Proposition 51K2922

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire, notamment les dispositions relatives au personnel judiciaire de niveau A, aux greffiers et aux secrétaires ainsi que les dispositions relatives à l'organisation judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Dec. 23, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

March 29, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, in the same order of ideas as the bill concerning the repeatability of lawyer fees, this matter has already been the subject of many discussions in the Senate and Chamber. We had an interesting discussion with the Minister.

Usually it is so with me.

Did I say anything else? I said nothing else. I’m not going to say that this happens every time, but when it happens, we also emphasize it! You must be able to say it!

There has been some controversy regarding the status of secretaries, mainly regarding the career prospects of some secretaries and the recognition of their level A. We would probably have preferred that the trade union status be granted first and then, on the basis of this trade union status, there would be discussion to refine all the statutes. This was not the path chosen although, overall, there was a general agreement on this project.

As part of the career prospects of the secretaries, the minister has accepted a number of textual improvements that usually go in the right direction. However, there remains one difficulty: the recognition or non-recognition of the level A of the status of secretary. The minister decided to leave it at level B. We would have preferred to put him at level A, given the training, responsibilities and mainly the function performed.

On the other hand, some career prospects exist. Everyone will benefit from a revaluation of the salary level. One can simply regret this small failure in terms of prospects in all cases.

The second part I would like to mention concerns lawyers. To be a lawyer, you must be a lawyer. Legal officers will be of level B and not of level A. They will not become secretaries by "internal" promotions or by an evolution of internal function but will be directly secretaries by their status of lawyer.

For the latter, the argument of training mentioned by the minister is ⁇ less important. This is the most problematic part of this project. However, I would like to recall – as I said in the committee – that this project is overall positive. As part of the evaluation of this law and the different functions that will take place, we want to give a positive and strong signal that in the end this text is perfect. Such a reform will ⁇ at some point require a number of adjustments and improvements that cannot be directly foreseen.

It is therefore in order to emphasize this constructive and overall positive aspect of the whole reform that we will support this text, even though we maintain certain reservations.

I now give the floor to Ms. Marghem, always as part of the general discussion.

We will thus begin the evening session with the Bill on Consumer Agreements, No. 2940/1.

Mr. Speaker, these projects concern a set of judicial professions that thus see their status finally established by law. This in itself is a positive step forward. Nevertheless, while appreciating the aim sought, one can regret the method. You are beginning to get used to it: the MR group wanted, in several titles, a reflection of pure logic. Unfortunately, this could not take place. That is why we must ask ourselves about the chronology that has been applied in this file.

In particular, it appeared more consistent in the present case to prioritize the issue of judicial professions not subject to the trade union status of the 1974 Act. Thus, it was within the framework of an officially established representation of staff that the provisions relating to the functional status of the occupations concerned could have been negotiated. In a way, we have placed the chariot before the oxen, if you pass me this expression a little "primesautier"! In any case, the establishment of this trade union status in favour of these professions is quite commendable, although we would have preferred a more adjusted schedule.

More fundamentally, the challenge of the project reforming the A-level status of judicial professions is to draw a status from existing professions, with their traditions and experiences, responsibilities and roles entrusted to them. From this living material, if I can express myself thus, a pre-defined pattern must be established. As we discussed in the committee, two approaches could be envisaged for this purpose.

The first consisted in the abstract creation of a theoretical function on paper to be applied to persons existing in the frame, even to deny what goes beyond; in other words, to cause some collateral damage. This is the starting point you mentioned. If one can understand the intellectual approach, it is difficult to account through a general canvas of the particularities of field situations.

It would have been better to use a less harmful method. Indeed, adopting the opposite reasoning and uncovering a general profile of the set of particular human experiences would have been, by far, desirable. In this case, it would be important to create an adjustable status taking into account the diversity of the starting assumptions. I think in particular of the secretaries or secretaries of prosecutors dismissed in law; we have repeatedly recalled this in the committee. In fact, by this project, which classifies them in level B, you mislead their legitimate career expectations that they could claim, given their degree at the time of their entry into office. To enter voluntarily, and with knowledge of the cause, in a profession - by taste or by necessity - which is lower than the required degree, falls within the personal responsibility of each. On the other hand, investing in good faith in a career where one believes to be able to value his university degree and, more ⁇ , that of a graduate in law, to discover later that this valorization is impossible, remains unfortunately to regret. In this regard, a very precise transitional measure alongside those that have already been adopted – which I welcome – would have been legitimate.

Finally, I will conclude with a more general comment on the handling of cases before Parliament. You will remember, a few months ago, we discussed another bill aiming at the status of judicial staff from levels B to D. Our group was then concerned about the fate of the field prosecutors and secretaries and relieved their fears that this project would have direct or indirect consequences on their profession.

At the time, we had relayed to you in commission these concerns of the field, which constitutes one of the foundations of our task as elected: seeking to calm our citizens by giving them answers, playing the interface between society and parliament. You had then answered us very laconically that this text was not aimed at the secretaries, without further debate. It is important to note today that our remarks were indeed relevant. Indeed, we realize today that when we adopted this text on the levels B to D, we then cut the costume of which we dress today the field graffiti, without taking the measures, to continue in the dressing metaphor. It would seem like a sketch by Fernand Raynaud: you don’t understand how one made such a beautiful costume on a man so badly fooled!

The approved text will therefore apply to professions, secretary and secretary, placed at level B, which have not been consulted and which we could not discuss at the time of establishing the status of level B. Isn’t this a serious lack of democracy or almost a denial of democracy compared to a legitimate demand for land, which we have repeatedly relayed?

However, if we denounce these fundamental aspects of principles, we also know the practical importance of adopting these texts for the targeted professions and that is why we will support them.

Nevertheless, I would like to conclude with regret the way this case was handled and presented to us. Our disappointment over the lack of real debate is not new and we have repeatedly highlighted it in committees. I think it is always useful, I have said it several times...

The [...]

We debated, but last year we evaluated the situation of B and D level prosecutors and prosecutors and we had said that we wanted to link the two discussions because we had the impression that if we made a decision ahead of what we are taking today, we would train, with some collateral damage, some legal dismissed prosecutors into a status that is not a proper career development for them. I have said it many times.

It’s not new and it sometimes seems important to listen to field complaints and consider self-criticism and evaluation of our work.

We will soon, you know, receive the bulletin of our actions through the way of voters and sometimes it is important to know how to hear the ground.

He said, “Electoral Proposals!”

Yes, but not in the commission and not a year ago!

But right here!

But right here!

I have heard nothing!