Proposition 52K0813

Proposition de décision. Prorogation de la durée de fonctionnement des chambres supplémentaires des cours d'appel.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Clotilde Nyssens
Open Vld Martine Taelman

Submission date

Feb. 13, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

backlog of court cases judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Jean-Jacques Flahaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Olivier Hamal (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Feb. 14, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, during a joint meeting and in the presence of the Minister of Justice, the Justice Committees of the Chamber and the Senate met to discuss the extension of the duration of operation of the additional chambers of the courts of appeal. From the beginning, the minister expressed his mixed feelings about whether or not to extend these additional chambers that aim to resolve the judicial backdrop in each jurisdiction of the courts of appeal.

It happens that it is by a law of 1997 which was provided as temporary that the courts of appeal received additional means, i.e. judges who came to assist the professional magistrates, in an attempt to resolve the back. It has been a long time since the Parliament renewed these additional chambers. The Minister, after considering this well, asks to extend this system for another two years. This extension is studied on the basis of a report from each Court of Appeal, a numbered report on the status of judicial retardation in each jurisdiction.

It happens that when reading these reports, we find that some courts of appeal want the renewal of the measure and others do not want it. There is judicial retardation in some courts of appeal, not in others. Situations are very unequal. Some appeal courses presented voluminous, comprehensive and interesting reports, others presented brief reports, of a few lines, of a few pages. Relationships, like situations, are very unequal.

The Minister proposes to renew this measure for two new years given that some courts still experience a significant delay and that the notion of delay in the sense understood by the Judicial Code is still present in all courts of appeal, even though some presidents consider that there is no longer delay in the common sense of the term.

There would be as many arguments against the extension of this measure as there would be arguments in its favor. Given that the government is provisional, that the backback remains heavy in some courses and that this tool is interesting and contributes to the resorption of the backback, the minister proposes to extend this measure for another two years, while not denying the difficulties.

It is difficult to find counselors who come to help professional magistrates to take care of this backward; it is difficult to motivate those people who come to work almost voluntarily to help professional magistrates, and it is difficult to organize complementary rooms. Here is the negative part. Positively, let us note that these magistrates who come to help professional magistrates enjoy a still very useful experience and expertise.

Of course, in the committee, there was a discussion on the structural measures to be taken to resolve the backwardness in the courts of appeal, where there is a backwardness. The Minister explains his plans. Its main idea is, in the very short term, to find a tool, a measure of the workload by court of appeal, by jurisdiction, by magistrat to evaluate more before the volume of the back.

The Minister is involved. Indeed, on the basis of studies entrusted to universities – Louvain and Liège – we will soon have a tool of workload by appeal court. In addition, the Minister intends to entrust a body within each appeal court, to magistrates, the management of this measure of the workload.

Here is a summary of the Minister’s remarks.

Everyone in the committee has taken a position. Some find it obvious that it was appropriate to extend this exceptional measure, even if it was planned on a temporary basis; others consider that some courts of appeal no longer “merit” to have this tool since they had provided reports too small, and even insufficient, to say more directly. And other courts of appeal themselves said they no longer have backbone and therefore no longer need this tool.

There was then a discussion about whether a measure could still be extended to help the courts of appeal that no longer needed this tool. Finally, the committee voted with nine votes in favour and three abstentions in favour of the extension of this tool to resolve the judicial delay in the courts of appeal.

Here is the summary of the discussion. This measure will remain valid for two years. By then, I believe that the tool will no longer be used.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I thank Mrs. Nyssens for her objective and very comprehensive report on the work in the Joint Committee of the Chamber and Senate.

The fight against judicial backwardness is a very important point, also for the government and for the interim government. That lag, including in the courts of appeal, was and is serious. The struggle to overcome the judicial downturn will have to be fought for a while.

The proposal presented today is one measure to address it; it is not the measure that will solve the problem, but one of the measures that will need to be taken.

Today, with the measure we take, we must follow a number of rules of the game. These rules are also laid down in the Judicial Code. Ms. Nyssens has already mentioned this. The various courts of appeal submitted a report on their activities. Finally, that was the intention; it must be done. Ms. Nyssens has already said it: a number of courts have done well, with extensive tables to show how they have used the additional rooms, how they have reduced the workload, how they have reduced the backwardness, with concrete figures.

Others have been lacking. Ms. Nyssens spoke of a summary report. Well, it was very summary, sometimes just a note.

That is just the problem now. The law is very clear: there must be a work report. However, two courts of appeal did not find it difficult to submit a performance report.

I think that we, as members of the House who must now decide on the extension of that measure, cannot accept that. For this reason, colleagues, we have abstained from voting in the committee meeting and we will also now abstain from giving a clear signal. That signal means that when we make such a decision in such an important matter, we need to get a correct and complete file. That file should not come from the legislative or executive power, but from the presidents of the courts of appeal.

Colleagues, Mr. Minister, do not misunderstand us: we support all measures to address the judicial downturn. I think we can handle a lot of files. There has already been reference to the workload measurement, which is ⁇ an important file to work on.

But we also think of the recent legislation adopted in the previous legislature to eliminate the judicial downturn, which has just as a consequence that the judicial downturn is expanding in practice. I think that we also urgently need to evaluate those measures to see how we can address them in the most efficient way.

Structural measures are therefore necessary and for this you can rely on us 100%.

However, a half-dossier such as what is presented here today is unacceptable and a jaw blow for the Chamber, which must decide on this today. That is the reason for our abstinence.