Proposition 51K1273

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions légales en matière pénale et de procédure pénale en vue de lutter contre l'arriéré judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 7, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

backlog of court cases judicial power criminal procedure criminal court

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Abstained from voting

Ecolo LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Nahima Lanjri (CD&V) 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. 24, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister, colleagues, the draft law that precedes, will contribute nothing and therefore will not contribute to removing the judicial downturn, as the title of the draft law however suggests. I would like to make this very briefly clear.

Two measures are provided in the draft law.

First, the government wants to change the so-called procedure in case of appeal by process-verbal. What is it about? These are simple files, in which no persons have been detained and where there is no judicial investigation. There is only a preliminary examination, which is sufficient. Well, in the original text of the bill it is stipulated that the appearance is provided within two months. The draft law now intends to introduce in this law the amendment that the sentence must be pronounced within two months.

However, practice shows that the problem is not the deadline within which the judgment should be delivered. Practice shows that the problem is the duration of treatment. After all, if the file is presented to the hearing within two months, it often shows that additional investigation is needed, witnesses must be heard or experts should be appointed. At that point, the case is postponed and we are re-shiped with the normal deadlines and the judicial delay in the ordinary proceedings, as they are conducted. In that regard, the measure will therefore not contribute to accelerating the procedure.

Furthermore, there are no sanctions for non-compliance with the deadline set in the draft law. In any case, it will become a dead letter.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that the scope of the draft law is very limited. It is, as I said, about simple files, for which only a preliminary investigation is sufficient, where there are no arrests and for which there is no judicial investigation. This means that very few files will fall under the application.

Following the discussion in the committee, we proposed an alternative to the majority and to the Minister of Justice. We have proposed to repair the Highway Law of Minister Verwilghen. You know that in the previous legislature a speed law had been established for persons who were detained. They could appear in court within a week. However, that high-speed law was so poorly arranged that the Arbitration Court destroyed the main provisions, so that the high-speed law is now dead letter, has remained dead letter for a few years and cannot be applied.

If one wants to do something, one would actually much better repair the high-speed law so that an effective contribution can be made to remove the judicial lag.

This measure does not contribute and the other measure that is provided, in particular that magistrates, who sit in the court of assises as assistants, as assistors, could be replaced by substitute judges. Even this measure, Madam the Vice-Prime Minister, colleagues, will not have the effect that one could possibly expect. We have, by the way, fundamental problems with this initiative because the deputy judges are lawyers who sit as magistrates.

Following a number of hearings in our committee, including with Ms. Boliau and Mr. Risopoulos, who respectively spoke on behalf of the Order of the Flemish Balies and the Association of French-speaking balies, we have been explicitly told to abolish that system of replacement judges. This system only leads to a mix of roles: once you sit as a lawyer, then you sit as a magistrates. Now one must defend the criminal environment and then again one must condemn the criminal environment. It was precisely the representatives of the Balai who told us this explicitly. They have raised fundamental questions about the system itself of the deputy magistrates.

What will be done in this bill? They will have these deputy judges to sit even more and they will also be allowed to sit only in criminal cases. I can agree that the Deputy Magistrates sit in chambers with three judges where they can perform a function as second or third magistrates. But they ⁇ should not just sit and ⁇ not in criminal cases. At that time, we abolished the system of single-seated replacement judges because this Chamber was of the opinion that this was in fact irresponsible. We will now reintroduce this system and, by the way, take risks.

The question is, by the way, who will want to do that. First, there is responsibility. Secondly, one must find lawyers with ten years of experience who want to find the time to fulfill this task. Finally, colleagues, we must dare to test the bills to the reality. The Deputy Magistrates will receive a fee of 70 euros per session. If we assume that a session lasts about three hours from 9 to 12 hours, it means that they receive a fee of 25 euros per hour. Colleagues, I do not know if you recently consulted the plumber but at this price the plumber will not provide services with you. We will give these people an important responsibility to make judgments in important criminal court cases as single-seated magistrates. This cannot. There has been an attempt here to do something about the judicial backwardness only through an announcement, but in reality nothing happens.

We together with colleague Verherstraeten and Mrs. Van der Auwera have proposed an alternative.

CD&V has proposed an alternative aimed at appointing additional supplementary magistrates in the places where the Court of Assises regularly seats. That is the solution to the problem that arises. Especially in the Flemish arrondissements there is still a lot of room to appoint additional magistrates. In this way one can solve the problem and effectively contribute to eliminating the overload of the magistrates when the court of assises sits. In its opinion, the Council of State states that the problem should not be solved by allowing replacement judges to sit only seated, but by extending the framework. We have not gone so far and have chosen the solution of additional magistrates. Our proposal was not accepted.

Conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the assessment of the present bill is simple and can be formulated with a question. What are we doing in Parliament?! The bill is useless and useless. We cannot approve the choice of not taking the obvious measures, on the one hand, the repair of the High Court-Verwilghen and, on the other hand, the assignment of additional magistrates in the places where the court of assises is seated.

Still a positive note. However, we found ourselves back in Mr. Giet’s amendment, which has an added value but not in the context of the problem of judicial lag but in the context of the rights that one has to respond effectively to the court to a number of initiatives.

Mr. Speaker, my argument was short, short because the bill is no longer worth words.

Mr. Speaker, during the previous parliamentary term, I had been forced to submit a bill which included a set of measures aimed at combating judicial retardation or, in any case, to accelerate the procedure. It is with pleasure that I saw that this bill took one or the other step by improving them.

As part of parliamentary work, it is important to be able to listen to practitioners, to become aware of their concerns, and to transform some of their proposals in terms of law without automatically having to go through very important reforms – even if necessary, some are underway in the Senate – which occupy parliament for weeks, if not months. Small corrections and improvements can be made that facilitate the day-to-day work of magistrates and therefore have a positive influence on the justiciable.

Of course, options are taken. I understand what Mr. Mr. just said. Van Parys on the problem of immediate appearance. If Mr. Van Parys actually had to decide, he would probably want to resume a procedure of "snelrecht", according to the consecrated expression. In this case, the option is to improve the procedure set out in the Code of Criminal Instruction and to ensure that it is better applied in everyday life instead of returning to the “snelrecht”.

As for the problem of the Supplementary Judges, we have long talked about it in the committee. It is true that for me, this measure is entirely applicable. I remind you – and this will be the only thing I will say in this regard – that in matters of peace justice and police court, the replacement judges are called to sit alone. We are wrong - and that is not what Mr. does. Van Parys - to consider that peace justice or the police court deals with small cases and that their liability would be less important or less heavy than that of the court of first instance, for example. Finally, I thank the committee for accepting one of my amendments, even if it had to be reworked, which is normal since one tries to perform a quality work; it is not always easy and the matter is technical. This amendment allows victims, and more specifically civil parties, to have civil interests handled in better conditions and by applying a procedure, I hope, more efficient in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to confirm that I support the draft that is being voted today.

Following the intervention of Mr. Van Parys, I am also a supporter of considering more before what there is way to do for a faster procedure. Mrs. Minister, I have already said it to you several times, in my opinion, the fight against judicial retardation requires measures not only upward but also downward. In this context, a faster procedure is a measure that should be reviewed.