Proposition 51K1314

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 3 avril 1953 d'organisation judiciaire, la loi du 2 juillet 1975 déterminant le cadre du personnel des tribunaux de première instance et l'article 211 du Code judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Aug. 16, 2004

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 21, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report.

Ladies and gentlemen, are you registered? I have a problem, Mr. Verherstraeten, Mrs. Minister must come from the Senate. But look, there she is.

The President,

Servais Verherstraeten Mrs. Minister, we are pleased that this draft is being discussed today in the plenary session and that it is a response to the judicial backwardness that exists on the left and right, especially at the level of the courts. We are, of course, satisfied that not only the frameworks of the magistrates but also those of the griffies are being expanded. But not everything is a hassle, Mrs. Minister. I think that we should also use this plenary session to say certain things, for example, that we regret that this draft will only be discussed today in the plenary session.

We must note that, for example, Mons and Charleroi, with an extension of the frameworks, were operated immediately on their hints, and that despite our request to include, among other things, Antwerp and Dendermonde in one package and to extend the frameworks there, it was not responded, despite the figures of the MUNAS report, despite the examination by the High Council of the situation of Dendermonde.

Following the discussion of the extension of the frameworks of Mons and Charleroi, you have said that the extension of the frameworks of Antwerp and Dendermonde will take place during the spring. That has not happened. There was a protocol that you concluded in March with, among other things, the Court of Appeal in Antwerp, Mrs. Minister, and we naturally welcome that protocol, but that has not prevented the current majority from waiting for months, despite the fact that the CD&V group, together with colleague Lanjri, had already submitted a bill on this subject. This could have been addressed, though in the form of a majority legislation. In any case, before the parliamentary cessation, this could have already been completed so that the start of the appointment procedures could already have taken place. What will we get now? Now it will be too late. If the draft is approved today, it must then go to the Senate, and then to the Official Gazette to be published, after a long appointment procedure. I therefore fear that you will not meet the timing, as set for the Court of Appeal in Antwerp in the Protocol, ⁇ because, of course, the interest in still sitting in a court was greatly limited because the difference in betting between a seat in first instance and a seat in appeal has become much more limited. As a result, the number of candidates is much more limited, especially when it comes to Antwerp. Due to the works on the Ring, many magistrates are not interested in going to Antwerp in the short term, to get there first in the file before they can sit there.

First, we regret that the design came so late. Better late than never, of course, but it is late, which makes us come too late. It draws purple and purple green, which, for example, immediately serves Wallonia on its wishes and hints. This legislature is still only 13 or 14 months old, but I remind you of the Francorchamps Act, and the regionalization of weapons exports, which were immediately approved while the Flames have to wait.

Second, we regret, Mrs. Minister, that the Court of Appeal in Ghent is not included in the draft text. Fortunately, the court of Gent with all its councillors and employees has made phenomenal efforts so that the right-wing backwardness there has actually been effectively eliminated. We pay tribute to all those who have contributed to this, but this high pace of course can no longer be tolerated. Also there is a framework extension desired and that framework extension should be included in this draft. We will therefore submit an amendment on this subject.

Finally, Mr. Minister, already in the light of previous framework expansions, our group has suggested an objective workload measurement. This leaves too long to wait for itself. Many members of the House and the Senate, who, among other things, are lawyers and, for example, work for large companies such as insurance companies and banks, know that their workload, the results they ⁇ , and the cost it represents are perfectly measured. One can actually perfectly analyze, control and sanction your efforts in this regard. This can also be perfectly done in the magistracy for analog activities. This leaves months to wait for us to get frame extensions – as far as this design is concerned, justified frame extensions – at the head of the client, despite this having to be done in the context of objective workload measurements. We ask you to do this more quickly, Mr. Minister. I expect in your policy statements in the coming weeks that a strict timing will be agreed on this matter.

We approve this design – better late than never – in any case and hope that the frameworks will be filled up as soon as possible.

Do you know that you have submitted two amendments? I suspect that you or Mr. Van Parys will defend this during the article-based discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to explain the case.

A file to move to frame extension always takes some time. At that time, we dealt with the case of Bergen and Charleroi in the Chamber. That file also had a certain history, before it finally ended up on the banks of Parliament.

On the occasion of that discussion, our group has drawn the attention of the Minister to the need to do something, including in Antwerp. We received a number of promises from the Minister and gave her the confidence. Today, the government has been worthy of that trust. Indeed, today we can approve a draft that, if our colleagues in the Senate also show the necessary urgency, will be approved in time and published in the Belgian Staatsblad, so that by the beginning of the next judicial year the promised magistrates in Antwerp, Dendermonde and Brussels will be appointed.

As regards the question concerning the Court of Appeal of Gent, it is clear that the same path is followed there too. Also in that dossier we have confidence that in the course of the coming weeks and months a solution for that court will come out of the bus, which, I suppose, will be discussed in the same way as for the previous texts. That does not exclude that, globally speaking, the technique with which we carry out framework extensions in the magistracy is not a good technique. It is a technique of ad hoc changes that has been applied for decades, while at some point should be switched to a larger exercise, based on objective parameters, such as workload measurement. Sooner or later we will have to move in that direction, as has happened in other countries.

In anticipation of this, we can already take a useful step today.