced. The committee also recommends that the period between the conclusion of the investigation and the trial be as short as possible." This is a recommendation that I draw from the report of the Commission-Dutroux, period 1995-1996.

Indeed, we can see that it took a long, much too long before specific measures were taken. What gave the decision? They act as if that period had not occurred. I remember the images of the departure on the spot – if you allow me that expression – of the Prime Minister, of the Minister of Justice, of the Minister of Home Affairs. I also remember that the opposition at the time complained very loudly that this was not a solution and that a show was performed. On one point, however, everyone agreed: given the plague of robbery that plagued the region at that time, and the structural judicial backwardness, concrete measures were needed and promised.

Were there any measures taken in this regard for Charleroi during the previous legislature? Yes, the Charleroi Criminal Judge conducted an inspection approved by the General Assembly. Indeed, Mr. Bourgeois, this happened on November 6, 2002, a year after Dendermonde. I do not have the Dendermonde report at hand. If you ask me questions about this, I can only say that I do not have the report at hand.

The fact is that the study was conducted in November 2002 and was the result of those visits. Why did it go faster than in Dendermonde? Per ⁇ the problem in Charleroi was more sharply felt because measures were taken at the police level which resulted in more cases being solved and having to get a trial. I think we should agree on this point in all objectivity and – to say with the words of Mr. Van Parys – beyond the boundaries of opposition and majority. If a closing system is established, which provides more resources for the investigation and coupled with a quick trial, this will benefit everyone, more – the colleague from the Charleroi region pointed out – because it is clear that that gang was not only active in that region. This explanation is, in my opinion, important as a situation sketch.

I come to a second point in this regard. Following the November 2002 report, then Minister Verwilghen made a concrete proposal which, however, was not implemented for budgetary reasons. Their

The present draft on additional magistrates for Bergen is, in my opinion, on the one hand the result of the elements mentioned above and, on the other hand, the implementation of a proposal from the previous legislature.

The situation in Dendermonde. The High Court of Justice has drawn up a report.

As for the MUNAS study, I would like to give a brief introduction. Colleagues, I remind you that on behalf of my group I was the first to ask a question about the results of this study in November 2003. Mr Vandeurzen joined my question. At that point, the minister replied that there was a study and that this was an element. VLD has replicated that we could hardly accept the study as an element among the many other studies. Even under the assumption that the study would only be an element, the VLD explicitly requested that this study not only be given great importance in the assessment of the needs but also be taken into account in the development of possible solutions for the Court of Appeal in Antwerp.

I come to the MUNAS report of the first president of the five courts of appeal.

First and foremost, a small reminder. I am going to visit the figures relating to the workload and the number of magistrates in the Court of Appeal in Antwerp. In 1995, there were 43 magistrates of the seat at the Court of Appeal of Antwerp and today 51. Productivity — which is mentioned in the MUNAS report — was 200 in 1995 and 198 in 2002. In this regard, the magistrates work as hard as before. Let that also be predetermined. I think I am one of the better places in this hemisphere to know how the Court of Appeal in Antwerp works. They are especially hard-working magistrates, who indeed have a heavy workload to torso. There is no discussion about this. Not only the workload, but also – very specifically – the situation in the accusation chambers in the district of Antwerp, with the increasing crime, illustrate this. Their

Then the debate must be conducted on the basis of the objective elements that are present. I will return to the MUNAS study later. It must be taken into account that this debate cannot be carried out on the basis of a certain form of demagogy. One cannot, of course, come to the Justice Committee to say that the problem of the number of magistrates at the Court of Appeal — that is what is being discussed — is all the more important in Antwerp by linking it to the recent wave of ⁇ regrettable robberies that occurred during the month of January in Antwerp. Some members of the committee know perfectly who I am talking about. Their

I note – I will return to that later – that of the amendments submitted, colleagues Van Parys and Bourgeois, one is missing on your list today, in particular the amendment on the Labour Court of Tongeren. I suppose this is not coincidental. We will return to this later.

As for the MUNAS study, Mr. Bourgeois, you will explain the analysis of the High Council of Justice alongside other studies. I refer to what Mr. Muls said about this. Is that why this study should be encrypted? Absolutely not. What has been said about this? The study covers the productivity of the various courts of appeal, in other words, what was delivered. Is that enough to immediately say to stop the number of 19 councillors? The Minister adopted a position on this in November. At that time nor now I heard an initiative in this regard in the committee.to take this into account, not even from the opposition. Mr. Bourgeois, you will point to me if I am mistaken in this approach.

What happened to the follow-up of the audits of the High Council for Justice concerning Dendermonde? This is an element that was rightly pointed out by the gentlemen Muls and Bourgeois. What did the Minister say about Dendermonde? Too little for us, that’s true. What then happened? A number of initiatives were developed. Ms Claes pointed out a number of initiatives taken by her group. There are also initiatives taken by members of our group, with respect to the minister. In the committee of last Monday, the Minister, at the request of Mr Van Parijs and Mr Laeremans, expressly undertook to conclude, with respect to Dendermonde, the talks currently underway by 31 March 2004 and then to take concrete measures in the short term. Mr. Bourgeois, you have already said that this is not a concrete commitment as is the case with the present draft. That is correct. You will say that we are content with a dead mouse. Others will say that we are slippers or lackeys. I am also seen as a collaborator. I must say that I can enjoy this word, especially if it comes from your banks.

Colleagues from the VLD came afterwards. In any case, with regard to Dendermonde, there is a commitment of the Minister on 31 March 2004. We have all reason to believe that the Minister will later in her response to the extent necessary that commitment will again take concrete here.

One element that I have heard less discussed, apart from the presentations that have taken place, is that yesterday — you have alluded to that, Mr. Bourgeois — we had a meeting with the highest magistrates of this country, the first president and the Attorney General at the Court of Cassation. You have identified a number of elements that are correct. They were the subject of a question and answer yesterday afternoon in the committee. There are a number of other topics that I have specifically wanted to address in relation to the problem that we are dealing with here today, in particular amendments submitted before the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, the 19 councillors requested and the like.

The colleagues who were present yesterday in the Justice Committee will remember that in the report, or rather in the note – if you are at least aware of it – which was submitted by the first chairman of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp during the hearing in the Senate on 14 January – that is two weeks ago – the first chairman says – in the MUNAS study, by the way, it is alluded to that – that one of the possibilities for recovering the judicial delay could be another application or amendment of Article 109bis with regard to the right of option. Ultimately, today we are primarily dealing with conjunctual measures, extending the framework or not. Regarding structural measures, I believe that at some point, in consultation with all actors in the field, including the Court of Appeal, the Judiciary and the Parliament, an examination will need to be devoted to which resources can be used structurally so that, in relation to the appeal as such, the appeal to the Court of Appeal — this relates to civil matters — can be partially resolved. A second possibility has been discussed, you remember that. The magistrates at the Court of Cassation have stated — which will only be possible after consultation with all stakeholders in this case — that the possibilities of appeal would be limited to review. The magistrates at the Court of Cassation referred in this regard to the situation in Britain.

I will return to the situation of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp, because this is primarily the case with regard to the amendments. There are ⁇ hard-working magistrates at the Court of Appeal in Antwerp and the work pressure there is absolutely heavy. It is attempted to absorb this workload in part by the fact that the Board graciously — if I can use that expression, Mrs. Minister — makes available a number of deputy councillors. If I get it right, it is currently 13. They continue to carry out that work. Just appointing additional councillors seems to me to be an insufficient measure to resolve the structural difficulties they face. Their

The committee also demonstrated that you would be willing to make some effort with regard to Antwerp – first caterpillar, if you allow me to use that expression – with regard to Antwerp. It was scary because it has been difficult to get concrete commitments from you in that area. Their

Several speakers pointed out the procedure that took place yesterday in the Flemish Parliament, with regard to the conflict of interest raised there. You have no doubt known from your colleagues in the Flemish Parliament that the Prime Minister has indeed committed to commitments. Mrs. Minister of Justice, I assume that you will formally confirm the commitment taken yesterday by the Prime Minister before the Flemish Parliament. This is the answer we expect today. With regard to Antwerp, what you said in the committee is not enough with regard to us. As regards Antwerp, I assume that you will explain to Parliament a number of concrete commitments that you intend to take within the shortest possible time. Their

Among other things, following a separate conversation with the city managers of Antwerp – as Ms. Claes has so beautifully called them – namely colleagues Janssens, Van Campenhout and myself, and other contacts taken in this regard, we have all reason to believe that the government would still be willing to take some concrete commitments with regard to Antwerp.

Mr. Marinower, I have a small question. Per ⁇ I have been somewhat careless, but what concrete commitments do you ask from the minister with regard to Antwerp? I have heard you mention two times "a number of concrete commitments". You refer to a conversation with the city council. What concrete commitments do you ask for?

The concrete commitments we ask for are commitments in many areas. It is about commitments in the field of the magistracy. I will explain this immediately. However, it also involves a number of surrounding measures outside the magistrate, both in terms of personnel, materials, referrals, officers, computer materials, and the like.

In the area of the magistrates, there is every reason to replace a number of magistrates in a very short term. You know that in Antwerp there is a framework of forty-eight magistrates. In addition, there are three magistrates belonging to the temporary framework. You will also have read in the note presented by the first chairman during his visit to the Senate, that there is talking about an occupation rate for 2002 of 43,42. In part, this degree of occupation is caused by illness, as can happen in all courts and courts. However, in part it is also caused by deaths. I have every reason to believe that there are currently proceedings in progress that will in the very short term replace a number of magistrates who have not yet been replaced. These include the magistrates who are on mission in Sarajevo or Kosovo. There are also dead judges.

A second aspect is absolutely imperative. I thought there was no controversy about this. It concerns the extension of the temporary framework whose three-year period, if I am correct, expires in October or November 2004. In addition, a number of additional magistrates should be found. Alleszins must provide an incentive to respond to the problem, as it exists today.

Mr. Marinower, there are a few things I would like to hear from you.

First, there has been a conversation between the Minister, Patrick Janssens, Ludo Van Campenhout and ⁇ yourself. Per ⁇ you can tell a little more about what was specifically promised in that conversation.

Secondly, there has been a letter from the Prime Minister to the Flemish Parliament group with concrete commitments, after which ultimately not much more was heard. Can you explain — as a member of the VLD you will probably know — what the prime minister wrote correctly? Can you explain what commitments the Prime Minister has made to the VLD group of the Flemish Parliament? Can you say something about it?

As for the first, I will not provide further details because the Minister will respond immediately. I think it is appropriate that you question the Minister about this. I expect that the content of those talks, the continuation thereof and the application of the measures discussed therein will be explained in her reply. Then you are free to ask me questions about this if you think the Minister has not answered you sufficiently.

After what happened yesterday in the Flemish Parliament, I think that the Prime Minister has first put the necessary measures with regard to Charleroi, if necessary, back into a historical perspective. Members of the Flemish Parliament, who may be less sensitive or less aware of it, have been told the same story about Charleroi as what I just did to you.

With regard to Dendermonde, he also pointed out the commitment made in the committee by the Minister with a target date of 31 March 2004. With regard to the sitting magistrature of Antwerp, reference was made to the MUNAS study which can be considered as "a" study element. In the short term, it is intended to replace two open places – no new ones – of magistrates who are not actually present today. This is about someone who is on a mission and someone who has died. Additional, concrete measures will also be taken in the near term with regard to office staff, computer equipment and an additional framework expansion. I think the Minister will extend this.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I conclude by saying that we will wait very carefully for the Minister’s response and then submit a vote statement.

The last speaker in this general discussion is Mr Van Parys.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues – and I am addressing myself especially to the Flemish colleagues – the debate could actually be relocated to a moment, because the dossier that it is about is a very simple dossier. There can be little disagreement on the points. In my presentation, I would like to bring the discussion back to its true proportion.

Colleagues, and especially Flemish colleagues, we should all agree today in this debate that this bill creates an unequal treatment with regard to the courts of appeal of Gent and Antwerp and with regard to the court of first instance in Dendermonde. Moreover, Flemish colleagues, we should actually all agree that this bill creates an unequal treatment of the people who seek justice in East and West Flanders, Antwerp and Limburg within a reasonable time.

Can we differ on this unequal treatment of opinions? I will briefly make the comparison between the Court of Appeal in Bergen and the courts of Appeal in Antwerp and Gent. One objective has been given: the MUNAS study, which has been endorsed by the five Corps Chiefs of the five courts of appeal. What does the MUNAS study say based on the same criteria? For Mons there is no need for an additional magistrate. For Antwerp, there is a need for 19 additional magistrates. For Gent, there is a need for seven additional magistrates.

What do we define in reality? We are discussing a bill in which Mons is granted an extension of the framework with a single magistrate. While the objective data shows that there is the least need for a framework extension in Mons, Mons is given an additional magistrate from the Minister of Justice. So far, I do not see any proposal or draft in the legislative texts presented in favour of an extension of the framework in Antwerp and Gent. However, the study shows that this is the first need.

Flemish colleagues, that is an unequal treatment. The one who receives the frame extension does not have a need, while the one who does not receive a frame extension does not have a need.

Mr. Muls, let us compare what is similar, Charleroi and Dendermonde. The High Council for Justice says in its study that Charleroi needs two additional magistrates and Dendermonde needs seven additional magistrates. What does the Minister of Justice do? She submits a draft law to provide Charleroi with two additional magistrates. For Dendermonde, there is no draft law so far.

Can we then not agree, Flemish colleagues, that there is an absolute inequality of treatment in favour of the Court of First Instance in Charleroi and in favour of the Court of Appeal of Mons? Mrs. Claes, can we exercise the intellectual honesty to admit that here inequality is created? That could take us a step further.

Could we succeed, within the framework of the same intellectual honesty, to find out on this basis together, as Flemish parties, how we can eliminate this inequality of treatment? Where would be the place to do that? That place is here, the House of Representatives, where we discuss a draft law and where amendments are in place that attempt to justify that discrimination.

Colleagues, it will undoubtedly also come to your attention that the frustration among the magistrates and the staff of the Justice in Flanders is extremely large. One does not understand at all why the workforce in Antwerp, Gent and Dendermonde is not rewarded, but the workforce in Charleroi and Mons – which will undoubtedly be there – is rewarded. To this frustration we must give the necessary consequences. We must be able to ensure that legal seekers in Flanders are treated in the same way as in Wallonia or in certain regions within the French-speaking region.

Let us at least agree on this! Let us here look for the solutions that impose. Therefore, the CD&V group, together with the opposition, together with colleague Bourgeois, have submitted amendments in which we once again invite you to withdraw this right. Then you can perfectly, as far as I am concerned, subamend these amendments and make adjustments to them, in such a way that they may be in accordance with what your insights are about it. The promises, colleagues, of which you are talking, have actually not been there today at all. Their

I came to this debate with high expectations – and therefore I wanted to take the last word – because there was an important statement in the press to be made. So I had hoped that we would hear here today that there would be an effective commitment of a framework extension, both in Dendermonde and in Antwerp and Gent. After hearing the arguments of the Flemish colleagues of the majority, I find that the ambitions in this regard are ⁇ limited. For Dendermonde there is indeed — I believe this once again proves how we can exercise pressure in this Chamber to indeed force the minister to correct some things — a bill has been announced and a deadline has been set. This is under pressure, colleagues, from Parliament and especially under pressure from members of the opposition, who have taken their responsibilities. Their

It proves, colleagues, that when we take our responsibilities in this Parliament, we can indeed force the executive power, the Minister of Justice, to correct those things that were going wrong following the submission of the bill. Today we have only one promise that a bill will come out within the month. Why do we not have the commitment that will follow the report of the High Council for Justice for Dendermonde, of which it is said that there is a need for seven additional magistrates? Why do we today have the permanent commitment of the Minister of Justice of two magistrates to Charleroi, as the High Council for Justice has said, but for Dendermonde no concrete commitment in this regard? Their

I ask the Minister of Justice very explicitly whether in the bill she will submit within the month, will she take into account the analysis of the High Council for Justice and provide for an extension of the framework for Dendermonde of seven magistrates?

Mrs. Minister, this is a very precise question to which I would like to hear your answer in order to verify to what extent your commitments are concrete. It is only then, dear colleagues, Flemish colleagues, that this discrimination will be eliminated. When one says that the report of the High Council for Justice is the basis, there is only one solution possible. That is Charleroi +2 and Dendermonde +7.

Second, the situation in Gent and Antwerp. Colleagues, and Flemish colleagues, you will have to admit with me that the commitments mentioned therein are very limited. There are talks that will be held, working groups that will be set up and assistance that will be provided.

I invite you to read the report of the discussions at the committee meeting on Monday. There was no concrete commitment, except the commitment to engage in talks. The Minister says there that she will first address Brussels, in the meantime will engage in discussions with Antwerp and then finally with Gent and Luik. There is no concrete commitment in this regard. Colleagues, I therefore call on you to step back from the sluggish decision-making that you invoke here today. It is impossible to ⁇ results and to exert pressure when you rely on conversations conducted, among other things, with the city administration of Antwerp, and where you assume very vague commitments of the Minister of Justice.

We need to know today when and within what timeframe there will be a framework extension in Antwerp and Gent. We need to know that very precisely, and not that there will be discussions and that some help will be provided. Today there is a concrete commitment for Mons. There will be one additional judge where no one is needed. As regards Antwerp and Gent, the Minister of Justice has never spoken that it would agree to an extension of the framework, let alone an extension of the framework in accordance with the study endorsed by the first presidents of the courts of appeal.

I would like to return for a moment to the arguments of Mrs Claes and Mr Muls, who say that all this is not new. This is a situation that has existed for a long time. What did we do about that at the time?

Here, however, for the sake of the truthfulness of the discussions, I would like to point out the following to Mrs. Claes and Mr. Muls. The most recent extension of the framework of the magistrature dates from 1998. In 1998, Mr. Giet, we expanded the framework with 250 magistrates in the then government. Mr Landuyt opposed this at that moment with hand and tooth. The most recent extension of the framework with 250 magistrates dates from 1998. I can tell the French-speaking colleagues who are interested in the problem of Charleroi that in the same period, in 1998, we assigned to Charleroi 6 additional magistrates, precisely in order to address the specific problems that arise there and precisely in accordance with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee. So it will not be the past that the problems of today arise, at least not the past for which CD&V was responsible.

I want to decide, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. We must remedy the discrimination that arises as a result of this bill with respect to the Flemish magistrates and the Flemish law seekers. We should not do this through all kinds of conversations in the walkways. We need to do this in Parliament. It has been proven that it can, because through the pressure we have put on the Minister of Justice, there is a commitment to Dendermonde, but it is not concrete enough. Let us today in the House, following the vote on the amendments, which raise pressure. Indeed, let us revaluate the Chamber and Parliament by forcing the Minister of Justice to remedy a clear discrimination against Flanders and against Flanders’ prosecutors. Here we are able, here we have the opportunity, Flemish colleagues, to justify an unheard of discrimination. I would like to look at the direction of who is doing the revaluation of Parliament. It is here that it should happen and not on secret discussions with the city administration of Antwerp. Here in the Chamber we can and must take our responsibility. This is what we must do here. We must dare to make a fist, because we all know that discrimination and inequality are created here.

I therefore invite you, Flemish colleagues, to support the amendments of the CD&V group and of colleague Bourgeois. This is the only way to get the guarantee today that this unheard discrimination is eliminated and that in this way we can give the people who seek justice in Flanders the same as those who do it elsewhere in this country. It is up to you to take your responsibility. We will count the heads.

The Deputy Prime Minister will respond to the seven colleagues who spoke in the general discussion. As for the discussion of the amendments, I ask that the interventions be limited, since most of the amendments have already been defended.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to thank Mrs. Deom for her excellent report on the work of our committee on this project.

As you may have seen, there were actually two joint discussions. One focused on the project as such, i.e. the temporary increase of the framework of magistrates in Mons and Charleroi; the other developed and amplified around a ultimately simple question: why not take advantage of the project to settle the demands of other judicial districts who, too, have real difficulties in effectively rendering justice in reasonable times?

I will, of course, address both questions.

As for Mons and Charleroi, everyone in the committee recognized the exceptional work carried out by the police forces and the judiciary to reduce crime of an extraordinary scale.

It was in March 2002 that the prime minister and my predecessor responded to the call for help launched by the mayor and the prosecutor of the King of Charleroi. On March 20, 2002, a meeting was held on the spot. On this occasion, decisions on security, police and justice personnel were adopted. These decisions were subject to an evaluation on 1 October 2002. It was decided that the need for the judiciary would be examined after conducting an audit carried out by the Supreme Council of Justice. Having done this audit, the Minister of Justice of the time decided to increase the framework to the proportion that appears today in the project under discussion. It would take two years before the project could finally be presented to you.

The extension should allow to deal with, as Mr. Massin said this, with the increase in serious cases in criminal matters, driven by the fight against organized and violent crime in the judicial district of Charleroi. The Supreme Council of Justice has demonstrated the need to continue this increase in order to preserve the acquisitions gained through the efforts of the local judicial and police authorities.

I pointed out in a committee that criminal justice is the receptacle for the production of a chain that begins from the first police findings.

This is how today justice deals with cases that are the result of investigations conducted during the 1990s and 2000s.

New police methods have helped to update criminal practices and arrest perpetrators. These actions resulted in a significant decline in crime and a very satisfactory clearance rate, with the inevitable consequence of an increase for magistrates in the number of cases which are, in addition, more voluminous.

During the last October 20 visit, the police authorities of the region have drawn up a disturbing picture that shows that this area remains despite the improvement, the one with the highest serious crime.

The judicial system must be able to deal with these criminal facts within a reasonable period of time, i.e. quickly, because we must avoid at all costs a double sense of impunity and insecurity. I will not review the report of the Higher Council of Justice, but I would like to point out two elements that I think are essential: to avoid the release of dangerous detainees and to avoid the correctionalization of criminal facts when they should have been tried by a Court of Assises.

I am and will remain attentive to the situation, in order to avoid the dismotivation of police and judicial actors as well as the loss of public confidence in a justice that cannot afford.

The judicial efforts will allow for a quick and visible follow-up to the fruitful work of the police forces.

The fight against organised and violent crime translates into an effort throughout the procedural chain.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to the second question. First of all, I would like to say to Mr. Van Parys that he pointed to the rose. It’s unusual for a politician to reveal its weaknesses, but it doesn’t bother me. I am deeply hurt by the statements made. I am presented as a French-speaking minister who is blind to the problems of the Flanders’ courts of appeal. This is wrong and he knows that too. Today he launched a Pinocchio call.

First of all, everyone agrees on the content of the draft that we are studying today and that was decided during the previous reign. I also have a much too high dunk of the judiciary and its representatives to ignore anyone. We need unity and coherence so that our fellow citizens can enjoy the necessary change. There is no question that I will wear eyelid valves or that I will conduct a unilateral policy. What I want is a different way of working. In the past, too many people have worked blindly. Since there were no objective criteria, the framework extensions have so far always been carried out entirely subjectively. In a sense, we worked blindly. This method may be a source of a difference in treatment that is little recommended. Why here and not there? Why plus two and not plus three? Only for a well-defined district the inspections of the High Council for Justice make it possible to decide with knowledge of matters. To cope with this situation, one must dare to carry out an objective workload measurement. The park has begun with it. In accordance with the magistracy, the consortium De Witte & Morel was selected for this purpose.

This work will take place over the next eighteen months. At that point, we will be able to have objective conclusions that will not only allow us to decide for each judicial district whether more or fewer frames are needed, but also to provide useful advice to the actors of the prosecution so that they can improve their work efficiency and better distribute the roles.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I am convinced that we should also work in this way for the seat. In consultation with the first presidents of the courts of appeal, I have decided to assign a working group composed of magistrates of the first and second degrees, officers and representatives of the administration, the delicate task of establishing criteria for the evaluation of the workload. A first meeting will take place during the second half of February.

The thought exercise initiated by the first presidents of the courts of appeal, better known as the MUNAS study, will be used as a reference document.

In the future, we will be able to decide on the framework of courts and courts on the basis of objective criteria. However, we cannot wait for the end of this work to help those who fall under the workload. Therefore, I have initiated extensive talks with the magistrates so that the needs can be analyzed case by case, both in terms of the number of magistrates, the staff of the greffies, the administrative staff, as well as in terms of computer science and other resources.

During these special talks, we will also jointly define the objectives to be achieved with the new resources available. The reduction of judicial lag is one of the main objectives. Their

I started with the magistrates of the seat and of the Brussels Public Prosecutor’s Office and their employees. The situation in Brussels is ⁇ critical, and an example makes it quite clear. The framework of the parquet of the first building of Brussels has only been filled for sixty percent. The results of the talks will be presented within a few days. Their

Without waiting for the end of that work, and as I have committed myself to it for several months in the committee, I started the conversations with the representative of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. The first meeting was held on 3 February. We talked about the working method and the timetable. Also the date of 31 March was set for the decisions and the head of this jurisdiction will set goals for the next meeting that will continue on the next 19 February. At that first meeting, already objective figures came up, which showed that the Court of Appeal of Antwerp becomes the first court of the country. In fact, this court registered the highest number of incoming civil cases in the course of the year 2003, more than four thousand cases. On the criminal level, the Chamber of Accusation has seen an increase of sixty percent in ten years. The room sits every working day in the morning and in the afternoon. A mountain of work is being resisted and that will ⁇ affect the entire judicial chain to which I already referred when I talked about Charleroi and Bergen. Their

The province’s assistant court is ⁇ heavily burdened. It deals with approximately 20 cases per year. According to the outlook, there will be more than a hundred matters to be dealt with in the coming years. At the criminal level, there are still 2.422 cases to be dealt with. The average duration of an appeal criminal proceedings is 16 months. The situation should also be improved on the civil justice level. I refer here to the waiting time before a case can be prosecuted, which ranges from 9 months for a Chamber with a judge to 21 months for a Chamber with three judges. This deadline is clearly too long. One of the goals will be to reduce it to a much shorter term, for example 3 months. This goal will not be achieved in the short term, but I think it may be a goal that we should be able to ⁇ in agreement with the judicial authorities within a fixed timeframe.

No possibility should be excluded. I think of course of the absolute necessity of the extension of the framework of the magistrates and the secretaries. I also refer to the use of human resources. They must be managed in an optimal way. We must also ask questions about the technical and information resources available to the staff to carry out their assignments.

I therefore advocate a global approach that takes into account the situation of all components. I want to make sure that the existing resources are used to the maximum. Therefore, I also insist on the working methods.

To the attention of Mr Muls, I would like to remind you that the decisions on the extension of the framework will be taken before 31 March 2004. The bill will be submitted during the month of April. An annual review will take place that will allow us to make the necessary improvements.

In response to Mr Marinower’s question, I have the pleasure to inform him that the Minister of Budget, Johan Vande Lanotte, has granted me permission for the replacement of magistrates who are on leave due to an assignment. As regards the Court of First Instance of Antwerp, it is a judge to replace Mr De Smet who is deployed to the Committee I.

The replacement of the magistrate of the Court of Appeal charged with an assignment in Bosnia-Herzegovina will take place soon. It is a matter of several weeks. The same timing will be respected to provide for the replacement of Mrs. Neyts. For the sake of completeness, I would like to point out that the selection procedure to provide for the replacement of two magistrates who will join the emeritus in September is ongoing and that it will be possible to proceed to the appointment in a timely manner. The provisional framework in Antwerp will be last extended at the end of 2004. Their

Ladies and gentlemen, I have informed you that for Charleroi and Mons we could enjoy an inquiry by the High Council for Justice. Since 24 October 2001, another district has also been subject to such an inspection, but no conclusions have been drawn from it. This is about Dendermonde. On the basis of this inspection, I have decided to engage in the dialogue with the judicial authorities of Dendermonde. The first meeting took place ten days ago. My staff will meet with the President and the King’s Attorney on Friday. The Corps Chiefs will then submit a first draft of their master plan. This work should be completed by 31 March. The bill will be submitted in the course of April. Their

I would like to emphasize the very positive and very constructive nature of the dialogue we have with the relevant magistrates. Based on the conclusions of the inspection – and to answer Mrs. Claes’ question – a framework extension will of course take place in Dendermonde, but there will also be other types of logistical and human support measures. I will also work with the magistrates of the courts of appeal of Gent and Luik during the next quarter and will do so according to the same approach.

These are the things I am working on. It is, of course, not easy, because my concern for coherence must be aligned with the budgetary reality of the Department of Justice. Their

Colleagues, one should not rely on me to sell out justice in any district. If the questions are the same every time, the answers will also be the same.