Proposition 51K2811

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en vue de lutter contre l'arriéré judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Dec. 14, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure backlog of court cases

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld 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 ¶

March 1, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, although this bill contains far fewer articles than the previous draft, it has generated just as many lively debates and hearings. Seven meetings were held.

In its introduction, the Minister of Justice points out that the fight against judicial lagging is part of one of the most important workshops of the reform of the judiciary.

It argues that the duration of the proceedings can be divided into two large periods: the opening of the case and the period between the moment when the arguments are exchanged and the day fixed for the hearing.

Combating judicial lag means that those two periods should be limited to a minimum of time. At the same time, the quality work of lawyers and the judge must be ⁇ ined.

Several types of measures are taken, on the one hand, an adaptation of the means and, on the other hand, an adaptation of the rules of civil procedure.

Overall, the project aims at a triple goal.

First, accelerating the exchange of arguments between the parties and from the beginning establishing an agenda that takes back the major stages of the procedure.

Secondly, it aims to sanction the parties who unnecessarily and voluntarily extend the procedure by imposing a fine on them.

Third, it aims to exercise better control over the period in which the judges make their judgment. If the delay is not justified, a specific penalty may be imposed, which can even result in a withdrawal of the bet.

The Minister has pointed out that no clean ship is made with the past, but that earlier, existing mechanisms to enable a file are accelerated and a pledge date is obtained. This system is being modernized and improved. It also refers to the reforms based on and directly resulting from the judicial dialogue conducted by Mr. Erdman and Mr. Leval.

The Minister also pointed out that consultations were conducted with the various field actors, which we subsequently heard again in another hearing.

There are some targeted and technical improvements. The Minister wants to emphasize a number of essential points. First, there is the possibility of obtaining at any time a quick decision from the judge on the judgment day, and that concerning the file. Next, there is the generalization of the preparation of a procedural calendar as the standard means of enabling a case. This is also a fundamental element of the design. The timetable is reverse. The date of the court hearing is first set and then counted back. In addition, that meeting must take place within three months of the exchange of the last conclusion.

Particular attention was also paid to the procedure of the brief debate. Misuse of the procedure is sanctioned by a civil fine, which may be imposed by the judge, if necessary, on its own.

Finally, a specific provision is devoted to respecting the one-month period before the judge’s hearing.

The possible sanctions are disciplinary sanctions, which can be imposed in case of repeated exceeding the one-month period. They may not be less than a first-degree main penalty, which means a withdrawal of the bet, up to 20% for two months.

During the general discussion, colleague Casaer put himself behind the strengths of the draft law. He is surprised, however, by the reaction of the OBFG, which had a lot of criticism, but did not propose alternatives.

Collega Marinower also ⁇ that his group could broadly agree with the draft law. However, he asked whether the new law would also impose better thresholds for access to appeal. He believes that the problem of judicial lag will only truly disappear if all actors in the judiciary cooperate in combating it.

Mr Van Parys has taken the word extensively. He was of the opinion that it was a late draft law that does not offer any solution to eliminate the judicial lag.

He pointed out a better process economy and acknowledges that the bill contributes to that better process economy but considers that the measures fail too lightly in comparison with the objectives set by the government at the beginning of the term of office.

He also discussed proposals for more necessary measures to tackle the judicial lag. And he spoke extensively about the measurement of the workload, which, in his opinion, is primordial and necessary in order to be able to speak properly about removing the judicial backwardness.

He then intervened extensively on the situation in Brussels. He spoke of a prompt completion of the vacant relationships and also referred to the High Council of Justice’s colloquium in June 2004 on judicial lag.

He subsequently referred to the Judiciary Dialogues and had questions and comments on the bill under discussion.

Colleague Van Parys also had a few questions...

The [...]

He was present, indeed. He was present at the discussion. Mr. Casaer has also intervened. He was also present during the discussion.

In the committee?

In the committee, of course.

Collega Van Parys spoke, among other things, about the sanctions against the magistrates and also about the criticism due to the OBFG. For a long time he has remained stuck with the deplorable quality of the Dutch text of the design, in which certain sentence constructions were completely incomprehensible. The Minister has said that it takes full responsibility for the Dutch text.

Collega Van Parys also spoke about the position of the greffiers and the main greffiers in the bill. He also intervened on the judiciary in short debates in each interim dispute, as well as on the valorization of the introductory session.

Collega Van Parys considered several ideas of crucial importance and believed that the proposals he formulated should be included in the bill.

The reporter has also returned, but will further discuss this in the general discussion.

Collega Schoofs intervened and stated that there are difficulties due to the difference in mentality between the north and south of the country.

Collega Wathelet, who was also present, added to the attention of colleague Van Parys, who spoke about the poor quality of the Dutch text, that even in French the texts were extremely difficult to understand. He stated that everyone agrees that the judicial backwardness with this bill will not be removed and that, by the way, this is not the intention but that the bill aims to optimize a set of existing procedural rules.

He also talked about the workload, but noted that there is still no criterion for measuring the workload of the sitting magistrates. He does not see the added value of the mandatory transmission to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of data relating to the late judgments.

Subsequently, Mr. Verherstraeten asked to provide numerical material. He asked for activity figures, which should be analyzed by region. He referred to several questions which he and other members of the committee submitted to the Minister following the judgment of the Court of Cassation of 28 September 2006, which condemned the Belgian State for delays. He stated that it would have been interesting to evaluate the measures of the current minister and its predecessors before moving to the introduction of new procedural rules.

He believes that the number of civil files has stagnated in recent years. That given and the subsequent appointments of magistrates had, according to Mr. Verherstraeten, a favorable influence on the judicial downturn.

Finally, he argued, like Mr Van Parys, that the biggest problem lies in the judicial district of Brussels. A division of the aforementioned arrondissement is therefore more than ever discussed.

Mr. Perpète suggested that the draft is a true revolution for the prosecutors of justice. After all, it would enable them to get an answer to their primary question, namely the question of when their case will be dealt with. The more active role that the draft puts before the court, according to Mr. Perpète, constitutes a small revolution.

Following Mr. Perpète’s explanation, the Minister answered the various questions.

After the replicas, the article style and eventually the full draft was approved by the Justice Committee.

Colleagues, we have already stipulated that we will devote a general discussion to the draft law and the related bills.

After the gentlemen Verherstraeten and Wathelet, followed by Mrs. Déom, Mr. Marinower, Mr. Schoofs, Mrs. Marghem and Mr. Muls. The order will be determined. In the general discussion, I usually give the last word to the reporter.

The President has the word.

Mijnheer de voorzitter, mevrouw de minister, collega's, said wetsontwerp is reeds lang aangekondigd. We have said we can read in de beleidsnota's van 2004, 2005 in 2006. We have said also in de kadernota van de Ministerraad van March 2004 can read. Uiteindelijk hebben we en ontwerp gekregen in December 2006. When we a project get dated already years is announced in dated good title draagt "wetsontwerp tot wijziging van het Gerechtelijk Wetboek met het oog op het bestrijden van de gerechtelijke achterstand", had we natuurlijk verwacht dated project minstens de ambities van haar eigen titel zou kunnen waarmaken. Zoals dat de jongste jaren echter wel vaker is, dekt deze vlag de lading helemaal niet. Vele toehoorders in sprekers are het erover eens dat dit wetsontwerp de gerechtelijke achterstand, die er op het terrein zou zijn, niet zal oplossen. It goes among more also over the actors of Justice, the ultimate of the most important players are about the evolution on the ground you can see. They also play an important role in the evolution of certain processes. Well, actually was of line there unclear. I quote from Franstalige balies: "This is a misleading, poorly written and useless project."

Can I read the report? I would also like to thank the reporter for his report. I quote: "The OBFG believes that this is a misleadingly misleading draft law. In short, it is not only a largely useless draft law in view of the foreseen objectives,” – one talks about the title – “but unfortunately it is also a draft law that will raise new controversies in the field.” I further quote from the report: “Unlike what the title of the draft law announces, this draft law does not aim at combating the judicial disadvantage, but merely to try to improve the conditions for the preparation of matters. A priori, the delay in the initiation of a case does not contribute to the judicial delay. On the contrary, the experience gained by the First Chamber bis of the Court of Appeal in Brussels is illustrative in that regard. When cases are quickly brought into preparation, judicial lag rises because the judiciary is not in a position to quickly deal with a higher number of cases brought into preparation.”

The Dutch-speaking balies also gave a unanimous statement regarding the judicial lag that could be resolved with this draft. I quote: “The OVB generally noted that the proposals formulated in the framework not solve the problem of judicial lag, but rather contribute to a better process economy.”

I quote further: “In courts that are already less prone to judicial delays, disputes may be able to be judged even faster than it is now. If the new provisions are applied accurately, courts facing serious legal delays will be able to inform the parties of the delay in a better and more transparent manner, but therefore will not be able to deliver judgment faster.”

Finally, I am referring to the High Council for Justice, which, in fact, held the same opinion as regards the judicial delay. Although the Supreme Council generally judges the bill as positive, it considers that the bill will not eliminate the judicial downturn, while everyone agrees that first and foremost solutions to that problem must be found.

Colleagues, what do we have to do today? Today we are dealing with a draft that has the ambition, the title and, in my view, the pretense to work away from judicial lag, while all actors in the field themselves acknowledge that this draft will not be able to realize that ambition. Why was this draft submitted? What is the added value of this design? A year or a year and a half ago – the time is unknown to me, Mr. Speaker, but maybe you can inform me a little more accurately about it – we approved a proposal in the Committee for the Revision of the Constitution and then in the plenary session, which is still pending in the Senate, concerning the evaluation of the law.

Also in the judicial dialogue, which, however, was the basis on which the entire judicial policy of this second purple government and your policies have been embedded, Mrs. Minister, it was evident that it makes sense to get laws passed in assemblies when those laws are enforceable on the ground, when the necessary means are provided for this and when the necessary sanctions are provided to make that law enforceable also on the ground. If this is not done, then the law has little or no meaning. It even threatens the rule of law. This puts the credibility of the rule of law at risk.

What do we have to do here today? With a design whose everyone on the ground says that the title, the flag that covers the cargo, will not be realized. It is a law that does not provide for sanction mechanisms. In terms of enforcement, we will therefore stand nowhere. Therefore, I am afraid that this law threatens to become a measure for nothing. When we make laws, we should ask: what is the problem? What is the problem setting? What is Judicial Delay? How do we define them? What are the figures in the field?

When we asked for figures of the terrain in the light of the discussion of this design, the omerta prevailed. We have not received any current figures on this subject. We have not received an overview of measures adopted in recent years and of the effects they would have sorted on the ground. We have not seen the three-year report of the presidents of the courts of first instance on the needs of the service of the chambers, of both language systems.

Mr. Speaker, at the time that we discussed this draft in the committee, at the time that we discuss it today in the House and now that the reduction will be discussed in the Senate, a letter for the sake of the Minister of Justice is addressed to all chiefs of the Corps with regard to the topic of judicial lag. It urgently requests a report on the judicial lag in its jurisdiction. If this report is so urgent, it would be appropriate that we first receive the report and then act legislatively regarding the judicial delay, depending on the findings contained in the report. No, we first make laws and then we will request reports. Those reports, by the way, come at a time when shortly comparative analyses of judicial retardation will have to be submitted by those same chiefs of corps. This initiative of the Minister is actually contrary to what is claimed here, in this draft. The Corps Chiefs are not only asked this: “It is essential that you comply with this request. This request will involve an additional workload as it runs several weeks ahead of your 2006 activity report. I hope it won’t disrupt your activity.”

Colleagues, maybe the minister has no figures and does not actually know how it is with the judicial backwardness in our country. However, I think it is better for us not to draft laws concerning judicial retardation at this time. It must first consult the figures and the situation in the country before legislating. No, we do the opposite. The chariot is strained for the horse and this has been happening for years. The frameworks are being expanded, of course first in Wallonia, as we have been used to in Flanders in recent years. There will also be a suit in Brussels, where the problem of judicial lag is indeed phenomenal. Per ⁇ we do not need numbers for that. Every actor in the judiciary knows that the situation with regard to the findings under the courts and courts in the Brussels district, in the Brussels district, is dramatic.

However, the situation is not necessarily dramatic. After all, what is the definition of judicial delay, Mr. President? You know the matter very well. If the parties have made the case possible, but then have to wait months or years for a determination, then that is judicial lag. When parties, for various reasons which are their own, wait with the establishment, because they are negotiating or because certain investigations are underway, then one cannot blame the judiciary that there is no plea date.

Per ⁇ there should not be a call date at that time. Here have come a pack of measures, a pack of frame extensions. If we then asked what effects it had sorted on the ground, because there were still expensive Community funds spent on framework extensions, we did not get a response.

This is what we have been asking for years, and what was already legalized during the previous legislature. We then approved framework extensions and temporary framework extensions. At the request of the opposition, an amendment was then approved that stated that it was the last temporary extension of the frameworks. A further expansion could only be provided for a prior objective workload measurement.

Dear colleagues, this is a dead letter. Every lawyer in this House – I sometimes read that there are too many lawyers in this institution, Mr. Speaker – who has important clients with very many files, knows that these clients follow their files. That also seems logical. They know perfectly about us what our flow rate is, what our cost is, what our success rate is. One knows perfectly what the workload and the workload measurement of the lawyer’s profession is. Customers know that. We do not know that from the judiciary. We have lost years in this regard. Louter on the basis of political and party-political reasons making framework extensions to shut down a fire on the left and right, I do not find a good allocation of resources. Then to quickly review a bill to resolve the judicial downturn, which everyone agrees that it will not resolve the judicial downturn, is not good governance.

We must not be blind to the developments in the field.

The answer will probably be given next summer.

One cannot deny that there has been a lot of judicial retardation on the ground as snow before the sun has disappeared. That is not the merit of this government. That is not your merit, Mr. Minister, I am sorry. That has to do, among other things, with the fact that after years, after an explosion in the number of files, but no increase in the number of magistrates, the frameworks were significantly expanded from the early 1990s. This has been shown slowly in the field.

Because, for example, the traffic litigation of the courts of appeal was transferred to the police courts, and the divorce litigation and a lot of family litigation are now dealt with by mutual consent, resulting in much fewer appeals, the backwardness at the level of the courts of appeal, excluding Brussels, has been greatly reduced.

In very many peripheral and small arrondissements, the word backwardness theory is no longer present in reality. Should a number of provisions of the Judicial Code be amended to resolve a shortfall that no longer exists on the ground? I am afraid that with this design a lot of meaningless risks are taken regarding the professional responsibility of certain actors, resulting in discussions and again loss of time.

If we amend the Judicial Code, it seems to me appropriate to perform this in a qualitative and careful manner. We discussed the quality of Dutch. The quality of the Dutch-language texts is abominable. For illustration, let me read the new Article 30 of the present draft. The King is empowered to proceed in the provisions of the law in force to adapt the references to the provisions of the law which have been amended by this law or which arise from a modification of this law. The royal decrees taken pursuant to this provision which are not ratified by law on the first day of the eighteenth month following that of publication in the Belgian Official Gazette shall have effect."

In short, colleagues, the law contains a number of errors and there will be a lot forgotten, but with a KB it is quickly resolved again. That is the quality of this legislation. That is what we will approve here in this Chamber today! The Judicial Code!

I have heard nothing about the division of the judicial district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde.

I would like to say to the French-speaking colleagues that I understand the political sensitivities related to the division of the administrative district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde. In addition, there is the judicial district Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde. If legal subordinates would benefit from something, it would be the division of this judicial district, ⁇ the inhabitants of Halle and Vilvoorde. After all, with the division one creates a new, small arrondissement with its peculiarities. Twenty-five years of practice in the field of justice have taught me one thing: small is beautiful.

The small judicial districts – often rural districts, and that explains a lot – work with fewer staff. There is a view on everyone, on every actor of justice, on whether he is functioning or dysfunctioning. It can be redirected very quickly.

As long as this division does not occur, the problem of the judicial district of Brussels, which I am talking about, actually continues.

The [...]

Mr. Muls, I have said that long ago, in the field of justice. I also believe that small can sometimes be beautiful.

Small, not narrow. The [...]

Colleagues, in any case, when parties have made a case possible, wherever they live, in whatever district it is, if we can answer that they have to wait less, then I find it our absolute task and duty to provide that answer.

Anyway, normally every lawyer and every legal actor who is also active in Brussels is absolutely convinced that a split of this judicial district could resolve a part of the downside in the district, much more than the draft presented.

No matter how good the intentions of this design may be, I really wonder what its usefulness and added value could be. I am afraid that long conclusion deadlines may remain. I fear that long deadlines to be able to make a judgment after deliberation could also remain. This is easy to motivate. I fear that we also get a bunch of bureaucracy, where there is no backwardness in various districts. There was and is good practice in many districts. I think that this would not have required amendments to the Judicial Code, a fortiori amendments which all actors know that they cannot actually ⁇ the ambitions they have.

I will begin my speech with two preliminary remarks.

First, I would like to thank our fellow rapporteur who was able to show my active and constructive presence in the committee during parliamentary work. Thank you for pointing out that Mr. Van Parys and I were actually present. I would have liked that Dylan Casaer could see it, but he was unfortunately absent.

Then, Mr. Verherstraeten, when you say, "Small is beautiful," I have to admit that I am a bit upset. You will allow me not to follow your words in this regard, even though I agree with you on all the other points.

Mr. Minister, as colleague Verherstraeten pointed out very well, this project will not solve the problem of judicial backwardness. By the way, you noted it by saying: "This project is a stone to the building, without obviously resolving the whole issue of judicial backwardness." As such, the position of the Supreme Council of Justice sufficiently demonstrates that this reform will not solve the problem in its entirety. I think of the issue of cadres, for example at the Brussels prosecutor's office - where 18 people are present on a frame of 92. I also recall the draft law on expertise, which is still being discussed. It could serve as a tool to remove the judicial backdrop. Finally, your bill also aims to solve this problem.

As the representative of the French-speaking bars properly pointed out during the hearings, it must be admitted that the recovery is not sufficient to fight against judicial backwardness. The moment you get an audience is as important as the process of setting up a file. However, the bill does not contest this finding. The best proof of this is that the time of conclusions will be fixed according to the date of the hearing.

Lawyers will not be asked to conclude on the basis of when the order that sets the time to conclude will be made, but on the basis of the date of the hearing. Imagine that today, a decree from a chamber chairman sets the deadlines to conclude. It does not say that Part A will be completed in a month and Part B in two months. He will fix his hearing, for example, for mid-2008 and ask to conclude two months or three months before the date of this hearing. What will determine the date to conclude is not the speed of exchange of conclusions but the date of the hearing. As long as we have not made sure to bring the dates of the hearing closer, to be able to advocate as early as possible, we will not change anything in the setting up of the case and in the exchange of conclusions.

It should be noted that judicial backwardness does not exist everywhere. This is far from being generalized. If you are introducing a citation today before a provincial trade court, you have pretty quick fixations. I am less aware of the particular situation in Brussels. In front of the peace courts, before the police courts, it is even faster in many places. On the other hand, in some courts of appeal, one is fixed in two years, two and a half years. The fixing of the audience here is much later. We will need to invest money, invest in the framework so that these fixations arrive faster.

However, we can look forward to the positive aspects of this project. The draft refers to elements that we had submitted in the form of legislative proposals. I think in particular of the greatest responsibility of the head of body in the management of the deliberates of his various magistrates. I think of the summary conclusions. I know that not everyone likes them, that they are sometimes challenged. I am a supporter of this; I believe that it makes the life of the magistrate and the lawyer easier and it makes things more readable for the client. Remember that the parties to the trial must be able to read the conclusions and that conclusions referring to previous conclusions which themselves are based on previous conclusions are not necessarily very readable. Sometimes it is healthier to resort to these synthesis conclusions: it is preferable for everyone.

I also think of the greatest interactivity desired at the time of the hearing, the filing of files prior to the date of the hearing so that the magistrates can prepare, so that one can focus on the elements of the file that make the debate, so that the magistrates can pronounce a judgment if he has not signed it himself, to resort more frequently to the procedure schedule: it has its virtues, use it a little more, even among lawyers.

However, two aspects of this project worry me very much.

First, the new mould of Article 747. Should this procedure schedule be used systematically and strictly? Have we not gone too far? Of course, we don’t use it enough now, but from there to impose it every time, it creates a problem for me.

I will illustrate my words. It is possible to derogate from the procedure schedule through Article 735, through brief discussions. This is true, but remember that you must invoke these debates in the quotation, in the introductory act of instance!

This means that if the applicant party has not referred to them in the initiative act of proceedings, even if it realizes at the initiative hearing that the case could be handled by brief debates, the judge will not be able to do other than grant the defendant party the schedule of proceedings if it so requests. Sometimes, simple one-month remissions were used to put the file into order; with this bill, if one of the two parties opposes it, it will no longer be possible to use it if Article 735 was not referred to in the introductive act of instance.

As soon as a party requests the application of the new article 747, § 2, it may obtain the timetable of proceedings. This means compromising certain freedoms that would have allowed the magistrate to resort to another type of recovery that could have been faster. Remember that in some jurisdictions, mainly peacekeeping courts, a return to the role is faster than a one-month discount! It is possible to fix cases very quickly, especially in ⁇ uncomfortable peace courts.

To what I have just mentioned, add the office gap of conclusions. It can happen to all lawyers to be a day late, to have mismanaged a calendar – this has already happened to me. Certainly, the current trend is ⁇ to minimise too systematically the importance of this failure, to put the matter aside, to arrange the deadlines. But, in this case, have we not gone too far in the opposite direction by discarding the conclusions from the office, without the possibility of transacting, of negotiating?

Let us not lose sight of the fact that if the final conclusions are only additional conclusions and not the summary conclusions, they will be the only ones to be taken into account by the magistrate (even if they are only a page) and not the main conclusions filed at the beginning of the case.

Again, the project looks a little too much like a carcass. But, Mrs. Minister, I suppose you have heard my opinion on the summary conclusions: I started by saying that I was in favour of them.

After the closing window, let's look at the "weight of observation sends" window.

(Outside of the Minister’s Speech)

Madame, if you want history to collect your words, you should use the microphone.

Of course yes. I think this is completely compatible.

I was asked if I wanted history to collect my words. I answered that I would be satisfied with Mr. by Wathelet.

You’re too kind: I don’t know if it’s worth much. In any case, we try.

I am indeed in favour of the summary conclusions. Let us not forget that, within the framework of this project, the latest conclusions submitted are the conclusions to be taken into account by the magistrates. I find this situation positive, I think it is good.

Let us not forget, however, that in the framework of this project, if summary conclusions are filed too late, it is the last conclusions filed that will have to be taken into account by the magistrates. If they are only additional, they could create problems.

I have said it often in the commission, do not blame me for not saying it: the trend is good, most elements are positive, but be careful of locking, be careful of a carcass too stiff and too locking.

The second element: the different observations.

This has been much discussed. I am also pleased that an amendment has been submitted to ensure the more contradictory aspect of the exchange of observations, as soon as the parties enter into the framework of a judicial recovery and that they do not use, in the framework of the introductory hearings (Article 729), a referral to the role or a remission. As long as they do not use this system, thanks to an interesting discussion in a committee and an amendment submitted by parliamentarians with a majority – I no longer know if it is unanimous, but we can ask the rapporteur – in this case, this exchange of observations will be contradictory.

Obviously, the danger lies in the fact that, as soon as the state is established, one should not omit to submit its observations. Personally, I would act this way. Dear colleagues, let us therefore prepare to immediately submit observations in order to avoid being caught up by the other party.

Undoubtedly, this procedure will establish itself gradually and become normal and classic in the coming months. This practice will undoubtedly generate additional work to be undertaken which, I hope, will not cost too much to the customer. Per ⁇ even this will be included in the legal protection insurance at 144 euros per year. 12 times 12 is 144. This is a maximum. Hopefully you will get a cheaper cost. Let us hope. And, indeed, a recourse to these observations will systematically take place.

I have raised another element many times in the committee, namely the fact that the parties can no longer, individually, initiate a removal or a removal of the role, although this would have allowed, from time to time, a faster settlement and faster processing of these cases.

Indeed, a statement of postulation of appearance, a remission, a referral to the role (this is the day-to-day of lawyers), is conceivable only if two people request it. Wouldn’t it have been easier to allow the magistrate to assess the whole of the arguments of the different parties? If a party so requests, it can very well meet the refusal of the magistrate. I can even understand that the magistrate tends to use the procedure schedule. So much better! Let us set strict deadlines to observe in order to be sure to advance the processing of the case. Furthermore, we do not deprive ourselves of other measures, other means of reaching the moment of fixation, which are more flexible, or even more timely.

I will come to the last element that I wanted to emphasize in the context of the new Article 747. In the absence of observations, the magistrate will obviously have to set the deadlines for all parties to conclude on the basis of one element: the introductory act of instance. This is the only thing that will be included in the file. Starting from the latter, it will have to set deadlines, times of advocacy, deadlines for exchange of conclusions and fix their number. Is this element not conducive to closing the procedure in very difficult arrangements for magistrates to take?

As far as we are concerned, we had submitted another bill presenting a different mechanism at the level of Article 747 which, in our opinion, allowed to preserve a certain balance by resorting to the framework component – since it must be ensured that everyone has deadlines, respects them and makes sure that the recovery takes place as soon as possible – while allowing the use of all the procedural mechanisms that currently exist in order to advance the case as best as possible.

With regard to the control of magistrates, the conduct adopted is good. We really need to make sure that the magistrates work well and a lot, especially since most of them act optimally. However, is the system chosen here the best? In view of several points, let me doubt!

First of all, I mean as proof the systematic nature of the one-month period to make a judgment. According to some, this deadline is too long or too short, depending on the affairs to be handled.

There is no problem.

I hope that the magistrate, who will have to deal with several major cases, will have no problem if he makes a judgment within a period of more than one month. I think here of the one who has chosen to deal with difficult files and to do so conscientiously.

I would also like to make a few considerations on the obligation to impose the strongest penalty in case of delay.

As I have already said, Mrs. Minister, if I consider it unacceptable that a magistrate does not work, does not make judgments, I find that you go too far when you force the disciplinary power to take the strongest penalty in case of delay. In this way, you risk undermining the independence of this power in its decision-making.

Mr. Wathelet, you make little case of the interest of the citizen to whom a right is denied when the judgment is not delivered in time. I think this is a fundamental right.

Mr. Minister, I try to analyze this text in the most proportionate way possible, trying to highlight its positive and negative points.

You really go too far when you tell me that I deny and that I try to put aside the right of citizens to obtain judgment as quickly as possible. You know, like me, that I have submitted many bills to fight against judicial retardation. I seek all possible means to ensure that the rights of the victim are recognized and that the best visibility for citizens is assured. I support the summary conclusions. I simply try to make sure that the repairs are as fast as possible; to do so, I use all the mechanisms possible. But I fear that, under certain circumstances, the new Article 747 will do worse than better.

I repeat that I am in favor of measures aimed at ensuring that the judges make their decisions as soon as possible.

Mr. Wathelet, you do not like the standard on this subject. You are for synthesis conclusions, while saying that it can have perverse effects, that you need to pay attention to this or that, etc. You want to make a judgment on time. However, if you set a deadline to comply with a penalty, you are issuing restrictions!

When did I say I didn’t want to be punished?

You don’t like the norm. You say you are for and then you define a whole series of possible effects that have as a consequence to deny the usefulness of the standard.

Absolutely not !

You have been holding this speech a long time ago.

I said I was for. The penalty is no problem for me. There is a distinction between the disciplinary sanction and the sanction itself. When a disciplinary sanction is taken against a magistrate, it must be able to take it on the basis of an analysis of his work. In this case, the problem lies in the fact that the penalty is automatic. There is no power of appreciation. As soon as one is faced with a problem of too late delay of judgment, it is the strongest disciplinary sanction that, if necessary, must be taken.

Mr. Wathelet, before there is a disciplinary sanction, what does the text say? What approach does the text provide in relation to the head of the body in dialogue with the magistrate who is late and who has not justified it? This is a positive approach to understanding what happened.

Have you heard me criticize this?

If you want, you can read all the articles.

You are for the principle, but there is nothing to do! All this is part of a logic of dialogue to resolve problems. Punishment comes only if, truly, there is a bad will.

And if there is punishment, it will be the strongest! This is the dialogue!

If there is a real bad will towards the citizen and his interest, then action must be taken. The punishment must be consistent.

The dialogue therefore means that if there is punishment, it will be the strongest!

What you say is not correct!

Does the text not say that if there is a penalty, it will be the strongest one?

Mr. Wathelet, does the text not say that before there is a penalty, and in order to avoid the penalty, there is first the possibility of justifying itself, for example when it is a very important case?

and fortunately!

You will be for the principle, but you should still do nothing!

Why do you say I don’t want to do anything?

At the court, it is everyone’s turn.

If the person is overloaded, there is no problem, there will be no punishment. This is a dialogue between the head of the body and the magistrate to see how the files can be distributed differently. It is only if, without any dialogue, without any justification, magistrates sit on their files in contempt of the citizens, that there will be sanctions.

(Minister Mimi is sitting on a file)

Can the gesture be indicated in the report?

It was a small file.

Citizens, when reading the report, will not have access to the entire dialogue.

I would like to emphasize that there was a ⁇ eloquent gestual demonstration that allowed us to see how to sit on a file. Now I know how to sit down on a file, it is not bad already!

If you want, we can talk about all the things. I tried, in a constructive perspective, to limit my speech to the essential elements. I suppose you have not forgotten that I also highlighted the positive aspects, aspects that I support in their entirety. This is where I started!

The [...]

If you want, I can start again, on the positive sides too!

When you hold on to the negative sides, it annoys you to be a little longer. Finally, since I am accused of not being there enough to negotiate a text or discuss it, when I speak, that I have the chance to be present and that I do not run away from the work of the committee, I take advantage of it to speak and highlight the negative points. And I do so even more because the next speakers will probably talk less about these topics.

Many of them are professionals and lawyers who also know the subject well.

I appreciate that you said, “who know well too.” This makes me very happy, and I take it as a compliment. Thank you very much.

We are both lawyers, Mr. Wathelet.

We can continue the debate on the “sanctions” section for a long time. I emphasized the need for dialogue. Whether for the justiciable or the image of justice, we cannot accept that a magistrate does not work on his files. Everyone agrees on this, but what matters are the intermediate files. And what I am interested in is that the disciplinary component can remain an independent power with sufficient margin of appreciation.

As with Article 747, Madam Minister, you try to make me believe that I am opposed to the very principle. Read our proposals and amendments. What bothered me was that a rollover and rollover can be faster than a procedure schedule. And here, it will not be possible. I was also embarrassed by the absence of the contradictory aspect of the observations. This has been changed in the committee, and I am pleased with it. All these elements would have allowed me to recognize that this text was going in the right direction and in accordance with the principles I defended in committee and the amendments we submitted.

Finally, but you will still accuse me of being against the project in its principle, I notice a delicate problem. The speed with which the magistrate makes judgments will be examined while we still do not have the measure on the workload. That is why I think it is appropriate to move forward in this area. And for body heads and for magistrates, work will be significantly healthier with this ability to quantify the workload.

Per ⁇ some magistrates are afraid of being blamed for not working enough, while they feel like they are working too much or at least investing a lot of energy in their task. They wonder how it will be possible to appreciate their amount of work. We know that it is extremely difficult to assess the workload of a magistrate: one file is not the other, the pieces vary from case to case, as well as the complexity of the file and the exchange of conclusions. In short, no file is comparable to another.

It would be positive to assess the workload.

This would help magistrates and body heads in their work. Mr. Minister, this would secure them because they will be able to assess themselves whether they are liable to punishment, how they can work with their body heads, how they can justify the reasons that drive them to be in advance or late in the management of their files.

Mr. Wathelet, I do not know if the Code provides a deadline in the duration of the pleasures, but you have reached it.

I had not realized it.

I will finish soon otherwise the end of my plea will be unacceptable or discarded by office. As long as Mr. The house is there, I continue. I know he wants to take advantage of my intervention.

This assessment could also remove some unfounded fears. Today, some magistrates may be afraid of being punished, but this will not happen because they will not sit down on their files – you just demonstrated it. This assessment of the workload would allow them to know if their work is satisfactory.

Please do not worry, I find this text overall positive on a whole series of elements. I still have some concerns, mainly on Article 747 and on the evaluation of magistrates. On this last point, I just gave you the reasons that make me think that there might be a problem here.

As for the new 747, I fear it doesn’t change anything, it doesn’t help to speed up repair. Some of the audited people thought like me. I have the honesty to say that others have claimed the opposite. They believe in this measure. For my part, based on my experience and listened hearings, I believe this new article will not change anything. I even think it could have a perverse effect in some cases. It could delay the recovery. Some might benefit from it.

I reiterate the positive aspect of the whole series of measures that I set out at the beginning and my reluctance to the new article 747 and the control of magistrates.

Thank you Master Wathelet.

I would not dare to say, as Mr. Verherstraeten, that there are too many lawyers but we are still well equipped.

You are not obliged to speak for half an hour, Mr. Marinower. You can do it, but you are not obliged.

We all know what your first love was. You know you are very challenging when you tell someone with a job description like mine that he is not obliged to speak long. You know this usually has a perverse effect. It is only so, colleague Wathelet will not blame me for this, that he gave a demonstration of what a synthesis conclusion could contain in which all arguments are contained.

On my part, Mr Muls, I thank you for your report. Regarding colleague Verherstraeten, I would like to say that I too allowed myself to feel, together with colleague Wathelet, addressed when you talked about "small is beautiful". So I took it for myself.

This is an important draft that we are put to the vote today. We will all agree that a lot of work has been done before this. There have been contacts with the field, as it is so beautifully called. Hearing sessions were organised. There has been a long debate about the various articles that this design contains. We have all heard the different names of statements that, as colleague Wathelet said at the end of his intervention, went from one direction to the other.

Furthermore, it was remarkable, and let me begin with that, that after the judicial dialogues at those hearings, the position of, for example, the OBFG was expressed, while – and I referred to it during the debates – it was known that the position of the largest court which forms part of that OBFG is diametrically opposed in some points. I, like colleague Verherstraeten, by the way, have the honor of being part of a bar of an arrondissement where certain systems have been in place for several years and indeed function almost well. The protocols on this between the balls on the one hand and the seat on the other, work for the most part and it is sufficient. It is also an arrondissement where one can at any time, on the site of the Court of Appeal, determine what the plea date is for the different chambers. I have already pointed out to you, Mrs. Minister, much earlier, namely that every legal entity, but also every professional person – lawyers or others – must be allowed to check these dates.

You will remember that from our group it was already said some time ago during a general discussion that one could rely on it, but one should set the conclusion deadlines backwards, starting from the plea date as colleagues Verherstraeten and Wathelet have said.

Indeed, the legal person is not so well served to know whether his lawyer must make the conclusion by that date and the other party by another date. The only thing that interests him or her is to know on what date the plea is being made and that within a predictable time – a month or six weeks after that plea date – there will be a judgment in first instance or an appeal.

That system with regard to the closing deadline will now also come into effect. After all, there were still unacceptable conditions in certain situations and in certain arrondissements. Mrs. Minister, you know that. We talked about it often enough during the discussions. A request is made to address a case, a conclusion deadline is set for one, two or three months, and at the end comes a tailored formula stating that the case is considered capable from a certain moment and that one will be notified when the case can be submitted to a court. These protocols can be used as a model.

The purpose of the draft corresponds to what was envisaged in the government agreement. A new law on the administration of justice, both in civil and criminal proceedings, will be introduced with shorter deadlines for delivering justice. A more active role will be given to the court in relation to the parties and other actors such as experts, after assessing the thresholds for access to appeal. I will return to this immediately. The court will also be able to impose sanctions in the event of delayed and irresponsible proceedings or in the case of misuse of the procedure, which will be new provisions of public order.

I will not return to the purpose of the draft as colleague Muls expressed this in an excellent way in his report.

Mrs. Minister, allow me to make a parenthese concerning the thresholds for access to the appeal. You will remember that this was first mentioned about two years ago when we were visited by the President of the Court of Cassation and the Attorney General of the Court of Cassation. We then held a ⁇ interesting debate with them about the thresholds for appeal.

Unfortunately, we have not really reached that yet. This will at some point have to be addressed in a structural way. Indeed, whatever rules we will determine in this or in another legislature, in this or in another majority, the thresholds to appeal will have to be discussed and addressed at a certain point.

You will undoubtedly remember that this was already mentioned a couple of years ago during the visit of the highest magistrates of this country. At that time, it was already said in the debate that a structural approach could be one of the possible solutions.

There is no guarantee, but it is all right that it would mean for some part a fecal of the problem with which we are faced to this day.

A structural framework should be found to raise this threshold. Look at the discussions we have yet had in the Justice Committee on divorce without fault. From the moment divorce becomes a right and nothing can stop it, we wondered if the appeal still made sense. After a long discussion, the majority of the committee preferred to opt for the appeal. This is a complicated debate. Many hold the double degree of jurisdiction, which I understand, even though this is not a fundamental right. This is why there are thresholds below which there is no double degree of jurisdiction. We should ⁇ find a different balance point than the current one.

I look forward to confirming this today. We all agree, beyond party boundaries, that it is one of the biggest problems we face today. It will ⁇ not be a simple debate. Indeed, the rights of the parties to use their arguments and all sorts of other elements must be taken into account. It is ⁇ one of the problems to which, in any legislature, a lasting solution will have to be offered.

Secondly, there is what has pleasantly sparked the debates in the Justice Committee in recent years and caused sometimes even quite bitter debates, which of course should be, namely the measurement of the workload. I think that I - I try to remember it - can situate the beginning of the debate on this in the fall of 2003, with the report of the well-known "firm" MUNAS, which was also followed.

Indeed, some stakeholders that we heard during the hearing pointed out the difficulty of the assessment before moving to sanctions or to any measure related to the workload measurement.

You recently said that at least certain conclusions could finally be put into effect in the spring. Those data will preferably be available as soon as possible in order to be able to take the correct, the most accurate measures that will be necessary per district or anywhere.

I will give an example of debates concerning the extension of the measure of additional chambers with deputy councillors, which are sometimes held briefly. This is not always obvious. On the one hand, there is a talk about the quality of the judgments on which Deputy Councillors have worked, and who am I to judge them. On the other hand, they remain necessary, while at the same time one sees on the site that the pledge dates shorten. In fact, one may wonder whether they are indeed still necessary.

Research must be addressed once and for all. It should be able to produce results so that the necessary measures can be taken in this regard.

by Mr. Verherstraeten and Mr. Wathelet talked about it: the workload measurement exists for the prosecutor’s office; it was launched before I arrived in the department. This work was facilitated by the very fact that the hierarchical structure of a public prosecutor’s office is completely different: the independence is real and of a different nature, which resulted in an agreement with the actors of the public prosecutor’s office, agreement enabling the process to start. This is not the case for the seat.

This is an additional difficulty. We tried, we discussed, we noticed sometimes different appreciations in the north and south of the country. In the absence of consensus, the work is significantly more complex because we need the actors themselves, we need their time to realize this instrument of measuring their workload. So we asked an academic team to help us design a tool that will allow us to measure the workload in the future.

I think this is one of the elements on which all parties agree. It must be done and its outcomes must also be known, so that the appropriate measures may be taken in this regard.

The draft law does not carry out the full, genuine reform of the civil procedure law. It opts for the modernisation and improvement of existing texts, on the basis of the good practices among the professionals established there. The draft law aims to responsibilise both the parties to the proceedings and the judicial authorities and to generalize various practices developed in certain districts on the ground, at the discretion of everyone.

The purpose of the draft law is to combat judicial lag, although it can be assumed that the lag that already existed, with this draft law will not be removed immediately. However, it will have to avoid new or greater backwardness in the future. This is what this project works for.

The High Council for Justice and the Advisory Council consider the draft a step in the right direction as it translates a number of judicial practices into legal provisions, but it is not a miracle remedy. No miracle remedy has yet been found, but the results of all the reforms must become visible. However, the reform of the procedure must have a great effect and thus in the long run has become a miracle remedy to prevent that backwardness.

Colleague Wathelet, at the beginning and at the end of his presentation, pointed out a number of measures in which we can all find ourselves, I think. We all know – the colleagues of the opposition, of the CD&V, will agree with me – that not a few of the amendments submitted by the majority were also amendments behind which they were able to stand. These amendments have also been discussed and analyzed in part by the organizations of the various bailes, the OVB or the OBFG.

Indeed, the design does not disappear the historical judicial backwardness like snow for the sun, but it does not help to build new backwardnesses. This also falls under the denominator of combating judicial backwardness. A number of measures for this purpose will come into effect immediately.

The hearings have provided clarity in many of these areas. I have already said. In particular, the comments of the OVB were taken into account. Collega Verherstraeten has read some of the introductions of certain opinions, but there are other sections in those opinions. We should not try to catch flies with each other.

I will summarize, given the advanced hour. I know that a number of colleagues still need to speak. I hear a squeeze of enlightenment behind me, Mr. Speaker, because I am about to finish.

I don't know if you've already made a certain gesture behind me.

The [...]

No to? Some of my group colleagues indicate that you would have done so.

In conclusion, we will approve this draft with great confidence, Mr. Minister, taking into account the comments we have made and the commitment you have made in this regard.

It has an effect!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, it has been repeated enough in this tribune: the problem of judicial backwardness is not new and this situation affects in the first point the justifiable. This is obviously quite unacceptable in a democratic state, whose one of the main functions is precisely to ensure the public service of justice. However, too long deadlines for obtaining a judgment or a judgment, in short a judicial decision, end up creating in the justiciable the feeling that this service of justice is no longer secured. The citizen feels truly deprived of the possibility of being recognized for his rights.

The project that is submitted to us will allow us to fight against the judicial backwardness that we currently know, because making sure that there is less judicial backwardness tomorrow is precisely fighting against the judicial backwardness today, even though, obviously, this project is not a remedy that will eliminate the entire judicial backwardness from a magic spark! The problem is much more important.

Fighting judicial backwardness involves a mobilization of all actors: lawyers, magistrates, including women and politicians who we are. The fight against judicial backwardness imposes innovative and plural solutions that, sometimes, can make teeth scratch or cause doubts. Since the beginning of this legislature, many works have already been started in this sense, so I will not return to the human and material resources that have already been allocated in recent years or to the protocols of agreements that the minister passed with certain jurisdictions. These are measures taken among so many others to just fight against this plague that has undermined our justice for so many years.

Today, the project we are discussing aims to, we have recalled, and the excellent report of our colleague Mr. Muls also mentioned this, to adapt the rules of civil procedure in order to ensure a recovery as quickly as possible, by providing a procedure schedule while preserving a quality work by the lawyers and the judge. This is the purpose of this project.

Instead of making a table rash of the past, the project proposes to modernize and improve existing mechanisms that allow to accelerate the updating of a case and obtain a date to advocate. This reform was thus carried out on the basis of existing texts and good practices which were able to be recognised by practitioners.

To repeat the words of my colleague André Perpète, this reform constitutes a real revolution for the justiciable. It will enable us to answer a very simple and obvious summary question for any person who, at some point, must go to court: when will we get an answer to our request?

Rapid fixing of judicial schedules will answer this fundamental question and raise a lot of uncertainty, even though this new rule will change many of the working and time management habits of magistrates and lawyers.

The more active role entrusted by the project to the judge is also a small revolution. Not so long ago, there were many magistrates and lawyers — and obviously there are even among us — who considered that the civil matters were the reserved domain of the parties and that, if a civil trial lasted, it was because they wanted it. It was considered that it was not up to the judge to interfere with it, the latter had to wait for the file to be in good condition and fixed before taking care of it.

The proactive role entrusted to the judge will require a better knowledge of the files and this, before the plea hearing. Lawyers will no longer be able to merely appear at the hearing to read the conclusions. The judge, having previously known the case better, may raise, during the hearing, various points and engage in a discussion.

If knowing the date of the plea hearing is a very important thing, it is obvious that the deliberate deadline must then be respected. Indeed, it makes little sense to know a date of hearing if the judgment can then be delivered within random deadlines. In this sense, it is positive that the bill sets a requirement of respecting the deliberate deadlines while providing for some flexibility and possibilities of derogation in certain cases.

Another point that should be highlighted: the provision consisting in sanctioning abuse of procedure by a civil fine inflicted, if necessary, on its own by the judge. Such a punishment will – we can hope – have a deterrent effect. In fact, abuse of procedures distorts the course of the procedure and disrupts the functioning of the public service of Justice by wrongfully mobilising resources that could be used elsewhere.

The logical corollary of the provision providing for a penalty for abuse of procedure by the parties is the disciplinary penalty that could be imposed on the judge who, repeatedly, would not respect the deadline for the decision of the deliberate.

Finally, I would like to say a few words about the motivation of judgments.

Contrary to the opinion of some, we do not advocate for positive motivation of judgments. While such a measure may have effects on judicial delay, it also affects the fundamental concept of the right of defence and the very content of the constitutional obligation to motivate judgments. In this regard, the rights of the prosecutors should not be diminished under the pretext of combating judicial delay. It is not enough for the justiciable to know the outcome of a judgment. Every justiciable has the right to know why in fact and in right of this judgment.

I am not a lawyer, but I am a lawyer. Therefore, I tend to put myself in the place of the justiciable when examining this type of project in the Justice Committee.

I think that the project does not have the ambition to resolve the entire judicial backdrop and so much better if, as I have heard, some districts or courts do not know the judicial backdrop. On the other hand, giving the citizen the opportunity to know the deadline within which his case will be handled is, I think, the least of the things to do to respect that citizen and have a justice respecting the latter. In other words, justice is for the citizen.

And when I hear speakers talk about tactics to exploit the shortcomings of the procedure that the project puts in place, to try to use the weakness to extend the time of repair, I wonder about the state of mind that presides over our work. The role of the lawyer is to defend the justiciable and not to find the weaknesses of the system in order to extend the proceedings.

The [...]

This is definitely not a sense of a lawyer! I would like to remind you of the words I have spoken at this conference.

by Mr. Wathelet did not fully express himself. He has the word.

Mr. President, I wanted to tell Mrs. Deom that it was not a job to be a lawyer either! It is not because one is a lawyer that one knows better the procedures of others, that one knows better the life of a justiciable than any justiciable. But it is also not because one is a lawyer that one is significantly less good, that one knows less well the life of a justiciable and the way in which he is confronted with judgments and procedures.

The reading of procedural articles naturally results in an analysis, in order to detect the flaws and make sure that they are drafted as best as possible, in order to their best possible application. This was the objective of Ms. Minister in drafting the article she proposes today, article 747 new §2. It is the duty of every member of parliament to go through it in order to improve it.

Madame Deom, despite our proposals and all the shortcomings identified in the course of the discussions, you have sometimes been convinced by our arguments! Remember the exchange we had on the contradictory or non-contradictory part of the observations! In fact, some people emphasized that it would not necessarily be contradictory. It was so well underlined that it was changed!

We have changed it!

You will see that we are not deaf either.

Also, you will understand that searching for the little beast has no other purpose than to improve the text and make the work as constructive as possible!

Mr. Wathelet, I am intimately convinced that perfection is not of this world and that we are only trying to tend to it. This is the objective of this project.

In conclusion, you will have understood that it is with conviction and because we consider this project as a real advance for the justifiable citizen, that my group will vote in favour of the text that is submitted to us.

Mr. Speaker, I can only enumerate three peculiarities related to the bill.

It is, first of all, a not unmerited attempt to do something about the judicial backwardness. When we say the judicial delay, we must, of course, immediately specify. After all, the first peculiarity lies in the fact that the existing judicial downturn is not addressed. No, it is a future arrangement to avoid additional judicial delays. Therefore, it does not apply to the backwardness already encountered.

A second peculiarity that I was able to identify in the committee is the destructive criticism this time of the Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones de Belgique, the OBFG. The criticism therefore does not come this time from the Order of Flemish Balies, which looks a little more nuanced against the bill. All in all, we must once again establish a significant mentality difference and a legal cultural gap between the Flemish and French-speaking parts of the country.

I can find myself in the method of the draft law. It involves adapting a number of articles of the Judicial Code, giving the judge a more active role and providing more legal certainty for the parties, which is positive. This is ⁇ a fact. In itself, we do not have any problems.

Finally, there is another third peculiarity. I think it was the merit of Mr Van Parys, who cited the point in the committee. It is about the fact that no real, streamlined procedure of legislative work or no real, global vision of the approach to civil procedure law in general has been developed. That is strange. The Dutch are obviously doing better. It is very difficult to set a line in the whole of successive measures taken by purple to reform the judiciary. We can talk about a hatstick style.

In addition, the bill comes quite late. This has been discussed since the beginning of the legislature. Verhofstadt also recorded it in its ten workshops. Finally, it must be said that the design comes quite late.

For example, we have already pointed out during the committee meetings that the government has worked with the deputy magistrates with lap resources. It is not a really decent arrangement. Vacancies remain unfilled, which is the first thing the government should have addressed. The procedure for experts was left to Parliament. Finally, we are pleased that the procedure concerning the experts can be arranged by our Assembly.

You notice that it is not really a set of logical, aligned measures.

We are also waiting for an arrangement for translators and interpreters. Per ⁇ it can be achieved in the current legislature.

Given the late hour, I will not go into all the technical details.

At the end of the day, this design had to come. As I have heard from another opposition member before, everything has to be done at the last moment. There are still a lot of projects to be pursued for which so much time has been spent in the last four years. Later we will discover the shortcomings because at the very last moment, much too quickly, many things were wanted to be realized. This gives layers and layers and little consistent legislation.

For all these reasons, the Flemish Interest is not too enthusiastic about this legislation and my group will abstain at the vote.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the struggle against the existing judicial backwardness and the development of means to avoid the accentuation of this backwardness have always been priorities for this government and for the Reform Movement in particular. We have always defended a holistic vision of the solutions to be implemented.

Measures aimed at combating judicial backwardness must be articulated in a coherent plan, in our opinion, acting at multiple levels and on the whole of the causes, without seeing the creation of strangling gaps and simply moving the problems.

We also consider that a particular effort must be made for the judicial district of Brussels and not only because of the linguistic peculiarities of that district. In our view, a real emergency plan should be developed and articulated in particular around the following elements. If I speak of a plan that "should" be drafted, it is that this plan consistency is still not updated and still does not exist in the current project.

What was this plan, in our opinion?

First, establish a correct definition and analysis of the situation in matters of judicial delay and workload. In this area, statistics do not fully help us.

Second, comply with the minimum requirement to fill the cadres of magistrates. We know that in particular Brussels has problems.

Third, carry out a genuine human resource policy in this sector, which involves mobility, specialization and training.

Fourth, provide real logistical support to corps heads and ensure a consistent computerization of the judiciary. We are talking about the famous Phenix project.

Fifth, modernize the organization and management of audiences by promoting an active role of the judge and by reflecting on improving the establishment of causes. This is what we will look at in the project.

Sixth, consider reforms of the judicial procedure while ensuring a balance between the interests of the various actors – parties, lawyers, magistrates – of the judicial world. This is part of the goal of this ambitious project.

And this project, which is now subject to our examination, has the merit of addressing some essential themes that I have just pointed out: the establishment of the causes, in particular the delay and sometimes very long deadlines within which the said causes are fixed, but also - lastly and more accessorily - the abuses and dilatory manoeuvres of the parties in order to delay the procedure.

The answer given in the text is divided into several sections. I would describe the first as “a set of small procedural simplifications” in reference to “small crimes between friends,” and I will explain it later. The second concerns the establishment of the proper causes. The third is dedicated to the responsibility of the various actors: parties, lawyers, magistrates.

We therefore welcome small procedural simplifications such as the possibility of requesting a measure before declaring right to any stage of the procedure on simple written request, or even the effectiveness as regards the prescription of the action of procedural acts null because introduced in an inadequate form – that is, a petition instead of a citation. Let us also mention the introduction of the principle of conclusion of synthesis, which already existed and which advocates use daily, but which is now incorporated in a law text; as well as the widespread possibility for the judge to resort to interactive debates. It is about giving a more active role to the magistrate, who will be able to focus on certain issues he considers relevant and thus organize a focused debate. I would like to say, Mrs. Minister, that in some cases proactive magistrates naturally resort to this type of debate and question the parties while making them interact in a real dialogue.

The proposal aims to replace the optional system of request for fixing a timetable of plea by the parties with an automatic and binding fixing mechanism, decided by the magistrate from the introduction of the request. This is to allow the parties to be fixed in advance the different deadlines of the procedure. It should be noted, in this context, that the parties can always agree to return the case to the role or request a fixed deadline, which may be in the interest of both plaintiffs and in the interest of the case that may require this type of decision. However, in the absence of a positive approach on the part of the plaintiffs or in the event of neglect on the part of the plaintiffs, the timetable of the conclusions and plaintiffs will be set backwards. It will therefore be a retro-calendar, the reference point of which will be the first date of free hearing for pleasures. This will vary by jurisdiction, but will only have a real impact on the resolution of judicial delay if the jurisdiction is not too crowded. If I take the example of Brussels, it is certain that its jurisdiction is very crowded. The exchange of conclusions is agreed upon by consensus. After this exchange, the parties are notified that a pledge date will be communicated to them three months before there is a free hearing to pledge.

This is unacceptable in Brussels.

Indeed, the calendar which is extended to the valid date and not the valid date which is fixed on the basis of the time actually necessary for the parties to bring the case into effect constitutes a problem.

You also acknowledge that this solution will not settle the existing rear but is rather intended to avoid the creation of a new rear so, in some way, to cut off the bleeding. At this stage and even though the text provides a response to some uncertainties existing in practice, establishing in particular the mandatory distance of conclusions and late parts as well as the possibility of advocating after the distance of said conclusions, I want to say that the project is good but "can better do".

I am still on my hunger – F.A.I.M. Some of the answers are not given to the questions that are ours. As I said, the Reform Movement has always believed that the resorption of judicial backwardness comes first and foremost through a network of measures acting both on the judicial structures and on the civil procedure. But a specific response must also be given to the situation of the Brussels courts – I said it just recently – which is also at the origin of a historic and capital judgment – without a game of words – of the Court of Cassation, concluding the responsibility of the legislative power that has not made the courts able to make a decision in compliance with the reasonable time.

We therefore regret that we were unable, on the occasion of this debate, which had as its ambition the fight against judicial delay, to explore other measures that could also have brought a stone to the building.

In particular, we suggested reforming the procedure for recovery of uncontested claims by allowing the obtaining of an enforceable title without a priori contradictory debate. The debate would have been held only if there was a dispute by the debtor. This solution had the merit of disengaging the courts from cases that call only concise debates and which call no dispute in this case. You considered that the discussion could only be conducted as part of a project currently under study. We agreed, and I agree with you.

We thought, however, that both texts pursued the same goal, that is, to fight against judicial backwardness.

Regarding the accountability of judicial actors in the trial, it is also regrettable that the emphasis is placed on punishment—the punishment of magistrates who accuse an abnormal delay in delivering their judgment—rather than on prevention. Indeed, we find it inappropriate to lay down a general mechanism based on the abusive behavior that some in the judicial world would have. This is to make little case of the majority of other judges who properly perform their functions.

If they delay in making a judgment, it is by concern to make the most appropriate and most appropriate decision to the difficulty of the cause, and not by bad will or laziness.

The control that accompanies the sanctions mechanism that you put in place will, I think, constitute an additional constraint that will aggravate the task of the magistrate and therefore result in an additional delay.

Furthermore, the link established between this control and a possible disciplinary procedure seems to us to infringe the rights of defence of the person who would be the subject of such proceedings. Indeed, it is not conceivable that elements gathered in the informal framework of the singular caucus between the magistrat who seems to be delayed in delivering his judgments and his head of body, may one day serve as part of a disciplinary file.

Furthermore, I do not see the added value that can be achieved by adding a system of civil fines to the possibility of obtaining damages and interests, as is already possible at present, for timid and vexatory proceedings.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, even though the project does not constitute a comprehensive plan for combating judicial backwardness – which would have been our wish – it nevertheless has the merit of advancing solutions on certain problem issues. That is why we will support it. However, we will see and we will be very vigilant, if the practical effectiveness of the latest measures put in place will be demonstrated in terms of real resorption of judicial backwardness.

Mr. Speaker, when I heard the first speakers thereafter, who argued that this bill will not resolve the judicial downturn, I thought I had read wrong. I once looked at the two large plasma screens, on which the title appears. Well, I have not read anywhere that this bill would have the pretense to resolve the judicial downturn, but to fight the judicial downturn. Supposing that the Minister of Justice would have found the solution to resolve the judicial downturn, we may wonder why we did not find that solution earlier or why all the predecessors of the Minister of Justice or all our predecessors in Parliament had not found that solution earlier. Therefore, it is not about the solution, but the bill has at least the pretense to fight the judicial backwardness.

The [...]

The [...]

Colleague Verherstraeten, the discussion about the judicial downturn is indeed not a recent discussion. I have already referred to a mercurial of the late 19th century during the committee discussion, which then expressed all the fear of judicial backwardness and asked how it could be resolved. So that problem is not of the youngest fifteen or eight years, no matter how much you would like to have it. This is already an old given.

It is not because it is an old given that we should regard the judicial retardation as a normal given, merely as something that has always been there and that we must accept.

I have always been active in Brussels. I have, as the speakers said during the hearings, always found it very special that the Court of Appeal imposes final deadlines, but indicates that the date of the plea will be communicated later and that one should not be afraid because that one will get it. This does not only happen in the Court of Appeal, because the Court of First Instance is already doing so. Whoever asks for a pledge date receives the answer that one is registered on the role. When the pledge date approaches, one receives a message. The police court in Brussels does it even better: one asks for a plea date and one sends rappels, but receives nothing, unless two years later a message announcing that one can come to plead within six months. This is indeed not a normal given. With regard to the legal subordinate, this is all but respectful. In addition, it gives the right-wing people little confidence in justice.

Collega Verherstraeten said it already: “small is beautiful”; thank you, I am also only 1.69 m tall. The data about Brussels are data that we also see in other departments.

It may not be the same way of working but in other jurisdictions, wherever I sometimes come, there is also a judicial retard. I have given an example in the committee. There has been another extension to this story. It is a judicial district where one can advocate in the short term and where the magistrate takes a case into consideration and just less than six months wait to deliver a judgment. He then pronounces an interim hearing in which he considers that an element is missing in the documents, after which he pronounces a reopening of the debates and decides that one may return four months later. We have been on for ten months now. If you go there and have to wait another four months for a judgment, it will take fourteen months. However, a pledge date was quickly obtained. Is this situation better than a situation in which the parties have to wait a long time for a plea date but receive the judgment or judgment within three or four weeks thereafter? I think both situations are unacceptable and that both, hopefully, can be corrected by the bill. There is indeed a limitation of the judicial lag.

The discussion during the hearing gave me an impression of déjà vu. On 3 August 1992 – the speakers are you familiar with – a law was passed in Parliament reforming the famous article 751, at that time the only Bohemian for lawyers. There was then an article 747, an article that would make the bargain for lawyers impossible. Imagine, then, several deadlines were imposed which one had to remember and which one could not forget to write down. If one forgot that deadline, one could forget it. There was a professional liability trial. Who else would like to work in such a stall, except those who were the system of the Council of State, where deadlines had long been fixed, and where once the deadline expired, the calf had drowned and is still? A colloquium was then organized at the KUB in Brussels. There came Attorney General Krings, who was the father of that reform, to explain how it was. He was very proud of the introduction of a calendar to be followed and allowing the right-wing to finally see within what time a judgment on his case would come. On the other hand, a fellow general professor of Professor Krings, as a lawyer, came there to say that the new arrangement would never work, that it could not work, that it was poorly written, that there would be a discussion about depositing, submitting and sending, and that one should send his decisions registered. Thus, the steel would become unsustainable.

What then formed the problem was the fear of cold water. We were set in the system we knew, we were afraid of change because we didn’t know what that change would cause, we were unsure and eventually we found that the system worked.

I have a bit of the impression that we now get that cold water fear with the magistrates. We have had an animated discussion in the committee between, on the one hand, a representative of the High Council for Justice and, on the other hand, a representative of the Advisory Council for the Magistrates. One was of the opinion that the Corps Chiefs have the tools to remedy and act against magistrates who do not act quickly and do not issue a judgment in time. The counter-reaction was that only in few cases the commander of the corps acts. In what cases can one effectively expect that a corpse commander in a small corpse – small is beautiful – will act in relation to colleagues with whom he must share his daily life.

In that sense, this draft facilitates the work of a corps commander to act against magistrates who do not work properly. Are they there? There are proportionally as many as there are lawyers who do not work well. I admit that it is with the wet finger but I assume that 95% or even 99% works well. It is, of course, a pity that for those 1 or those 5%, which do not work correctly, we must write down sanctions and provide for measures. During the hearing, the representative of the High Council for Justice said that in 15 years hopefully it will show that these measures are no longer needed. However, as long as no mentality change is forced, we will remain with this problem.

Colleagues, apart from all these discussions on this bill, which hopefully will effectively combat the judicial downturn, I would like to conclude with a small comment. There is the data of the establishment which can take up a lot of time at this moment. We have not yet talked about the disputes. With spirit, we ask this Parliament to reconsider the discussions on the question of the jurisdiction of a court. Is this court competent? Is a case before this court correct or should it not be referred to another court? Colleagues, we ask you to consider a single court in the future, where all disputes would be settled and in which both the dispute of jurisdiction and the substance of the case will be settled in the short term.