Proposition 51K1762

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 64 et 1476 du Code civil et l'article 59/1 du Code des droits de timbre en vue de simplifier les formalités du mariage et de la cohabitation légale.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

May 2, 2005

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities civil union marriage cohabitation stamp duty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

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. 20, 2005 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report. On behalf of the group, my colleague, Mr Tommelein, will ask the Secretary of State a relevant question.

There are two speakers enrolled in the general discussion: Mrs Van der Auwera and Mr Tommelein. The word is to Mrs. Van der Auwera.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, this bill aims to simplify the formal requirements for entering into a marriage and for declaring legal cohabitation by no longer asking citizens to collect all the necessary documents themselves and entrusting this task to the civil stand official. I had to laugh a moment when I read the report of the discussion in the committee. The motivation for this design is that this would not be normal because it will eliminate the discrimination between those who live together and those who wish to face the challenge of marriage.

Mr. Secretary of State, this bill actually relates to legal cohabitation. That motivation is a bit ridiculous. Furthermore, if you consider that any discrimination between married and legally cohabiting and simply cohabiting should be eliminated, then it is better to abolish all formalities than to get stuck with such a design.

Of course, we think this design is a good step in the right direction. You know that I know less quickly than you. You are Secretary of State for Administrative Simplification, but I am here for the third time in two weeks to advocate for you to urgently work on a number of proposals that we have made to you and which the government should simply take into account.

We have submitted a number of proposals regarding the birth certificate. We have also made proposals on the simplification of the death declaration. We have also made a proposal aiming at supplementing the information contained in the Rijksregister on each resident of the Reich with an indication of his descendants in the first degree in order to facilitate the handling of the inheritance. We also had another proposal related to simplifying the remedy of material deficiencies. Their

What are we? Even in the Justice Committee, even yesterday in the Home Affairs Committee, you say that you will work on it, but actions are left behind. I see you suck. We are also arranged here. These matters are for seizure. There is consensus on this. This is not a heavy ideological debate. I have the impression that this is not on the agenda because it comes from the opposition.

You were in the Justice Committee last week. You just jumped on my cart but you didn’t really do anything to keep up with that agenda.

As for the committee on internal affairs, yesterday our proposals could not be merged with the draft law. We resolved this by amending our proposals. We are very curious, Mr. Daems, what your group will do in this regard at the vote. You may then be able to show you how much you care about administrative simplification.

This is a step in the right direction. However, we have trouble with the fact that the sealing rights in the amount of 5 euros are abolished. There are 1.5 euro municipal taxes charged per extract from the Act of the Civil Status. I think our question on this subject is relevant. Why should those sealing rights not be paid when drawing up a marriage file, while those sealing rights must be paid if the same extract is needed for drawing up a adoption file? The latter, however, is at least as noble as a marriage. We think that this does not hold much steep. Their

We acknowledge that it is a simplification. It is also cheaper. This week I made the effort to ask a parliamentary question in the Committee on Finance. This question was answered by Secretary of State Jamar. I asked if he didn’t want to change the code on seal rights because I thought I understood that he felt something for it. There are many words but few actions. I was told that there is in no way the usefulness of insight. The abolition of these sealing rights, including for other documents and extracts, would cost the Treasury EUR 9 million.

What really struck me in the answer is the following. It was said that this would cost the municipal and local governments no euro. What do I read in the committee report? The government agreement provides for this measure and you would urge local authorities not to levy those municipal taxes in order not to cross the federal measures with the levy of municipal taxes. I wonder if you can impose this on the municipalities. This will allow you to move to the municipalities. At the federal level, you will abolish a sealing right, but you expect the municipalities not to charge those municipal taxes either. So much does your draft ultimately not mean since we heard this week in the Finance Committee that the municipalities would not miss a franc of income.

Your design is a step in the right direction, but it is a very minimal, small step. I don’t think that in the press with so many tires and bells should be spotted because here proposals are ready that would have a lot more impact and that might be able to pass the kafkat test much better. I think of the material deficiencies. Apparently, we are not ready to get you back there either.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, this bill refers to a number of medieval states from the past. Of course, we are very satisfied with this. Explain to a citizen that he must stand for an hour at a lock where he must pick up a document that he must then hand over to the lock next to it where he must then put on another hour. Just explain to people that they have to take a day off to pick up from church to church if they want to get married. For turtle ducks, that is one day less that they can take to go on a honeymoon trip. Their

Mr. Minister, I do not know how to argue that this simplification of the law is not entirely carried out in the public interest, but that some self-interest might be useful. Maybe you can announce something that we don’t know yet, but you can. In any case, it might still be important. Their

There may be no one who fails to get married because of administrative inconvenience, but that doesn’t take away that one sees the paper shop that comes with it as pure bullying. Through this bill, the civil stand official will be able to carry out all checks on his own so that the citizen no longer has to pick up all the documents in different places. I think this preconceived simplification is no more than logical. Only as a politician — and I think we should all continue to do that — one should try to deal with the everyday small inconveniences of the citizen. As the Secretary of State for Administrative Simplification, you deserve the support of all of us. In that area, you are a real insider.

Another point I am very pleased with as a liberal is the abolition of the marriage tax. After all, paying three times five euros plus one and a half euros per person is a school example of pest tax. It makes no sense to further hinder the citizens. In total, it is less than 40 euros per married couple. This, of course, is nothing compared to the reduction of the tax on income in recent years, but, dear colleagues, it is still a reduction of the tax and, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, we will vote with the VLD group with full conviction for this bill.