Proposition 51K1205

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 25 Ventôse An XI contenant organisation du notariat.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 10, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

notary

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 ¶

July 1, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This is an oral report since there is no written report in the framework of this bill.

As far as possible, I will try to be quite concise.

The Government is not present!

Would you allow a second? You want to put things well at the point. The Government is not obliged to be present while the report is issued. However, the government is on the way. That has been told to me. For the discussion, the government must be present, but no speakers are registered.

Mr. De Crem, if I can afford, in the context of this case, Mr. De Crem, there was not much opposition. I will allow myself to come up with this in the context of my report.

As one minister is present, please continue, Mr. Massin.

Mr. Speaker, the draft law therefore had two objectives: on the one hand, to put an end to the derogatory regime applicable to the judicial districts of Eupen and Verviers, relating to the number of notaries per judicial district; on the other hand, to make a modification of the criterion of linguistic attachment for the designation of professors or course officers called to sit in the appointment committees for the notary.

Following the various positions taken in the context of this case, and in particular Mr. Wathelet, whom I greet this afternoon, was decided by an amendment to split the bill. Amendment No. 1 was submitted, specifying that Article 2 was repealed, namely the introduction intended to end this derogatory regime applicable to the judicial districts of Eupen and Verviers.

Since this point had been settled by this amendment since various problems arose – and it was eventually considered to request the hearing of the Chamber of Notaries and, possibly, of notaries of the district – it was therefore the second point the modification of the criterion of linguistic attachment for the designation of teachers or lecturers.

In this case, the problem was that in the current state of affairs, different calls for appointments had been made in order to constitute the appointment chambers of notary candidates. Unfortunately, following the various calls for applications, it was never possible to constitute these chambers. It was therefore important and urgent, given the fact that these chambers were to be constituted by September 2004, to make this modification of the attachment criterion.

The bill, as such, provided that, depending on the Bologna decree, the criterion of attachment would be, no longer the language of the diploma, but rather the language of the faculty in which the professor exercised, namely French-speaking or Dutch-speaking college.

The only point of discussion in this regard was whether a choice could be made by one or another from the moment when a difficulty arose when a teacher exercised in the courts, both French- and Dutch-speaking.

Therefore, an amendment has been filed to specify that, if the lecturers and professors are appointed in universities belonging to different Communities, the language considered is therefore no longer subject to their choice, but is that of the Community in which they exercise their main function.

I would simply like to clarify that, although the discussions brought the possibility of reaching a solution to this urgent project in its second part, it was adopted by a majority with the reservation of two abstentions, namely CD&V and Vlaams Blok.