Proposition 51K1309

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses relatives aux délais, à la requête contradictoire et à la procédure en règlement collectif de dettes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

July 28, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

labour tribunal civil procedure indebtedness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V

Abstained from voting

N-VA FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Mark Verhaegen (CD&V) abstained from voting.
• Servais Verherstraeten (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.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

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

Discussion ¶

May 26, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This proposal is a matter of justice. It is therefore appropriate for the Minister of Justice to be present.

Mr. Verherstraeten, she is coming. She is entering right now.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, there are two bills and five bills to be discussed. I will first briefly explain the contents of the bills and then the contents of the various bills. Next, I will briefly summarize the discussion in the Committee on Justice.

The first draft law has no. by 1310. It is the collective debt arrangement that is delegated in terms of competence to the labour courts. The reason for this lies in the fact that the past has shown how fundamental the concept of human dignity is in it. The Government therefore believed that the functioning and effectiveness of the law on collective debt settlement could be optimized from this perspective by the labour courts and labor audit bodies, which have more experience in this area. In other words, with the transfer to the Labour Court, the government hopes that the social dimension will be taken more into account.

In order for the Labour Court to be able to process the transfer of powers, you expressly stated the following in the committee.

First, you argued that special budgetary resources would be provided for the strengthening of the staff of the employment courts.

Second, you argued that the entry into force would take place in two phases. In the first phase, only the new files would be entrusted to the Labour Court. In the second phase, all files pending to the seizure judge would be transferred to the labour courts. Third, you emphasized that a specific training will be organised for magistrates and officers of labour courts.

Fourth, labor courts will be among the first to be equipped with the new Phenix IT system.

The second draft law contains no. by 1309. This bill is divided into four major parts.

The first part aims to put an end to the legal uncertainty regarding the date on which the deadlines begin to run after the notification. There was some contradiction in this regard as a result of conflicting judgments by the Court of Arbitration, on the one hand, and the Court of Cassation, on the other. This discussion is finally resolved.

The second major part of this bill concerns a substantial change in the civil powers of the Labour Auditory, in which a limitation of the number of matters that must be mandatoryly communicated to the Auditory will be implemented. The aim here is to allow auditors again to truly focus on matters and disputes in which they can provide a real, necessary added value.

A third part of the second draft law concerns the generalization of the application of the petition on contradiction, as an introductory act of entry into law for matters falling within the competence of the labour courts, where the summoning still remains possible, but really becomes an exception. The proposed petition of the draft law already exists today, namely the petition that was determined in common law. For the sake of coherence, the draft law also expressly stipulates that the opposition proceedings to be initiated before the Labour Court can also be initiated with the appeal on contradiction.

The fourth and final part of this bill is ⁇ the most essential. This is a fundamental change in the procedure of collective debt arrangement. The Law on Collective Debt Settlement dates from 5 July 1998 and has proven its usefulness in recent years. However, according to the government, a number of problems have arisen in practice. A legislative change is therefore desirable. This amendment is implemented with this draft law. I could summarize them for you in ten points.

First of all, the borg.

Second, a more nuanced application of professional secrecy.

Third, the introduction of a penalty for creditors who submit a debt declaration late.

Fourth, the establishment of a specific legal basis for full or partial discharge of debt within the framework of a friendly clearing arrangement. Fifth, the time limit for the mediator to draw up a draft clearance scheme, which is extended from four to six months.

Sixth, the clarification that the judicial clearing plans without discharge of debts of the principal must not exceed the period of five years.

Seventh, a possibility for the court to allow a total discharge of debt, which is accompanied by certain conditions.

Eighth, a simplification of the procedure allowing an unpaid mediator to obtain intervention from the Fund to Combat Excessive Debt.

Ninth, the adaptation of the law to the use of the courts to avoid expensive costs of translation of procedural documents.

Tenth, the tenth major adjustment concerns the adjustments of technical order, in order to facilitate the course of the procedure.

Furthermore, as I just said, these bills are linked to five bills. A first bill is that of CDH, by Mr. Melchior Wathelet. It bears the number 449 and is a bill amending the Judicial Code as regards the competence of the Labour Court in order to give the Labour Court the power to take notice of claims relating to compensation for damages for persons in vocational training who become victims of an occupational accident or an accident on the way to or from work.

The second bill by Mr. Melchior Wathelet and Mrs. Nagy, numbered 850, is a bill amending the Judicial Code in order to allow the judge in commercial matters and the judge in social matters to hear in short-term proceedings. Therefore, it is actually a shortcut in social matters.

A third bill, also by Mr Wathelet and Mrs Nagy, is a bill amending Article 84 of the Judicial Code in order to allow social judges to sit in matters relating to the subject of the social security for workers or to the social status of self-employed persons or in matters relating to rest and survival pensions.

Then there is a bill from the masters Massin, Mayeur and consortia, aiming to counter the excessive debt burden. This bill also has several objectives that I could summarize as follows.

First, allowing the debtor who is eligible for a collective debt settlement to withdraw all his debts, provided that he cooperates to do so. Second, a special arrangement concerning collateral in order to satisfy a judgment of the Arbitration Court of 28 March 2002, in which it was stated that Article 82 of the Bankruptcy Act of 8 August '97 provides for an irresponsible difference in treatment between the bankrupt, on the one hand, and his spouse and guarantor, on the other.

A third important point of this bill concerns the incorporation of a number of basic guarantees for the family, for example the ability to have a home, but also a number of guarantees for the tenant.

The last important point of this bill is to provide guarantees in such a way that health care remains guaranteed.

Finally, there is a bill proposed by the Ladies De Meyer and Douifi, amending the Judicial Code with regard to the collective debt settlement. This bill also has several objectives that I try to summarize again.

First, the introduction of guarantees for the tenant, in particular that the decision to declare the admissibility of the collective debt settlement procedure would automatically mean a suspension of the procedure concerning the uithuiszetting.

Second, the introduction of the possibility, if the debtor has an immovable property, to sell the immovable property out of hand before a clearing scheme is drawn up.

A third point relates to subsistence allowance, which suggests that the amount that the mediator makes available to the debtor is at least equal to a full subsistence allowance.

A fourth point concerns the establishment of a maximum duration for the amicable cleaning scheme, proposing a maximum duration of five years.

The fifth point concerns the establishment of a legal basis for allowing full or partial discharge of tax liabilities.

A final, important point of the bill includes a proposal to charge the costs associated with the debt mediator’s actions to the Collective Debt Settlement Fund.

Before the discussion could take place in the committee, a lot of hearings took place. They would lead me too far. Please allow me, in this regard, to refer to the written report.

The draft laws and the draft laws were discussed together and were the subject of a very extensive discussion, which I will try to summarize for you as follows.

On behalf of Vlaams Belang, Mr. Laeremans first and mainly made comments in the generalization of the petition on contradiction in order to bring the dispute before the labour court. He argued that this provided too little legal certainty compared to the summons.

In the second instance, he had observations and objections regarding the transfer of the jurisdiction of the collective debt arrangement of the seizure judge to the labour court.

He then had all sorts of questions in the consultation of seizure reports, as well as in the amendment of the law on the use of languages in court proceedings.

On behalf of CD&V, Ms. Van der Auwera mainly made observations on the transfer of competence to the Labour Court. In fact, in its view, the collective debt arrangement cannot, in essence, be regarded as an insolvency proceedings. She referred to the report of the High Council for Justice, to the bailes, to the debt mediators, but also to the hearings.

She subsequently expressed concerns about the fragmented introduction of Phenix, expressly stating that she did not believe that the introduction would result in time savings.

Finally, it raised some questions in the extension of the petition to contradiction as a way of entry into law.

On behalf of MR, Mr Alain Courtois initially stated that he was concerned about the fate of persons with debt failure. Nevertheless, he stressed that not in all cases a general debt discharge can be achieved.

As regards the extension of jurisdiction, he explicitly stated that it should not result in the labour courts, which currently have no or a small backwardness, now build up a judicial backwardness.

His presentation was supplemented by Mrs Marie-Christine Marghem. She also argued that she was not immediately convinced of the transfer of jurisdiction to the labour courts.

Mr Claude Marinower, on behalf of the VLD, made some objections to the delegation of powers. He argued that more equipment and personnel should be made available to the labour courts and that it should also be examined when the labour courts will really be able to take over that competence.

Finally, on behalf of sp.a-spirit, Ms. De Meyer stated that she expressly supports the generalization of the petition on contradiction, as it lowers the financial and social threshold for access to justice. She even advocated, in general, for an extension of that petition to contradiction.

She subsequently stated that she was in favor of the transfer of jurisdiction to the labour courts. She stressed that more work needs to be done from prevention campaigns for the Fund to combat collective debt burden. Finally, it pointed out that in the context of the seizure procedure, more efforts should be made to avoid unnecessary costs.

I would like to briefly present the responses of the Minister, which makes it a little easier for the Minister.

In the first instance, as regards the discussion on the generalization of the objection petition, the Minister explicitly stated that that introduction to the objection petition already exists today and works well. She referred to the various procedures in which this already works well today. The Minister also referred to all the various provisions relating to the facilitation of the case, which also uses a court letter.

Subsequently, during the discussion, the Minister stated that sufficient certainty is provided, since the information concerning the domicile of the judicial enforcement officers and the users of the petition are completely identical, and that there is indeed sufficient respect for the rights of defence.

In the discussion on the transfer of powers, the Minister reiterated that it could further defend it, given the reasons of a social nature, and also expressly pointed out that on aspects of seizure law training will be organized for the magistrates of the labour courts, who will become competent in the future.

Subsequently, she emphasized that sufficient budgetary resources will really be provided for the strengthening of the staff of the offices.

She again stressed that the entry into force of the delegation of powers will truly be linked to the implementation of the Phenix project.

In connection with the last discussion, on the total discharge of debt, the Minister once again emphasized the following. First, this is an extraordinary measure that will only be taken when that is truly the only way to respect the human dignity of both the debtor and his family. The second condition is the requirement of good faith of the debtor, which must be demonstrated during the procedure.

The Minister then answered a number of technical questions. I refer to the written report. As regards the article-by-article discussion with the same discussion points, I also refer to the written report.

After the extensive discussion and the discussion of all sorts of submitted amendments, both bills, improved and amended, were approved with 9 votes for and 2 votes against, making the present bills without subject.

I am coming to the position of the sp.a-spirit group.

First, I can point out that the present draft proposals are really important and respond to the need for a number of reforms, on the one hand as regards the judicial law and, on the other hand, as regards the procedure for collective debt settlement, which indeed takes into account a number of necessary balances.

Despite the fact that the bills cover a wide range of matters, there are three major innovations for our group, in this case the generalization of the petition for contradiction before the labour courts, the change of competence before the labour courts and the reform of the collective debt arrangement, making that procedure more accessible to those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, allow me to be briefly silent on these three important innovations.

First, the generalization of the petition on contradiction. Access to justice for all is today an essential prerequisite for the democratization of society. To date, there are many thresholds regarding access to law and justice. They have all sorts of causes, both social and fiscal and financial. As regards the financial nature, it is still the case today that the initiation of the procedure, the summons, is the usual way. This means the involvement of a judicial officer. For us, that means more costs. Furthermore, the prosecutor sees this as more troubling. It is, in my opinion, very important that, precisely on this point, the draft legislation in question improves this by extending the petition on contradiction as an introductory act of entry into law. Sp.a-spirit considers this point to be a significant improvement. We do not understand that in certain matters the law permits the appeal for contradiction and in other proceedings it stipulates that the claim must be initiated by summons.

However, since it is intended to simplify the right entry, it can be really difficult to defend that in some matters the threshold is consciously ⁇ ined high.

Also on that point — I said it later — there was a lot of discussion around the guarantees and the legal certainty. Well, we are of the opinion that the objection petition does indeed contain a number of guarantees, so that the opposing party would be aware of the procedure. In this context, I can refer, in the first instance, to the legal provisions which expressly require that the petition must be accompanied by a certificate of residence in case of contradiction. The residence certificate may not be more than 15 days older than the petition and is delivered by the municipalities, which for this purpose draw from the data of the civil status. Furthermore, those data are even more recent than the data of the Rijksregister, which the court enforcement officers must invoke. In this regard, I think there really can be no point of criticism.

Furthermore, as regards the legal certainty, it is important and even essential that the petition is sent by the Office of Registration by registered letter, with receipt notice. In other words, at the beginning of the proceedings it is clear whether the petition has reached the recipient. Therefore, the generalization of the petition to contradict the procedures before the Labour Court seems to us more than justified.

Then, my colleagues, I come to the second major innovation for us. This relates to the competence of the labour courts in the collective debt arrangement.

The amendment to that regime of competence may fully support the sp.a. group for several reasons. First, the collective debt settlement should be viewed separately from the right of seizure, since it is precisely intended to come to a recovery of the debtor’s financial condition and not to the enforcement. Moreover, collective debt regulation should really be approached as a social matter. In this sense, I think the choice of the labour court is the right one.

In that regard, I think that we should also perfectly refer to the competences that the labour courts already have today, not only in the area of guaranteed minimum benefits but also with regard to the problems relating to subsistence issues arising from the collective debt arrangement.

Finally, the third key innovation point for us is the reform of the procedure of collective debt settlement. For those with a heavy debt burden, the possibility of collective debt settlement has existed since 1999. I think we all agree that this is a very good thing, but the recent years have shown that there are difficulties in practice. Precisely in order to provide a solution to this, the sp.a. group had already submitted a bill in the past.

Today, therefore, we are very satisfied to conclude that most of the strengths of our bill can be found in the bills. A first major strength line is the possibility of total debt relief for persons who are in a totally outlookless situation.

Second, a legal framework for debt relief for tax and RSZ officials in the friendly phase.

The third problem is that of living money. In the past, we have had to find out that a lot of debt brokers paid extremely low living pay. I do not find it. We can refer to research that showed that in the preparatory phase of the collective debt settlement, salaries were often paid that were really lower than the income that is not subject to seizure or even lower than the salary. This is indeed unacceptable for the sp.a. because in a procedure, which is aimed at helping people who are in a prospective financial situation, it must be permitted that people in a human dignity situation can continue. For that reason, the sp.a, during the hearing in the committee, called for an amendment by which, in principle, the living allowance must be equal to the amount protected against seizure and transfer. We are very pleased that this was achieved during the discussions.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will close. We believe that the reform of the collective debt regime is a necessary step that should enable people with excessive debt to provide prospects for financial recovery. It is important to keep in mind that this is a problem that is very common — ⁇ more than we think — that remains hidden and that has many causes. Many families in our country face payment or even tax obligations that they can hardly or even not meet at all. In our view, it belongs to the task of the government to be aware of the impact of this problem and to constantly engage in the fight against the excessive debt burden.

The revision of the collective debt settlement procedure, along with many other measures, is essential for this purpose and, in addition, urgently necessary. In this sense, the sp.a. will therefore give its approval to the present draft laws. At the same time, Mrs. Minister, we hope that the proposed amendments will come into force within a short time.

Thank you, Mrs Claes, for your report and then you spoke on behalf of your party. I have so far 7 members who have registered on the speaker list. The first speaker is Mrs. Van der Auwera.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, today in the quarter we will vote on the draft laws on collective debt regulation. This is the ideal opportunity for the majority parties, I think in particular the Dutch-speaking and French-speaking liberals, to confess their own collective guilt. Only CD&V will not grant them discharge. In fact, it is the fault of the VLD and the MR that the accumulated judicial expertise is made equal to the ground, that Justice will face additional financial costs, although this could have been perfectly avoided, and that the legal certainty, the good administration of justice and the respect of the rights of the defence are at stake.

In fact, you, liberals, have said that you will not agree to a transfer of jurisdiction from the seizure judges to the labour courts or to a punishment of the legal seeker for the manner in which he brings his claim before the court. You have already said this during the discussion of the policy note of the Minister of Justice in November 2004 and you have repeated it several times during the discussion of the draft laws in the committee. The MR had even submitted an amendment because they feared a counterproductive effect of the draft law, but has eventually weighed under the pressure of the socialists, again, and has gone flat on her stomach. The liberals have taken a blue. Red appears to be you, but red of shame you should be. After all, no one on the ground is a requesting party to have the procedures of collective debt settlement handled by the labour courts. All legal actors are opposed. The High Court of Justice is opposed. The orders of lawyers, both the Dutch-speaking, the French-speaking and the German-speaking orders, are against. The Association of the Principals of the Labour Courts is opposed. The debt intermediaries are opposed.

And CD&V is against. As the committee has shown, the liberals are also opposed. That you are not awake of whether CD&V is against or not, we are now accustomed. That our own Minister of Justice does not take into account the opinion of its Justice Department, does not take into account the people who work hard in practice day after day to make our judicial system function properly and to restore confidence in Justice, that shocks us. Unfortunately, the will of our Iron Lady is law.

I now look directly at Mr. Marinower. I think of the discussion on making it possible for anyone who wants a translation of a piece of procedure to request it, but that from now on, due to the transfer of competence, the costs would be borne by the State. If that is not an additional tax, then I do not know.

Mr. Marinower, I know that you, together with me in the committee, were very excited about this. Our Iron Lady then said, "What is me that all here! If all those Flammers start here on that language legislation, then I will shave you all over the same ham as the Flemish Interest." As if we as parliamentarians should not analyze the proposals and drafts and should not speak out anymore! It is a scandal.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, today I would like to make a final, ultimate attempt to convince you that the seizure judges are indeed the best judges to act in cases of excessive debt burden.

In the discussions in 1996 and 1997 of the bill draft by our then Minister of Economy Elio Di Rupo, which led to the current law on the collective debt settlement, the Labour Court has never, and therefore never, come into consideration as any possible competent legal authority. On the contrary, as possible competent judges were named only the peace judge and the seizure judge.

Eventually, the decision was made for the confiscation judge. In fact, the seizure judges are the judges of excellence, who serve with the expertise in the technical aspects such as privileges, mortgages, ranking and the law of enforcement.

Colleague Marinower, I look at you again. I also know you from the Committee on Trade and Economic Law. You show that you are a practical lawyer, a lawyer and are very knowledgeable in the matter. During the committee meetings, you also expressed strongly on this. Eventually, however, during the moods, you went back on your belly. The collective debt arrangement remains, and is indeed essentially, an insolvency and consolidation proceedings, in which the rules of seizure, privileges and mortgages play an important role and restrict the enforcement capabilities of individual creditors.

Mrs. Minister, be assured, the seizure judges are human enough to take into account the difficult situation of the debtors. Furthermore, they are obliged by law to ensure that debtors can live a dignified life. It is primarily the debt intermediary, who must watch over the social implications of excessive debt burden.

Instead, it is the duty of the judge to monitor the correct course of the proceedings. It should protect the interests of all parties affected by the situation of excessive debt. From that point of view, therefore, a surrogacy of powers does not appear to be imperative.

A better distribution of labor burden between jurisdictions cannot justify the transfer of competence to labour courts.

First, the seizure judges do not struggle with a backdrop.

Secondly, if an extension of the jurisdiction package of labour courts would be desirable, it should be about powers closely related to the core tasks of labour courts, namely labour relations and social security law.

Why, for example, do not all civil servants’ litigation from the Council of State be transferred to the labour courts? This is a relevant question, which was also asked during the hearings. Mrs. Minister, you have not taken this into account, as we are of your usual.

Furthermore, it would be much more logical and simpler to make changes to the level of resources and to transfer some of the staff of the office and possibly magistrates from the labour courts to the seizure judges if you consider that a better judicial division of tasks is needed.

Mrs. Minister, a final argument against an overriding of powers – and I thank you for the enthusiasm you show today – is the fact that such additional costs for training, informatization, personnel, and so on involve for Justice. In addition, collective debt settlement will generate a lot of administrative tasks and will require additional administrative personnel.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, not only the delegation of powers is facing general protest from the judicial actors. Your desire, Madame the Minister, to make the petition on contradiction common as an act of initiation for all matters falling within the competence of the labour courts also arouses a lot of protest. Also in this regard, both the High Council for Justice, the Orders of Lawyers, the chief greffiers of the labour courts and the National Chamber of Judicial Executives raise serious questions.

The generalization of the contradiction petition raises criticism as regards security, good judicial administration and respect for the rights of defence. The greater legal certainty and the good administration of justice associated with the initiation of the action by summons cannot be guaranteed by the petition on contradiction. In fact, the summons are delivered by a court executor who is a sworn public official with specific competences and whose act has authentic evidence in a number of points. The obligation under the court executor to verify the identity and address of the notified party provides a better guarantee than the simple notification by post, by court letter, by the secretary. In practice, there are regular disputes due to a less reliable postal service.

Furthermore, the draft law creates a disproportion between the call procedure and the petition procedure. This could result in the applicant being indirectly prompted to systematically submit an objection petition when he wishes to bring his case before the court. In fact, if he chooses to be summoned, he risks that the court decides that the applicant must bear the costs, on the basis of his preference for the summoning procedure.

The generalization of the introduction of litigation proceedings will also significantly complicate the work of the griffies, so that there are fears that there will be additional delays in the case of griffies. Indeed, the offices are now sufficiently equipped, neither on the material nor on the personal level, to assume this additional task. In addition to the material work connected with the sending of the court letters, they will also be charged with receiving and informing the applicant who will receive a petition or court letter from the Office of Justice, of which he does not understand much and about which he will ask the Office of Justice questions.

If you, Mrs. Minister, want to facilitate access to justice by making the procedures cheaper — that is what we all want, by the way — it would be much better to abolish the many taxes imposed on the procedures — I mean roll rights, seal rights, registration rights, greeting rights. Any disadvantage resulting from the reduction or abolition of those duties shall not exceed the additional costs that would be incurred by the Office due to the large increase in the administrative work and the costs associated with it, in particular due to the large increase in the number of court letters and by the hiring of additional personnel.

The generalization of the petition is not limited to situations in which a private party — traditionally the weak party — is confronted with an employer or a social security institution — traditionally the strong party. Indeed, in many cases, the legal action will already be brought by an employer or social security institution against a private person or against a SME. In those circumstances, is it acceptable that a private person in absence is condemned to pay the social contribution for self-employed persons on the basis of an ordinary notification by court letter, despite all the uncertainty involved? It is obvious that such a situation does not ⁇ improve access to justice.

Colleagues, it is clear that a number of essential conditions must be fulfilled for the delegation of powers and the generalization of the petition on contradiction to take place.

First, it is a conditio sine qua non that the Phenix project is implemented at the labor courts in an integrated way, so that excessive manual tasks can be avoided. We will therefore continue to follow this implementation of the Phenix project with arguments.

Secondly, a workload measurement should be carried out in which an effective and thorough evaluation of the measurement of the workload and the workloads per work dish is made. That alone can justify a fair and equitable expansion of the framework of the officers and of the officers.

Third, an extension of the framework is necessary for staff and officers, given the expected doubling or tripling of administrative officer tasks. Referendums should also be included. Because, as calculated by the association of the chief greve officers of the labour courts, only the labour court of Leuven will have to send 300% more court letters. This would mean an increase in the employment of staff by 50%, and an increase of 25% for the employment of the secretaries, and that only in the event of a removal of the powers in the field of collective debt settlement. That calculation therefore did not even take into account the generalization of the appeal on contradiction.

Fourth, a thorough and intensive training and training of officers, staff and standing and sitting magistrates should be organised.

Fifth, a drastic expansion of the infrastructure, of the premises and of the work spaces is necessary because the management of the contentieux of the collective debt settlement takes a lot of place, and that over a long period, given the duration of the procedure.

As regards the collective debt settlement procedure itself, we welcome the fact that the tax administration, the institutions for social contributions and the social insurance funds are now also encouraged to allow full or partial debt removal to debtors admitted to the collective debt settlement procedure. Tax debts and RSZ debts, Mrs. Minister, are indeed common debts. It is unacceptable that the competent administrations in the past have always considered that they could not grant a discharge of payment for this purpose.

The possibility given to the court of allowing total debt discharge in cases where the debtor has no or only very low income and a total discharge can be the only socially acceptable measure that can guarantee the debtor respect for his human dignity is also positive. However, we believe that in this case the judge must always impose accompanying measures on the debtor, which you are not now obliged, Mrs. Minister. In our opinion, it is in the interest of the debtor himself that he learns to stand on his own feet again and re-pack himself, but in many cases he cannot do this alone. Budget management or control of his spending can help bring the person struggling with excessive debt burden back on track.

CD&V also regrets that the Fund for Combating Excessive Debt burden can be more easily accessed in order to repay the debtors. This will result in increased contributions to the Fund. Following a verbal question to Minister Verwilghen, I had to learn that the Fund currently has a considerable amount of funds at its disposal, as in recent years only a small amount has been paid out to debt intermediaries. In accordance with the Programme Act of the end of last year, it was decided to use these funds also for campaigns to combat excessive debt burden. I think these campaigns are not at all in the starting blocks at the moment. Minister Verwilghen did not show any incentive to do so. We believe that prevention should first be the weapon in the fight against excessive debt burden. Campaigns and all kinds of information must prevent people from falling into a financially groundless pit.

We are also concerned that again the lenders will need to put more resources at the disposal of this Fund. In fact, we also see in the rest of the draft, on the one hand, the discharge of the collateral and, on the other hand, that when the procedure of collective debt settlement is allowed, the course of interest is suspended, also for the mortgage creditors, so that they will thus remain in the cold. If therefore they will have to make additional contributions to this Fund, I think that eventually the credit institutions will impose much more requirements when granting loans. I think that such young couples who build or people who want to buy a house will ⁇ not benefit.

Finally, I have a question for the Minister. You argue that criminal fines cannot be removed because, on the one hand, the Constitution grants only the King the right to remove or reduce sentences imposed, and on the other hand, this is also a question of criminal policy which does not relate only to the question of debt liability. I have already pointed out to you, Mrs. Minister, that there are, however, many interpretations of this in legal practice. However, some courts grant discharge of criminal fines because debts arising from correctional sentences are not explicitly excluded from discharge in the law. If, in your opinion, criminal fines cannot be removed, is it not better to simply refrain from allowing a debtor to go to the proceedings because he will not be able to actually be helped by that proceedings in the future? If you argue that the accumulation of criminal convictions does not necessarily lead to inadmissibility, do you not think that it is appropriate to leave no doubt about the cancellability of these debts? In that case, it is important to mention the non-excusability explicitly in the law since, contrary to what you claim, there is discussion about this in the legal practice.

Colleagues, in the voting of the bills on the table in the Justice Committee it has been shown once again: not Guy Verhofstadt governs the country, he has too much work with the extinguishment of internal quarrels and the eternally desperate and fruitless search for bringing out baked air. The time to rule for him is no longer really over. It is the PS with Elio Di Rupo at the head who governs this country. The VLD and the MR can be heard for a while but are then called on the matche and must then walk beautifully in the gareel again. Dissident VLDs are excluded by their own party chairman but are also kicked off by other party chairs. Where is the freedom that liberals are fighting for? I sincerely hope that so far I have been able to convince them of the negative effects of these bills. I hope they are more than just cattle. If they want to be reliable and credible, they must consistently align their voting behavior with their statements of the last few months. CD&V will, as usual, respect itself in any case and will not support these bills at all.

Mr. Speaker, my speech, like that of Mrs. Van der Auwera, deals with both projects.

In the committee, some people spoke against the spirit of the project. Ms. Van der Auwera has spoken enough about Mr. and Marinower. I will reiterate, for my part, other opinions, ⁇ not political, but which I find equally interesting and on which one can trust.

The Supreme Council of Justice, the Order of Bars, the debt mediators themselves, the presidents of the French-speaking labour courts themselves also oppose this transfer of powers. We are of the opinion, like these instances, that the collective settlement of debts logically falls more into the matter of seizures and means of enforcement than into social law. Therefore, it appeared, in our opinion, more to the jurisdiction of the court of interrogation than to the jurisdiction of the labour court.

The Supreme Council of Justice is of the opinion that it is not desirable to transfer these powers to labour courts. He points out the expertise of the seizure judges in this matter, he emphasizes the fact that collective settlement is generally classified as an insolvency procedure, he fears conflicts of competence between the labour courts and the seizure courts. It also highlights the problem of the consultation of notice of seizure which has always taken place in the buildings of the courts of first instance.

While it makes sense to leave this competence to the judges of the seizures, the only argument that could be advanced in favor of this transfer of competence is the fact that labour courts have less backwardness than other courts. An extension of their skills in well-selected areas is preferable. We believe that there are other competences that could be transferred to them, which are more closely linked to the basic competences of these jurisdictions: in particular and mainly those related to labour relations and social security. We have submitted amendments and legislative proposals.

Furthermore, it is not certain that labour courts will receive from the government the means to properly handle this new litigation. Even if the budget for labour courts provides for a reinforcement of eight secretaries and thirty-six additional employees, if this transfer of over-debt to labour courts takes place, it will be necessary to take into account the fact that the procedure requires, for example, very many notifications and it should be expected to a sharp increase in administrative tasks within these secretaries.

In the event of a transfer of competence in the field of collective settlement, the computerization of labour courts and an increase in staff will be necessary. I am not the only one to say this, the Supreme Council of Justice also emphasizes this need for an increase in staff and this more radical computerization within labour courts. This implies that the Phenix project will be realized, which is far from the case at the moment.

Chairman: Olivier Chastel, second vice president. Voorzitter: Olivier Chastel, second undervoorzitter. We had also proposed an amendment to ensure that the entry into force of this part of the transfer of powers takes place at the same time as that concerning the extension of the application and that it is postponed to 2007.

Furthermore, if the legislator wishes to make the labour court competent in matters of collective settlement of debts, it must be that court in its ordinary composition. We therefore criticize, just like the presidents of the labour courts and the State Council, the fact that the draft removes this schevinal character of the court and the labour court, which everyone supports, that everyone appreciates, when it comes to these matters of collective settlement of debts.

We submitted a number of bills that provided for the extension of the leveling, including a proposal aimed at allowing social judges to sit in other matters, in particular related to social security taxation or other types of competence. We also wanted to be able to extend it, in a very limited way, to referred procedures.

The second important point of these projects concerns the generalization of the contradictory request. The project aims to allow the use of the contradictory appeal as an introductory way of instance in all matters falling within the competence of the labour courts. Both the Orders and the chief secretaries of the labour courts, the National Chamber of Justice officers, the Supreme Council of Justice and the presidents of the French-speaking labour courts have warned us against this generalization. Indeed, citation and meaning – in my case, I attach more importance in this specific case to the meaning, which I find more fundamental – ensure greater legal certainty, a concrete and essential respect for the rights of defence and a better access to justice, both by the guarantee they offer in terms of the effectiveness of the mode of transmission and by the quality, effectiveness and rapidity that are its own.

The meaning, and it is really on this point that I wanted to insist, is a guarantee of greater legal certainty. The court officer is in fact best placed to identify, to locate the recipient, to give him this act, to verify the identity of the person to whom he delivers the act. It also authenticates the date on which the act is handed over to its recipient and ensures loyalty in the process of transmission of that act. The postal route, even by judicial folding, is a source of much more legal insecurity.

Mr. Wathelet, you tell us that the judicial officer is best able to guarantee legal certainty. So do you want to suggest that in all proceedings in which a claim is filed with a residence certificate, there is no legal certainty?

Mr. Massin, I dare hope that you have heard all of what I have just said. It is not as caricatural as what you say. It is clear that citation provides greater legal certainty than the petition. In some matters, when the parties know each other, a lease, for example, the query as an introductory instance method is obviously less expensive, more convenient for the parties and poses less problems than in the matters mentioned here.

What I said is that it is mainly at the level of meaning that the problem can arise. Furthermore, I treated the “citation” and the “meaning” section differently.

In terms of meaning, the guarantee of legal certainty must really be as optimal as possible. In the case of lease, for example, if you want to mean a judgment, even introduced through a petition, a significance by lawyer must be presented; you know it as I do.

I believe that Mr. Wathelet nevertheless forgets a series of procedures where only a notification is provided by law, which ensures just as much legal certainty as the significance. For example, in the youth court, it is a notification; for procedures 221 to 223, in the peace justice, it is a notification. I do not see why to establish a difference and indicate that it is only the meaning that carries legal certainty.

For me, a case-law is established, including by the Court of Cassation, indicating that there is a permanent legal domicile. So I don’t see where you want to go.

Don’t make me a trial of intent. I have never said that at the level of notification... Mr. Massin, if we do not, we only have to generalize the request and notification everywhere! I do not think so, and I am not alone in saying so, whether it be the orders of the bars, French-speaking or Dutch-speaking, whether it be the chief secretaries of the labour courts, whether it be the National Chamber of officers, or even others.

For you, all those instances that give the same opinion as me are only corporatists, are only guided by the feelings of corporatists: both lawyers and lawyers, lawyers through the two orders, the National Chamber of lawyers, the chief secretaries of labour courts, the Supreme Council of Justice, everyone has only corporatist interests!

There is no additional legal certainty through the meaning of the quote! Mr. Massin, I think you do not accept this possibility that there is a hierarchy and types of judicial debates in which the parties know each other or know each other more easily.

Mr. Massin, you make a distinction between progressism and the rest. In certain disputes, optimum legal certainty must be guaranteed. In some procedures, which can be series since I have even made the difference between notification and significance, this obligation to have the deepest possible legal certainty must be ⁇ ined. I am not the only one who says it! And don’t say that all these instances are corporatist: it’s putting all the personalities in the same bag, while we want that optimal legal certainty in all these disputes.

At first, citation is of a higher cost for the justifiable. However, the judicial officers note that where the cost of the citation is attributed in fine to the party that succeeds, the cost of the claim is fully borne, without discernment or sanction, by the State, preventing any recovery of the latter at the expense of the party that loses the trial.

Furthermore, the proposed reform will lead to a substantial increase in the number of transplant staff, which is said to be overcrowded and to which it will be added new equipment and new premises in which they will be able to work.

The explanation of the reasons for draft 1309 does not fail to emphasize — I quote: "As a result of this generalization of the contradictory request, it will be necessary to take into account, in the budget of Justice, a significant increase in the number of judicial folds and the additional personnel that will be necessary to allocate to the offices of the labour courts."

It is not certain that the labour courts will receive the means from the government to properly handle this new litigation, even though the 2005 budget provides for the labour courts a reinforcement of 8 secretaries and 36 additional employees. In this regard, I would like to ask a very precise question to Mrs. Minister concerning those 8 secretaries and 36 additional employees referred to in the discussions.

Does this concern only the “requests” section or, in addition, the “transfer of competences” section to the labour courts? I assume, for my part, that these two figures apply to all the two projects that are now submitted to the House.

In the light of these criticisms, it would seem more reasonable to limit the use of the contradictory claim to certain matters or to make distinctions according to the categories of defendants. Why, Mr. Massin, not provide this for the benefit of the so-called “weak” parties when they are faced with a party presenting, in principle, a greater stability than a simple individual, namely the employer, the law insurer, the funds of accidents of work or occupational diseases?

Where progress is possible, where there is a way to move to notification, to transfer by judicial folding rather than by notification or citation, we consider that progress is made since the guarantees of legal certainty, by the parties present at the trial, are guaranteed.

It can be welcomed that the entry into force of the provisions relating to the generalization of the contradictory appeal was postponed to 2007, ⁇ at the time of the entry into force of Phoenix. I suppose that is why the deadline has been extended, which I am delighted with.

Then comes the professional secrecy of lawyers. We discussed this in the committee and there was a progress. I would like to recall a few important points on this subject.

First, the Arbitration Court should accept that the notion of professional secrecy for lawyers and doctors is strengthened. The previous legislation had been condemned by the Arbitration Court because it provided for the possibility for lawyers or doctors to renounce professional secrecy, which was not in itself, I think, a bad thing. In fact, doctors or lawyers give up their professional secrecy daily. But, in this case, this was planned in an absolute and a priori way.

Is the way the legislation is amended sufficient in so far as the last word is left to the magistrate? They are forced to justify their decision, which I am pleased with. The opinion of the ordinary authorities is taken, whether it is the Order of Lawyers or of Doctors, which is a good step forward. But will this be sufficient in so far as we leave, I repeat, the last word to the court that will be seized of the case? Does this respond well to the fact that you do not hold yourself behind professional secrecy in an absolute and a priori way? I hope that will be the case and that will respond to the criticism of the Arbitration Court.

I recall that the Orders of Lawyers, French-speaking and Dutch-speaking, who are ⁇ too corporatist —Mr. Massin will tell us it soon — they had said that Article 1675/8 as it had been “amputed” by the Arbitration Court was sufficient.

President: Jean-Marc Delizée, First Vice-President Voorzitter: Jean-Marc Delizée, eerste ondervoorzitter. The systems in place were sufficient to ensure a fair and proportionate assessment of professional secrecy which should be protected both at the level of lawyers and doctors.

At the level of total remission of debts, we can only approve the provision of the draft which takes into account the judgment of the Arbitration Court of 13 March 2001, which considers that the fact of enjoying only the minimum of means of subsistence cannot, by itself, justify the refusal of a judicial settlement plan with remission of debts.

As regards the priority repayment of debts, the draft provides that the judge must ensure the priority repayment of debts that endanger the respect for the human dignity of the applicant and his family. This provision is quite praiseworthy, even though it is difficult in its assessment; but who cannot agree with this type of provision?

However, I wonder about the rejection of amendments I had submitted to preserve the super-privileged character of maintenance claims. I would have appreciated that these amendments could also be accepted in order to confirm, in all the procedures, this super-privileged character of maintenance claims. It seemed to me to go in the direction of respect for human dignity, but this reference to human dignity will be sufficient.

Mr. Minister, we will not be able to vote in favour of these two projects, mainly at the level of transfer of competences and at the level of generalization of the request for the whole ...

For the overdue!

For over-indebted, I think that the best of legal security is to leave the seizure judge to take care of the procedures by bringing the touches we have proposed to you.

The [...]

Absolutely not ! We submitted amendments that would provide them with a much better legal certainty than it is today. We urge you to vote on our amendments. In this way, you will ⁇ the goals you have set yourself.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, Bill 1309, containing provisions regarding the deadlines, the petition on contradiction and the procedure of collective debt settlement, can become an important link in the further democratization of the legal system in our country. When the legislator creates rights and duties for the citizen, for the right-owned, it is evident that there is not only theoretical possibility to enforce these rights and duties, but that this is also made possible in practice for everyone. It is therefore a fundamental right to be able to resort to the judiciary in order to reach conflict resolution. However, this should not be conditioned by a financial threshold that makes it impossible for certain groups of people to effectively enforce rights. The left-left liberalism of spirit recognizes equal opportunities as an important pillar. In this sense, we therefore welcome the possibility of initiating a procedure before the Labour Court by means of a petition.

Indeed, the possibility of initiating proceedings through a petition allows to reduce the financial costs of the proceedings. As the judicial dialogue of Mr. Erdman and Mr. Leval shows, the cost of summons must not be overlooked. These costs, which are also very opaque due to the extensive range of taxes, fees, rolling rights, registration fees, etc., are in many cases a first, important threshold for people who are already having trouble enforcing their rights anyway. The contradictory petition already brings a clear improvement in this regard. Their

However, we are not blind to the fact that the summons can in some cases create greater legal certainty. The use of the petition has already demonstrated in practice that a legal access can be created by this petition. We can refer here to the use of petition in lease procedures, a practice that has been challenging its clarity for many years. Their

It is a pity that colleague Wathelet is gone, but I would like to point out that the same applies to the right of entry in the degree of appeal. Furthermore, the general introduction of the entry into law by means of a petition is the general rule. This practice also teaches that the magistrates and the officers thoroughly verify that the person called was properly and correctly called and that his rights of defence are respected.

The introduction of electronic proceedings and the possibility of consulting the National Register by those mentioned in the second part of the Judicial Code will further increase the legal certainty and speed of the proceedings in the future. In the context of the democratization of the legal process and the actual respect for equal opportunities, spirit therefore advocates the extension of the possibility of initiating a procedure by means of a petition to all procedures. The current bill is in that sense a first step and will therefore get our approval.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, dear colleagues, I will limit myself to a few brief observations on this project because it seems to me that it has been debated very long in the Justice Committee and that the arguments of one and the other are known. Let me say in the first place that there is a need to warn about certain deviations that the parliamentary debate may experience and some corporatist reflexes as I told Mr. Mr. recently. Wathelet speaking during his exhibition. Indeed, I would not want our discussions on the transfer of competence and the generalization of the contradictory appeal before the labour court courts to conceal the significant advances in the collective debt settlement procedure.

I would not like that the social dimension of the projects under consideration should be dismissed in favour of other arguments — as interesting or as false as they may be — because over-indebtedness has become a major problem of our society, unfortunately affecting more and more households, and to which it is the responsibility of the State to respond by putting at the disposal of the over-indebted person a mechanism that enables him to fulfill his obligations while guaranteeing him a life consistent with human dignity.

Over-indebtedness is a variable geometry concept that can cause very large collateral damage and unfortunately human dramas. The Collective Debt Settlement Act, which has been part of our legislative arsenal since 1998 and dubbed the Di Rupo Act, aims to provide those facing the economic and social plague that over-indebtedness constitutes the most adequate possible response to the daily problems of these people. Since 1998, doctrine and jurisprudence have led us to review this law and adapt it according to the decisions of the Arbitration Court, the jurisprudence of the courts and courts and therefore this doctrine.

What matters to us, what is most important and that will enable us to face and meet the expectations of the population, is that solutions are made to the situations of distress in which these people find themselves. In the end, it does not matter whether the decision on the judicial regulation is the judge of the seizures or the judge of the labour court: the most important thing is to provide a solution that allows everyone to live in accordance with human dignity. Contrary to what some argue, I believe that the social dimension is just as important in the courts of the labour court as in the courts of the court of first instance, and in particular the judge of seizures.

I have indicated this general assessment to begin with because I would like it to illuminate the continuation of my statement which is also the position of the whole socialist group.

All the amendments proposed by the draft are intended to address essentially the implementation difficulties raised by practice and identified by the Court of Arbitration, the courts and courts and the doctrine, without disturbing the values underlying the draft, i.e. the law of 1998. I will not comment on all of these changes, but I will point out a few of them.

First, the complete removal of debt. It is necessary to fully support this measure; together with other colleagues, I had submitted a bill in this direction. This measure should be approved because it had been highlighted and tortured by the courts and courts, which were faced with this difficulty of meeting a debtor who was to be offered a total remission of debts, with respect to which there was a legal impossibility.

However, some clarifications need to be made. The first is that it is an exceptional measure that will only be taken when it is the only and only way to guarantee the respect for the human dignity of the debtor and his family. This is, in any case, the basis of the collective debt settlement procedure.

I will also allow myself, nonetheless, to insist on a condition sine qua non that arises from the law of 1998 and transcends the rest of the proposals subject to amendment, it is the good faith of the debtor. The good faith of the debtor is required; it is procedural. During and at the beginning of the proceedings, the debtor must fully and fully cooperate in the preparation of the settlement plan. It requires full transparency regarding its financial situation. Specific tools are made available to the Ombudsman to ensure this collaboration; this is an essential element. Compared to the law on bankruptcy in which good faith is required only at the end of the procedure, so that the latter benefits from the disappearance of its debts, here it is a good faith prior and which must subscribe to the whole procedure because, if this good faith is absent, the sanction is quite simple, it is the exclusion of the benefit of the law.

Furthermore, judicial plans that result in a remission of debts in the main result in the sale of all the debtor’s property except, one exception, in real estate, for example; if it appears that the amount of the rent repayed as a mortgage loan is lower than a rent that a person might have to pay in the future, at that time, the property is not sold. This is a good logic and a guarantee of the rights of creditors.

Furthermore, the judicial plans which result in a remission of debt in the principal have the aim, nonetheless, to keep the payment of creditors as a principle. And it is only when it is not possible to reach this measure that the extreme measure of collective settlement with a total disappearance of the liability is considered. This is only an extreme measure and in a very exceptional manner. It should also be remembered that measures can be granted by the magistrate.

It is in the continuation of this reasoning and in order to ensure a greater effectiveness of the notion of human dignity that we have deposited an amendment providing that, within the framework of the plan, the mediator shall ensure the priority repayment of debts relating to the needs that must be satisfied in order to preserve the human dignity of the applicant and his family, always to remain in this same logic, that is, the preservation of human dignity in the head of the overindebted person and his family.

It is the duty of every advanced society to tackle this plague which is over-indebtedness. And it is a pleasure to see that in Belgium, we are part of these advanced societies, that we are, as the Prime Minister said, number three in the framework of this type of society. The collective debt settlement procedure should give people who have fallen into over-indebtedness a new chance to have future prospects. Giving dignity and hope is simply one thing: applying the Constitution. I believe it is something that must transcend our future, that must transcend our work and that must be a line of conduct. I will recall in this regard that the Court of Arbitration has stunned us on several occasions, within the framework of the first law of 1998, to decide in favour of this total debt relief, simply because there was a disparity, a rupture of equality. It seems to me that the Arbitration Court is there to remind us of this Constitution and remind us of our obligation as legislators to comply with this fundamental law. Nevertheless, I remind you, and this is a fundamental essential element, that debt relief is not done as a white-seing. Measures can be enacted by the magistrate, by the judge and I think that’s a good thing.

Let us now come to this transfer of skills, which seems to me to be a completely accessory thing compared to these fundamental points that I have just outlined. A choice has been made in time, which is also in the government statement, I would like to emphasize it for everyone, who has in principle been the subject of discussion and who has not been the subject of opposition.

I would like to clarify, notwithstanding this government statement, that given the nature of disputes, we come now to say that it is the judge of seizures who is the natural judge.

And why not the Trade Court, as long as we are there? However, I would like to clarify that the court that resolves disputes in matters of mortgage laws, in matters of privileges and mortgages, in matters of bankruptcy, is not the judge of seizures but the commercial court. Why then not grant the jurisdiction of the judge of injunctions to the trade court?

The fundamental reasons for the transfer to the labour court are of social nature, which I find indisputable. Indeed, in many cases, the issues to be settled do not concern the right of enforcement, but simply the determination of a debtor’s debt repayment plan based on the debtor’s resources. It is therefore the notion of human dignity that serves as a conductive thread in the judge’s decision.

I have taken note of some of the amendments submitted: we always return to the same problem. That is where I can say that there may be corporate reflexes, that there may be mental changes to be made, that there may be other visions of the problem to be considered, and that there may be to say that the conductive thread of a law is ultimately not its application, but simply the principles underlying it.

Here, the principle underlying it is the notion of human dignity. Finally, when a magistrate has to judge a debt mediation problem, it is necessary to see how it is appropriate to be able to ensure human dignity on the basis of tolerable repayments and not to ask the question of which privilege prevails on the other. This is an annex question, an accessory question that, in the majority of cases, my dear colleagues, my dear colleagues, is resolved by debt mediators. In fact, most of the time, the magistrate approves the plan submitted by the debt mediator.

So, who solves the problem? It is the debt mediator, not the court. Whether you are in front of the labour court or the court of first instance, the judge of seizures, the problem does not arise. I do not see where the difficulty can be hidden.

Now, they will tell me that it is still five years, since 1998, that the judges of the seizures practice the matter. Who tells us that in five years the labour courts will not be able to apply the matter as well?

I would like to point out that after obtaining information from presidents of courts of first instance and presidents of labour courts, in the French-speaking courts of the country, no problem arises, neither for the court of first instance nor for the court of labour. There may be one or the other adaptation, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, one or the other framework to eventually complete; I suppose you will see it well in the context of the application. In any case, on the level of enforcement of the law, on the law as such, this does not create any difficulty. To pretend it is, in my opinion, only to move the problem.

Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize – since, in my opinion, it will be your competence to examine what is concerned – that you have specified to us, in the context of the discussion, that specific budgetary resources have been provided to strengthen the staff of the offices of the labour courts, so that they can cope with this possible extra work, despite the few difficulties they may encounter. Furthermore, specific training has been provided for magistrates and secretaries of labour courts. In addition, the labour courts will be the first to be equipped with the Phénix IT system, which, in my opinion, will constitute a valuable aid in the management of this litigation.

Another point that posed a problem: the generalization of the request. The appeal is already applied as a way of introduction before labour courts, as is the minutes of voluntary appearance. Therefore, citation is not the only introductory way of instance, we agree! And if the law can provide sufficient legal certainty for the introduction of a dispute by petition, it seems to me that, therefore, this option, that is, the introduction by petition, is ⁇ preferable to the citation.

Nevertheless, I would like to recall that this mechanism works well in a number of cases: 221, 223, 253bis and following of the Judicial Code (marital litigation before the peacekeepers); the whole of the social security litigation, the procedure relating to the protection of the person of mentally ill, matters relating to alimony between parents, children and grandparents, matters relating to problems relating to the management of spouses’ assets, matters relating to rewards between spouses and payment of spouses’ debts after the sharing and sharing of property of spouses separated from property. It is nothing!

This represents important materials, gigantic for people and intimately touching them. Most of the time, this concerns only people among themselves and not necessarily people against organisms. The information available to the executor is the same as the information available to the applicant. This will be either an extract from the national register for lawyers through the Bar Association, or an extract from the population register of less than 15 days obtained from the municipal administration. This is what is already happening in terms of lease and it does not pose any difficulty, I would like to emphasize it.

Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the population registers are more up-to-date than the national register, which itself is fed by the municipal administrations. There is always a gap for the latter.

In conclusion, as regards this security of home-related information, the information available to the court enforcement officer and the users of the application are simply identical. At the beginning of the procedure, you have the certainty that the recipient is reached by the request and that you are informed of the existence of the procedure. If no one is present to receive the mail when the factor passes, there is a passage notice, as with the traditional recommended. Judicial officers also submit a passing notice. I do not see any difference.

The defendant who is normally diligent will seek his fold at the post office, at the police officer or at the municipal administration. For those who are negligent, certain procedures exist and they must assume the consequences. The same applies to criminal and civil proceedings. This view is not new and is applied by many legislations, including by the Court of Cassation on the permanentity of the judicial domicile, which specifies that if someone, in the course of a procedure, has not proved his change of domicile, he is considered to have his domicile on the day of the application. If he is condemned, it is regrettable for him, it happens that he can.

The transplant agency makes a lot of notifications, all based on this address. This address is therefore the one that appears in the introductory act of instance, namely the citation, the request. As Mr. said. Muls, in matters of appeal, except for defects in the first instance, the appeal procedure is initiated by means of a petition. I do not see where the problem lies. All this is based on a reliable document: either the excerpt from the national register or the population register, or the excerpt from the document on the basis of which the interested party has indicated the change in the register. Therefore, it seems to me that the system is consistent and respects the rights of defence.

It should be emphasized that very many provisions concern the defect, the establishment of the causes and the appeal, which resort to the judicial folding in the course of the proceedings. The articles no. 751, 753, 747§2, 803, 1056 2° of the Judicial Code and all these acts, in the same way, have important consequences for the recipient.

Furthermore, I would like to remind you that in the context of the state-of-the-art assessment, if the conclusions are not submitted within the deadline, they are dismissed by office.

All such judicial plugs are notified on the basis of the information contained in the proceedings file, thus from the address mentioned in the last proceedings act. No one has ever thought of questioning this system that already existed, which is never the subject of only a poor extension, which works well to the advantage of the justifiable for whom, I recall, all these measures are free, which is a very important element.

Let us now come to another element that holds me strongly at heart in addition to the total remission of debts, that is the fate of the guarantees. Currently, there is a fundamental difference in treatment. The fate of the security is different depending on whether the claim it guarantees is the subject of debt remission in the framework of an amicable or judicial settlement.

In the first case, the refund benefits from the caution. In the second, no. This has been highlighted and pointed out by the Court of Arbitration. This has already been settled under the Bankruptcy Act. It was time to look at this problem. This project meets the demand made in this matter, which I think is important. It puts an end to this difference in treatment by providing that, in the second hypothesis, the remission of debts also extends to guarantee, as will be done in the case of bankruptcy.

Furthermore, in order to guarantee the effectiveness of this protection, whatever the case may be, the means of enforcement charged with the caution shall be suspended until the moment when the exact scope of its obligation can be defined. This suspension concerns only enforcement measures in the strict sense of the term, such as the forced sale of a building, for example. In the meantime, the creditor may take the necessary measures to obtain an enforceable title and, if necessary, take the conservative measures that would prove necessary. It was very important to regulate this situation.

Last point before concluding: the professional secrecy that affects magistrates and lawyers. It seems to me that the bill responds clearly, and in an interest of balance, to the annulment decision of the Arbitration Court. It could have been said that lawyers and doctors should be protected.

Different solutions have been suggested. Various elements have been advanced. I believe this is a consensual and balanced solution that is now being proposed to Parliament. Lawyers and doctors must, at some point, take their responsibilities. Lawyers as well as doctors must, like others, at some point, scratch in front of their door. If guarantees are to be provided to them through the bill—which is the case—the orders of lawyers must, at one time or another, take the necessary measures to ensure that difficulties no longer arise and that lawyers do not show themselves complicit in fraudulent practices.

This is not the case at the moment, we agree, but I believe that guarantees should be made and that a perpetual white-seing should not be given. This is not the case in the current state of affairs, Mr. Wathelet, we fully agree. Only, I also believe that we should not be too protectionist and that it belongs to the Orders to swipe also from time to time in front of their door. Here, the solution seems to me balanced and we participated in it.

In conclusion, in the face of the phenomenon of over-indebtedness, we will never insist enough on the need to provide for effective prevention mechanisms. Over-indebtedness can have multiple causes. We now know that it is more and more often the result of vital needs and not just so-called luxury expenses. Let’s take the idea from the head that over-indebted people are people who finance themselves at the expense of others. They are there because they need to meet vital needs. This is why we must continue our policy in this area, but also in the area of housing and access to health care. In this sense, we will then vote in favour of the bills submitted.

Mr. President, Mrs. Vice Prime Minister, Mr. Vice Prime Minister, I will try to be concise because many arguments have already been evoked, in particular by the colleague who preceded me at this tribune. In my opinion, this will be pretty classic. I will start with a few generalities that seem important in the eyes of the MR.

The bills submitted to us today pursue two main objectives: on the one hand, they organize a transfer of the litigation relating to the collective settlement of debts proceedings currently dealt with by the Court of Appeals to the Labour Court and, on the other hand, they aim to improve the collective settlement of debts proceedings by addressing law enforcement problems that have existed since 1998.

With regard to the transfer of competence, the Justice Committee has organized hearings of field professionals. As practitioners, we also surveyed in our districts the reactions of magistrates, since it was a matter of asking these magistrates of seizures if they wanted to be dismissed from this contentious and the magistrates of labour if they wanted to seize this new contentious which is not usual for them. The feelings are shared: in fact, there is no unity of views or a overall and generally positive reception of the labour courts in the matter, although some of the seized courts actually want to be rid of this litigation that they have been in charge for five years.

In this regard, I agree with several commitments of the Minister. This transfer will not be made without specific accompanying measures:

1 of 1. Specific budgetary resources have been provided to strengthen the staff of the offices of labour courts, thus enabling them to cope with this transfer of competence. Indeed, before the magistrates of the seizures, this litigation had occurred at a given time, without a reinforcement of their transplant staff being planned. This is one of the main criticisms of the seizure judges who are almost eager to get rid of this contentious because, at the time, they had not benefited from accompanying measures such as those that the Minister now provides. 2 of 2. The entry into force of certain provisions is postponed to allow the application of Phénix. We discussed this in the committee for a long time. It is obvious that the facilitation of work by the computer tool is an essential condition for the proper implementation of this transfer, before any increase in competence of the labour courts.

3 of 3. We have had a lot of discussions about the file of the seizures. At the beginning of the discussion, it appeared that the file of seizures is a centralized file at the level of the courts of first instance that allows the judges of the seizures to easily access the debtor’s financial situation and the status of the seizures that weigh on his assets. It is a matter, and the minister indicated, that this file should be centralized and computerized to make operational, through this centralization, an easier and generalized access to information relating to the debtor’s assets.

4 of 4. As my colleague Massin recalled, training will be organised for magistrates of labour courts, close magistrates, that is, who have a developed social perspective. This is not their exclusive takeover, since all magistrates and judicial actors have an eminently social role but this contentious is special, it is necessary to know how to apply everything concerning the right of privileges and mortgages as well as the right of seizures. This contentious is not “natural” to labor jurisdictions, which seemed to us to be a well-founded criticism.

As far as we are concerned, we will ensure the implementation of these guarantees before the entry into force of the law. It is necessary to ensure the feasibility of this law and to prepare, as far as possible, a suitable ground for the proper management of these matters by the labour courts. It is necessary to avoid creating a judicial backdrop where there is currently no one.

One of your reasons, Mrs. Minister, comes from the fact that you have found that there is a backwardness before the courts of first instance, that there is a overload at the level of the courts of seizures, probably due to a lack of adequate personnel. The handling of this litigation may have been slowed by the fact that these courts could only be operational after one or two years, or even five in some cases. We would like – this is the purpose of the project – to give the labour courts as much resources as possible so that they are operational as soon as possible and to avoid a backdrop to this level.

Indeed, the transfer to these courts is also based on the idea that these courts, although they have their work, do not necessarily know the delay registered by the courts of first instance; therefore they may possibly have more facility and readiness to deal with this new litigation.

Madame Marghem, in relation to the practice I am exercising, at the level of the litigation of the collective settlement of debts, I would like to point out that the litigation and its duration are not the function of the magistrate.

Indeed, the first object of the delay on the judicial level is the question of the admissibility of the request; it is necessary to see if the debtor is of good faith, if all the procedural documents are gathered, etc.

The second object is simply the need to see what it is about the acceptance of the plan drawn up by the debt mediator and more ⁇ the fact, for the Ministry of Finance, to say whether or not it accepts the total or partial remission of debts. Today, the problem is resolved but, at the time, it was; that was the reason for the very great delay. The Ministry of Finance came to the hearing of the seizure judge by marking his disagreement because the administration did not allow certain things. Without the Minister of Finance, it was like this.

The [...]

Mr. Minister, I am not bothering you at all. Let me explain one practice.

The judicial delay is not attributable to the magistrate as such, nor to the debt mediator. In fact, it is simply the procedure that is long; it is the pieces and creditors’ agreements that must be obtained, the translations of pieces, etc.

Don’t let me say what I didn’t say.

I may not have said everything, but I was at the beginning of my speech. I will discuss elements that will join yours.

You and I know the practice. We know that the people who practice this matter, whether they are lawyers, magistrates and even judicial assistants, are not the only ones responsible for a possible backward.

I simply pointed out the fact that there was an opportunity, at some point, to transfer this contentious to labour courts that do not know a backdrop of the same magnitude as that of the courts of first instance, especially since the question of overindebtedness becomes increasingly problematic, whether you like it or not.

The number of people affected by over-indebtedness increased from 345,000 in 1994 to ⁇ 403,000 at the end of 2002, representing ⁇ 5% of the country’s population and an increase of 1.3%.

Regarding the backbone, of which we talked together, I share your point of view: there is ⁇ not exclusively the judicial staff who is responsible, on the contrary, for this situation. There is also a situation related to the increase in the number of cases, the number of evidence to be able to bring and the length of the corresponding procedure. Therefore, I do not believe that we are in contradiction on this point. I would like to recall that, from our discussions in committee, the idea had come to transfer this to labour courts because a much less significant, or ⁇ null, backwardness would have been observed in some labour courts of the country. If I make a mistake, the Minister will correct me.

The [...]

It is not exclusively this one. I have put five points and that is part of the motivation elements.

I would like to focus more specifically on two issues that we held in discussion during the committee sessions. This is the introductory way of instance, of which my colleague has spoken abundantly, and the professional secret of the lawyer, an essential element in this problem.

On the introductory mode of instance, we have had very long debates, very interesting and very constructive where concepts, not necessarily different, have rubbed together to reach the text that is now subject to the approval of the House. Our group has submitted an amendment to limit the situations in which it will be possible to introduce an instance via the request. Obviously, we know well that there is a government agreement that says that we should move to the generalization of the query as the main introductive mode of instance, which does not mean that we forget the other introductive modes of instance.

In our view, it is necessary at least to leave a real choice to the justiciable between this or that introductory mode of instance because, and the opinion is very affirmed within the MR, the interest of the citation is obvious in relation to the petition. First, in terms of legal certainty, effectiveness and effectiveness, quality as well, speed, authenticity: so many essential elements that give this act a greater value than the request, including by the sharing of the costs of the proceedings. Colleague Massin spoke extensively of the petition, but the citation contains in itself the fundamental elements of legal certainty, speed, authenticity since it is a ministerial officer who brings it, which is not the case with the petition, which give it a particular attractive attraction that can allow the justiciable, if he wishes, to make a real choice between competing instance introductive modes, which is not currently possible.

You are a lawyer like me.

Yes, we are colleagues.

The citation takes eight days and the request, fifteen days. When it comes to speed, eight days of difference, it’s not huge. With regard to security, what does the judicial officer do? It consults the National Register.

The Court of Justice...

What are we obliged to do when submitting a request? Having an extract of the Home Act. However, it is the municipal administration that provides the information to the National Register.

Obviously we are not talking about the same thing. We have points of view that are not necessarily opposed but somewhat divergent. I apologize for having to insist on this, but authenticity is the quality of ministerial officer. Thus, a series of mandatory annotations provided by law and the Judicial Code, the authenticity, reality and accuracy of which are confirmed by the judge. It’s not just a person who carries a paper as the post office officer could do. It is also a person who verifies, in a thorough and methodical way, the reality and authenticity of a request in its form and in its substance.

In terms of speed, it is obvious that an officer who means an act, then appears at the recruitment before the court and most often – we have noticed this in practice, but we may not have the same practice – the introduction of a quote is faster than the introduction by the officer of a request. It is so. Several colleagues are present in this assembly and we could discuss it at loss of sight. It is a matter of practice and elective choice in practice.

Yes, but the cost is assumed by the applicant at the beginning. So the cost is not the same. The Minister wants to insist on the fact that the citation is more expensive than the petition. This is its primary goal, but I do not say that this price difference is justified by the highest quality of the act since it is, in part, tax issues that intervene here. We know it well. There is also the baremized work of the housewife. This work is not null. This work is doubled by that of the lawyer who introduces the action.

Madam, do you have any lawsuits against a court enforcement officer because he made mistakes?

Not yet ! ( ... ) ( ... )

Mrs. Marghem, please continue your speech.

I will try, Mr President.

So, citation is a regular act of instance; Me Massin doesn’t seem to agree. It is regular in advance before the instance is introduced and allows the procedure to run without incidents given its regularity and formal performance. Thus, it allows an instance to run at a lower cost. At the limit, the most important cost advanced from the beginning is subsequently captured by a regular instance and that runs to its end without difficulty, which is not the case with the request in my opinion. The judge is able to avoid unnecessary procedures; he also has a counseling role: if he is there, he does not intervene in a neutral way, but he gives advice to the lawyer with whom he works, which helps to avoid problems and, possibly, problems of action in responsibility, as colleague Massin recently stressed.

It is not justified, in every situation, that the collectivity bears those costs which must ultimately be borne by the recalcitrant debtors. In fact, it is precisely their failure that justifies the resort to the judiciary.

If one evokes a problem of cost and access to justice concerning the introductory mode of instance, which is one of the engines of this project and one of the arguments of Mrs. the minister, we believe that one is mistaken in debate: we must then look at the side of taxation that strikes the citation and not the appeal, before most courts.

This is what the government has done: it has talked about it, it has undertaken to make proposals on tax exemption in situations of competition between the petition and the citation in order to enable the justiciable to actually exercise their choice between two different instance introductive modes but which can be used, in the spirit of a justiciable. One will then make a real choice since the cost will no longer be an obstacle; one will have the possibility to go either to a courtier, or to trust a council and the transplant that will work after him.

We therefore hope that the government will be able to quickly implement this promise because we believe that the justiciable will then have all the assurances of a judicial course without fault.

I will now address the problem of the professional secrecy of the lawyer, also mentioned in the commission. This is a very important issue and one or another speaker has spoken about it before me.

Should the judge be allowed to impose the lifting of the professional secret of the lawyer or is the lifting dependent on a concertation between the lawyer and his Order? Should ordinary courts be involved in this decision, which is sometimes extremely crucial and difficult to take for the lawyer who is close to the debtor?

This issue involves important issues. Which are they?

There is a requirement for transparency of the debtor’s assets; this has been recalled. It is obvious that the collective debt settlement procedure cannot allow people of bad faith to evade the debts that weigh on them by not giving all the necessary information to the debt mediator, the judge and, of course, also to their counsel.

Collective debt settlement is a special procedure in which creditors generally abandon part of their claims. It is therefore all the more important that things are done in the greatest transparency. This procedure can therefore only work with the guarantee that the debtor is of good faith and that he places the greatest possible part of his assets at the disposal of the creditors.

Transparency is therefore in the interest of the creditors, of course, but also in the interest of the debtor.

The relationship of trust between the debtor and his lawyer. I have already talked about it recently. I come back for a few moments. When this relationship ceases to exist or is severely compromised due to the actions of one of the parties, the lawyer is embarrassed and can no longer carry out his task properly. In these circumstances, will lawyers still be willing to represent their client in a collective debt settlement procedure? It was therefore necessary to try to solve this problem. As with any delicate problem, there is no miracle or perfect solution. Together, we tried to find the best solution. It may not be fully satisfying, but it has the merit of taking into account two divergent interests: transparency of the debtor’s property and professional secrecy of the lawyer close to the debtor. The proposed solution, namely the consultation of the ordinary authority, which will send an opinion within 30 days to the judge who will have to justify his decision if he deviates from the opinion of the ordinary court, is a solution that allows to find a good balance between these two poles that could seem divergent.

I will conclude my speech by saying that over-indebtedness is a societal problem. As I said recently, a very significant growth was observed: 1.3% of the number of collective debt settlement applications across the country. This is a plague that we must fight through the prevention and information of all economic actors.

The bill is not intended to create — I nuanced the words I have just said here — a confusion between over-indebtedness, which results from a voluntary and unbridled depletion, and that which results from indispensable expenses, for example in the area of rent and health. In this regard, there are things that must be able to look at serenely.

The judge may not in all cases proceed to a general remission of debts. This total debt relief must remain an exceptional measure. It shall be issued only if it is the only way to guarantee respect for the human dignity of the debtor and his family with regard to "ordinary life" claims and claims essential to the maintenance of the debtor's dignity, in particular with regard to rent and health.

The procedure is therefore based on the debtor’s good faith and the court will be able to require full transparency on its financial situation. This allows to prevent that a person of bad faith, mocking his creditors, can waste his assets in an unbridled and express manner, starting from the principle that a procedure exists and that he will be saved anyway since the social network exists.

Finally, debtors who have been the subject of a collective debt settlement procedure are the subject of a mention in the central file of seizures as well as in the central credit to individuals. This is an excellent measure aimed at preventing unconscious or voluntarily bad-faithed individuals from over-debting and coming to situations where total debt removal is virtually the only thing to do because of their over-debted situation.

For all these reasons and with all the nuances that I have just brought and which reproduce the accents that the MR has introduced in this debate, the MR group supports the project of Mrs. the Minister and hopes to see the promises made by the government on the occasion of the drafting of this law, whether at the level of the transfer of competences or at the level of the taxation of the citation.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Vice-Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, many things have already been said this afternoon about the bill in question, which it has, first, about the generalization of the petition on contradiction as a way of introducing the procedures, before they fall within the competence of the Labour Court, and, secondly, about the transfer of the competence of the collective debt settlement of the confiscation judge to the Labour Court.

As regards the discussion in the Committee on Justice, the members who took part in the discussions and attended the hearings can testify that the draft has been the subject of very in-depth discussions, in which all interested parties were heard and the necessary questions could be asked.

First, as regards the generalization of the procedure of introduction before the Labour Court by means of petitions on contradiction, I refer, after re-reading a number of statements held on the occasion of the hearings, very specifically to what appears on p. 108 of the report is written. This text was extracted from the presentation of Mr. Petit, Chief Griffier of the Labour Court of Marche-en-Famenne. As the first of the main judges of the labour courts, he has made a number of very specific figures. I refer to the report, without quoting it in its entirety.

He said that a majority of cases brought before the Labour Court — even an absolute majority, namely 55% of cases — are claims relating to the recovery of social security contributions. These matters are generally submitted by the RIZIV and by the various insurance institutions for the social security of self-employed. The remaining claims, 45%, concerned the other procedures, including, inter alia, the procedures for disabled persons and labour disputes between employers and workers.

At that time, the chief arrest officer also referred to the disputes relating to labour law and compensation, which, in accordance with the provisions of Article 700 of the Judicial Code, must be initiated by summons. In this regard, the chief arrest officer gave an interesting figure, namely: of the number of cases registered on the general role of the Labour Court, labour law and compensation disputes represent only about 10%.

The Government Agreement stipulates that, in order to facilitate access to justice, the judicial costs for the court members should be further reduced, including by generalizing the introduction of the appeal on contradiction.

It is important to emphasize that the introduction through the petition on contradiction does not mean that the calling as a possibility is disabled.

I will return to what one of the previous speakers has said regarding the costs. I will take the example of the rental litigation proceedings, which can now be initiated by summons and also by petition. The judiciary is not unanimous in this regard. There are sufficient peacekeepers who will condemn the claiming party to the difference in additional costs between a summons and a petition, while others will not.

Collega Marghem correctly pointed out that the extension of the petition on contradiction also entails an adjustment of the tax costs of a judge’s exploit, in short, the defiscalization of the judge’s exploit. During the discussion in the committee, the Chairman of the Committee on Justice, Mr Borginon, made you aware of this, Mrs. Minister. You have said that that point would capture your full attention, but that it does not belong to your competence but to that of the Minister of Finance. The VLD group has made it very clear that we will monitor this aspect of the government agreement very closely, in particular the linking or defiscalization of court guard explosives in question. We will make sure that this can happen in a short time.

A summoning still provides the most legal certainty — I refer to what has been discussed during the hearing and the debates — and also provides guarantees in terms of effectiveness, quality, speed, authenticity and sharing of the costs of proceedings. An introduction by summons must be retained so that the legal seeker who desires and wants the highest certainty has the choice and can still continue to choose. The design still allows this possibility. The VLD group welcomes this. It also implies that the legal seeker who wants more legal certainty does not have to risk being financially punished for this. We are pleased that an amendment that was submitted on this subject was, fortunately, withdrawn.

There should be no excessive difference between the use of a petition and the summons. The VLD calls for measures to press the cost of the summons. We await with impatience the proposal of the Minister of Finance on this subject, which was announced in the committee. For those who argue that in social matters there would be no tax burden for the summons and that therefore defiscalization is not possible, the question arises why in those cases the procedure for initiation by petition is postponed if the cost of a summons is not so high. I want to remove the collective debt scheme.

Questions arise as to the necessity of removing the procedures from the jurisdiction of the seizure judge — familiar with the procedure, with a secretariat operating in it after five years to satisfy everyone — to the labour courts. I will not go further into that today. I refer to what we have said very clearly in the committee.

It was mainly for us to do to avoid a chaos, which could possibly have occurred if, as the project originally envisaged, a removal would be carried out by 1 September 2005. We welcome the fact that, following the hearings and especially also the interventions of the chief greffiers, who outside the magistrates, however, will be the first to be involved in the consequences of the transfer to the jurisdiction of the labour judge, they have received the necessary guarantees by an amendment, submitted among other things by the Government. In this context, the overriding is explicitly linked to the release and enabling of this additional power, in particular by means of material resources, the connection to Phenix — computers and the like — the infrastructure and the training of staff. Thus, there is a more realistic entry into force, postponed to September 2007 at the latest, and a very explicit link has been established with Phenix.

We have confidence in our judges and we are also convinced that the labour courts, after their formation, after their training, and with the material resources that will be made available in addition, will make the necessary efforts to ensure that the procedures of collective debt settlement proceed fairly and smoothly, just as the seizure judges have done, without being accused of any associative behavior, although this may have appeared in some statements in the committee.

In addition, the Government Agreement provides, and I quote: "As regards the powers of the courts and courts, those of the labor auditors and labour courts would be extended, to include, among other things, the disputes concerning extraordinary debts." I only point out to you, Mrs. Minister — in the margin of the discussion today — that in the same point of the Government Agreement, behind the point comes, the establishment of the Family Court. I assume that we would also discuss this in the short term.

The abolition of the collective debt regime.

This is a difficult dossier.

Mrs. Minister, I have the impression that in that committee we have not yet received many other files than difficult files. It might be fun — it’s summer — to get some easier files from time to time.

Finally, we have expressed a concern and I just want to repeat them here as a...

Next week, the change of the 1965 law will be on the agenda, an easier file.

An easy file. Mr. Van Parys does this.

We are available to make a constructive contribution to the debate in the complicated but solvable file. To the extent that a law on youth sanctions is drawn up next week that is consistent with what is wanted in Flanders, we will be able to reach a consensus very quickly, Mrs. Minister. Therefore there is no problem. We can get through it quickly next week.

That constructive attitude, Mr Van Parys, I am witness to. I assume that with your presentation you have responded to the Minister’s comment and that it was not a response to what I said. You have made your point to the Minister.

I would like to come to my last comment, Mr. Minister. There has been a small exchange of words in the committee on the exception made with regard to the use of languages in court proceedings. Later it turned out that we were not talking about the same thing at all times. The only thing we have warned of – this is also noted in the report of the committee’s work – is that here hopefully will not open the door to an extension of exceptional measures related to the law on the use of languages in court proceedings. I refer to what we have said about this. I am not talking about this, but we wanted to discuss this issue in the committee. I refer to the discussion that was held on this subject.

With the question, the consideration and the nuance that we have made both in the committee and today, and for which I refer in part to the report, we, as a loyal government party, will approve these two drafts.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, four topics passed grosso modo de revue during the discussion of the present bills.

In connection with two of those themes, I can say that the Flemish Interest has little or no difficulty, at least in principle, with the extent of the adjustments in the existing legislation. For two other topics, this is not the case and we make serious concerns. These two issues have already been discussed today.

Let me start with the legislative changes that, in our opinion, cause little problems.

First, I am talking about the settlement of the dispute — if I can call it a dispute — between the Court of Arbitration and the Court of Cassation, about the problem of the deadlines, regarding which there was a difference in jurisprudence. Apparently, the Arbitration Court’s receiving theory has accomplished the Cassation Court’s sending theory. This is for the benefit of legal certainty.

Secondly, there is the adaptation of the legal figure of the collective debt arrangement to the social needs, which indeed has been a necessity for many years, and if I remember correctly, even since the entry into force of the law on the collective debt arrangement. For years, lawyers have called for adjustments. We are pleased that some adjustments are being made today.

These were the two topics with which our group has little or no problems.

Otherwise, it is set up with two very substantial adjustments, the meaning of which we completely miss, Mrs. Minister.

The first concerns, as has been repeatedly cited today, the transfer of powers relating to the collective debt settlement from the confiscation judge to the labour courts. In this regard, the labor audit has now played an important role.

Very rarely, to say never, I have heard critical remarks in this regard, during the period when I myself was still, to name the beautiful Dutch word, legal practitioner, which had specifically to do with the competence of the confiscation judge.

In the bill, you repeatedly refer to the need for a humane treatment of the file of the debtors. You advocate for a humanization of the files of debtors who are in serious financial difficulties. However, at no time have you been able to present convincing arguments to demonstrate that the procedure in this area would be truly humanized by suddenly becoming competent for the labour courts.

In such cases, much, if not everything, depends on the capacity of incarnation, the empathy, of the judge who must make a judgment with the legal means available. If the labour courts were chosen ab initio, many circles would probably have had little problems with this. Now, however, you want to transfer a lot of experience, a lot of profession, a lot of expertise at the head of the seizure judges to the labour courts and the labour audit boards. That knowledge and that profession is lost.

You should be aware that you cannot transfer these two intangible assets, expertise and experience, through the entire judicial economy surrounding the collective debt settlement. It is not a trading fund that you can transfer within the judicial world. Together with many colleagues, bodies and experts from the legal world, I ask myself, therefore, for the sake of God, what is the advantage here for the legal seekers, for the citizen, for the debtors and for the creditors who are ultimately concerned. Where is the value added? It is a minus value. We are not following you on this point, Mrs. Minister.

The most sharp is our criticism, at least on the point that the initiation of the proceedings before the labour courts will now generally be arranged by petition rather than by summons. Mrs. Minister, I must honestly confess that before the beginning of the discussion, as a lawyer, I was indeed still of the opinion that the petition on contradiction could generally provide as much legal certainty as a summons and that the costs of this were significantly lower than that of a summons. I was away with it. However, in the face of the circumstantial and convincing arguments put forward by the representatives of the national chambers of judicial enforcement officers, I must say that I had to reconsider my opinion very quickly. The arguments of the court executors were, are and remain so relevant that on this piece for your bill, forgive me, they are purely destructive. Not only the figures presented proved convincing, but also the fact that the judicial enforcement officers have at least been able to convince me of their role – indeed – as debt intermediaries who act more cost-saving than cost-generating in the context of legal proceedings before and after the proceedings and, more specifically, even in the context of collective debt settlement proceedings. Not only in these procedures. Also on this point, Mrs. Minister, we do not follow you at all.

In summary, this legislative amendment, Mr. Minister, leads, in our view, to a loss of expert experience in the legal world and, on the other hand, to a greater workload on the labour courts, both at the level of the magistrates and the secretaries and that of the labor audit councils. By the way, you have, and you can or should say, given completely insufficient guarantees to meet the high workload resulting from this legislative change. We hold our hearts because as part of the launch of the Phenix project everything becomes even more complicated and uncertain as possible. It is already clear that labour courts are facing difficult, if not chaotic, times.

Moreover, I repeat it again at the end of my argument, the generalization of the entry into the law by means of the petition as an introductory exploit may lead to an unnecessary impoverishment — not too much therefore, but nevertheless — of the court enforcers. But that is not the worst thing. There is also, in part, the dishonor of their office. They do not receive the recognition they deserve because it should be understood that judicial enforcement officers often have to perform difficult tasks in difficult circumstances with a great social responsibility.

I therefore hope, Mrs. Minister, that the restriction of the powers of the judicial enforcement officers ceases by this and that you do not intend to carry out a further generalization of the initial petition. If it was just because it was cost-saving, then I could still agree, but it does not prove to be.

As to the political responsibility for the dubious legislative changes, which will be approved later, colleagues — I will be very brief about that — there is only one conclusion. I only have a rhetorical question to address to a certain group in the hemisphere, the VLD. Quo vadis, VLD? Another promise is swept down, it is scary.

President, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, the Flemish Belang will not approve the bills.

After Ms. Nagy, who is the last speaker, we will listen to the Minister’s response and any possible replies. We will then proceed with a short interruption of the session to close the afternoon session. In the evening session, we will discuss the other projects. Voting should not be too long.

Mr. Speaker, the two draft proposals, numbered 1309 and 1310, which are submitted to us today, provide for significant procedural changes in the field of collective debt settlement and in judicial matters. They honor you, Madame the Minister, and it honors the Parliament to look at this issue, an important issue, which deserves to be tried to work in a clearer way. However, as other speakers have said before me, it is surprising to see the choice that was made in the project. Indeed, in your project, it is therefore a matter of transferring the jurisdiction of the judge of injunctions in matters of collective settlement of debts to the labour court, and this, as other colleagues have repeated, despite the opinion of the relevant circles and with an extremely surprising justification.

Why is this difficult to understand and accept? The seizure judges have acquired extensive expertise in the field of collective debt settlement, which is a technical subject, in particular in security law. In Brussels, for example, they exercise their competence with finesse, empathy and taking into account the social realities known to over-debted persons, in accordance with the objectives pursued by the Law on Collective Settlements of Debts, that is, to restore the debtor’s financial situation by allowing him, as far as possible, to pay his debts and simultaneously guaranteeing him and his family to lead a life consistent with human dignity.

A long experience has enabled seizure transplants to organize themselves and face a consistent mass of work. Several mediators noted the significant efforts made by the seizure transplants to ensure the proper management of over-indebtedness cases. Therefore, it seems to us absurd and counterproductive to change skills as part of a well-functioning procedure. It would be necessary, on the other hand, to provide more resources for seizure judges facing extra work, as the Supreme Council of Justice points out.

The first draft did not take into account the observations of the CSJ, in its Opinion 13/09-002 which concluded that the transfer of competences is not desirable and did not consult or take into account the opinion of the relevant professional circles, in particular the Association of Debt Mediators of Brussels, who do not understand the meaning of this transfer of competence.

No opinions were requested from the magistrates concerned, nor from the judges of the seizures, nor from the magistrates of the labour courts. I let myself say by some of them that they felt that, since their jurisdiction worked well, as soon as there were problems of delay or difficulties elsewhere, one could entrust to the magistrates of the labour courts greater responsibilities of which they are not ⁇ demanding.

The subject is more related to seizures and routes of execution.

Let me interrupt you. This is not exact: the matter is first and foremost, rather than a measure of execution, a negotiation, a debt settlement plan, which is primarily a social work.

Along with all the arguments and motivations surrounding the judicial backwardness in labour courts compared to the courts of first instance, it was because it is mainly social files that it was considered that the labour courts, specialized in the matter, could be places of reception for these cases.

In the context of the current operation, the question raised was the strengthening of the judges of the seizures rather than of the transfer. This is a justified choice for reasons other than the effectiveness and proper application of justice.

The matter, whether we like it or not, is more connected to seizures and ways of execution. The Association of Debt Mediators notes that numerous requests addressed to the judges of seizures do not fall under social law: requests for preferential payment, requests for authorisation of sale of movable or immovable property, etc., all delicate issues, debated before the judge of seizures, concerning privileges, especially in the case of sale of buildings. This issue seems very far from the competence of the Labour Court.

As the CSJ notes, “although the social dimension of collective debt settlement is undoubtedly present, it is still appropriate to indicate that collective debt settlement is generally classified as an insolvency procedure, tending to regulate the relationship between creditors and debtors”. It also notes that “the Regulation on the Insolvency of the European Union No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 considers the Belgian collective settlement of debts as an insolvency procedure”.

Competence conflicts between labour courts and the seizure judge, for example in the case of litigation relating to privileges and mortgages, may arise, which will unnecessarily complicate the procedure and have a negative impact on its cost and duration. Furthermore, the treatment by a single-judge chamber lacks meaning from the objective pursued initially by the transfer of competence, namely a better accounting of the social reality through the square composition of that court.

Here, Mrs. Minister, in a rather short but precise and clear way, are the reasons why the project does not fully meet our expectations. In relation to this important issue, which has been the subject of many debates and discussions, we have submitted amendments; our vote is conditional on the fate that will be reserved for them.

Mr. Speaker, the rapporteur, Mrs. Hilde Claes, made her report perfectly and developed all the richness of the debate we had in the Justice Committee regarding this bill; this allows me, essentially, to refer to the written report and its oral report.

In addition, prominent lawyers spoke at the tribune and were able, better than I could have done, to show all the advantages of the bill.

First, I would like to answer questions that were not considered in the parliamentary discussion.

With regard to criminal fines, we simply comply with the constitutional prescription that provides that only the King, through the right of grace, has the possibility to remove a criminal debt. In this context, there is no question of giving this possibility to the judiciary while it is given to the King by the Constitution.

That being said, we were asked whether it was worth having a debtor in a collective debt settlement procedure when there is this type of criminal debt. The answer is “yes” since the procedure may lead to an extension of this criminal debt, which can obviously be an advantage for both the debtor and the creditors.

We were also asked whether, for the increase of the staff of secretaries, we would take into account all the reforms we had examined in the Justice Committee. The answer is “Yes”.

Finally, as regards the entry into force, I would like to clarify once again that we have taken into account the observations of all the colleagues. We have therefore postponed the entry into force taking into account the evolution of the Phénix file, i.e. the computerization of Justice, which will have a major impact on the work of the secretaries, which will ease this work and which will allow the transplants to better support in particular this type of procedures.

For the rest, a lot has been talked about piping: labour court, court of first instance, petition or citation. In the end, little has been said about the key object of the project, which is better to take into account the situation of the overindebted. This is what guided the government in the bill. On this subject, I am pleased that there is a broad consensus.

Let me simply remind you that, with the bill, we provide new ways to better protect over-debted people without disrespecting them, these two aspects are important. In particular, we give the legal possibility to administrations, social security agencies, social insurance funds, to grant debt relief within the framework of an amicable plan, which was not possible before. Total debt relief, commonly called civil bankruptcy, is admitted under very strict conditions because we do not admit disresponsibility. We also intended, through this bill, to improve the situation of the deposit, including better taking into account the fate of the natural person deposit free of charge and the suspension of enforcement measures in respect of the deposit during the development phase of the settlement plan.

For me, this is the most important part of the project. The rest is piping. I can conceive that there are different means, that there are controversies around the pipeline. I am simply pleased to find that, on the essence of the bill, the situation of over-debt and collateral, we have been able to reach a broad consensus. I hope that this broad consensus will be felt by the votes that will be issued.