Proposition 52K0815

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne la procédure relative aux litiges en matière de louage.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Mia De Schamphelaere, Katrien Schryvers, Raf Terwingen

Submission date

Feb. 13, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure lease

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Martine De Maght (LDD) abstained from voting.
• Dalila Douifi (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
• Dirk Van der Maelen (Vooruit) 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 ¶

April 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

After a discussion with my group, and with the experience of 23 April 1997, I have decided to refer to my written report. (Applause of Applause)

Before the general discussion, after this strange report, I have Mr. Giet as the first speaker.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, compared to the text proposed to us, as regards the PS group, conciliation is undoubtedly the best way to close a dispute between the tenant and the tenant, and of course any other dispute. I speak of conciliation but also of mediation and I believe that in this Chamber, we have all made a lot of effort to facilitate the use of conciliation or mediation, which is not quite the same thing.

The fact of forcing the peace judge to attempt a conciliation in rental matters was a good measure and this must, in our opinion, continue.

The object of the bills was probably to think about better meeting the objectives pursued in the context of compulsory conciliation before the peace judge. I am convinced that the current system, if it is good in its principle, has the main defect of prolonging the procedure, which, ultimately, and contrary to what some might think, is detrimental to the parties but ⁇ and above all to the tenant himself since it is, most of the time, the party that is in a position of weakness in this kind of cases.

I find that the proposed text ⁇ ins, on the one hand, the obligation of attempting conciliation by the peace judge, nearby judge by excellence, and, on the other hand, avoids the passage of a too long period before the settlement of the dispute, length which is detrimental to all, as I said.

We will vote on this bill. However, efforts can still be made to improve the overall information of the prosecutors, the access to justice for all, whether in terms of judicial language – long-talked – whether in terms of information provided to future prosecutors when they receive their call to court. Moreover, texts of legislative proposals that go in this direction circulate in this Parliament. It is indeed necessary to go further in this matter with the support – I do not doubt for a moment – of a majority of this House and the Minister of Justice in particular.

We invite you to continue our efforts. In any case, I can already tell you that by voting on the proposal subject to your approval, you will do useful work even if prima facie one could doubt it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, according to the most recent, socio-economic survey of 2001, our country has 30.5% tenants. So the vast majority of the houses in our country are inhabited by owners, which we can only be pleased with. After all, ownership of a home is a factor of personal development and also allows a strengthening of social cohesion. A home is also an important pillar of retirement. Owners do not have to make any expenses for renting a home. They can use the saved resources for their subsistence. In other words, a private home contributes to survival security and is often the best savings plan for the future.

Access to property for as many people as possible should therefore remain a priority at different policy levels. The challenge is to guarantee a supply of affordable and quality housing so that every family, regardless of their composition and regardless of their financial capacity, can be properly housed.

A residential home cost an average of 157,200 euros in the first half of 2007. For a villa it was almost double paid. Apartments were sold for 163,000 euros. Since 1975, the average selling price of a residential house has eightfolded, while the general price level over the aforementioned period only increased by factor 3. In the last 30 years, houses have increased in value more than twice as fast as the prices of other products.

No matter how many attempts are made to get more people to acquire property, home ownership will never be for everyone. Our group therefore believes that, in addition to stimulating and supporting ownership, the tenants also deserve a lot of protection and support. The poverty risk of tenants is higher. Unfortunately, tenants are often a more vulnerable group.

We are convinced that a transfer of the rental legislation to the regions is necessary to enable a global, efficient and integrated housing, land, environment and property policy that takes into account the specific, actual situation and needs in each Region. This can only benefit both tenants and owners.

The judicial proceedings in lease cases, especially for houses serving as the main residence, also deserve a specific approach.

Our group is therefore pleased that today a bill for vote proposes that the existing, prior, mandatory reconciliation attempt in rental matters should be addressed in a more efficient way. The present proposal ⁇ ins a balance between, on the one hand, those who believe that the mandatory attempt to reconcile should be completely abolished and, on the other hand, those who advocate the preservation of the aforementioned attempt.

The introduction in 2002 of Article 1344septies of the Judicial Code aimed at the legalization of lease disputes.

The intention was undoubtedly very noble, namely to prevent the tenant and tenant from standing opposite each other with pulled knives. CD&V already expressed at the parliamentary discussions the fear that the compulsory reconciliation attempt would lead to additional work for peacekeepers, to rising rental rates and above all to a great loss of time.

Fragmentary figures now show that the measure does not indeed yield the expected result and only yields fruit in a limited minority of cases. In many cases, the tenant does not appear. Insofar as the attempt to reconcile is separate from the initiation of the case on the merits, there are often 6 to 7 weeks between the attempt to reconcile and the handling of the case on the merits. That is precious time, which often only leads to backstakes and leads to a deterioration of the already fragile relationship between tenant and tenant.

Only in cases where the rental has been made through social rental agencies, the figures prove to be somewhat better. The social rental agencies accompany the tenants, encourage them to attend the meeting and agree and execute a payment plan.

We believe that it is of social interest that all efforts are made to develop amicable solutions to human conflicts, especially with regard to housing, an elementary right for human well-being. The avoidance of long and expensive legal proceedings, a positive influence of tenant and tenant is beneficial for all parties involved. In addition, the mediation idea is a very essential lever in the prevention of uithuiszetting.

However, in cases where reconciliation is not possible or where the defendant fails, it seems appropriate for us that the peace judge may already take a decision on the substance of the case at the same session or shortly thereafter. That is the great merit of the present bill. There is no time wasted, the rental stalls do not go up and the peace courts are less taxed. At the opening session, the peacekeeper shall attempt to reconcile the parties by office, but if this is not possible, the matter may immediately be dealt with on the merits in a single session. This does not mean an additional loss of time, and yet the attempt to reconcile persists. Apart from this, the merely oral request for amicable settlement remains possible on the basis of Article 731 and following of the Judicial Code.

The proposal also responds to the criticism in the jurisprudence and jurisprudence that the conciliation attempt is limited to claims relating to rental price adjustment, uithuiszetting or recovery of rental royalties. Now all the main claims relating to the rental of housing will be eligible for the reconciliation attempt, so for example also claims relating to rent damage or rent repairs.

Our group would have liked clarification given that the conciliation procedure applied to lease agreements relating to the principal residence of the tenant. They eventually became agreements regarding the rental of houses. In our opinion, student rooms and second residences deserve a different approach. For the student rooms, for example, we have submitted our own, separate, global bill.

Another problem, however, which falls outside the scope of the bill, concerns the uithuiszetting. OCMWs are rightly of the opinion that they want to be involved in issues such as the payment of rent at an earlier stage. The sooner they are informed, the better they can guide the tenant and try to reach a solution with the tenant. This is a justified indulgence. We have therefore asked the various associations of cities and municipalities and departments of OCMWs how the legislator can address this. This has already been mentioned by Mr. Giet. I think there is still a lot of work on the table in this area in the future. After all, any guidance that can lead to people not drowning in rented backstalls and guaranteeing the right to live for a family deserves support.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, after the extension of the amnesty period for weapons, this is actually the second bill approved by the Justice Committee. I note that the Minister of Justice left us for the discussion. The proposal relates to the rental legislation around which in the period 2002-2007...

The [...]

I did not ask for that. Can I continue my speech?

I just saw Mr Vandeurzen. He proposed that Mr. Chastel would replace him. In other words, it is a bill.

Indeed indeed. However, there is a small problem. This is not about foreign affairs, it is about expelling people. That is a difference.

The government is represented.

Colleagues, the proposal concerns the rental legislation around which amendments were made in the period 2002-2007. One of the most controversial provisions is the famous article 1344septies of the Judicial Code, which since 2003 on housing rental introduced the mandatory reconciliation attempt. What was and is the problem with that compulsory reconciliation attempt? For the colleagues who cannot properly imagine how that goes in their work, a compulsory reconciliation attempt takes place at the peace judge in the council room behind closed doors. It has been mandatory since 2003.

I have three issues that my colleagues have already discussed. A first problem is the fact that such an attempt at reconciliation takes a lot of time and effort with a very limited outcome. It takes time and work because one must request a call in reconciliation, after which the secretary must send the call and the reconciliation must take place. A process-verbal must be drawn up. So there is a lot of work for the applicants and the peace courts.

The result is therefore limited. As has already been cited, a sample in my region shows that in 2006 and 2007 only 25%, i.e. a fourth, of those cases succeeded.

A second note concerns a second problem that has not yet been addressed here today. In addition, the reconciliations achieved – often payment agreements – are often short-lived. After a few months, payments are already stopped, which means that you are again with the same problem of rental retardation and you have to start again in advance.

A third problem that I cite is the fact that there are complaints on the ground about the delay in the procedure – colleague Schryvers was talking about six to eight weeks – and about the meaninglessness of some procedures. I think of manifestly insolvent tenants and tenants who have disappeared with the northern sun.

Collega’s, Open Vld with colleague De Padt as the chief contender, has during a previous legislature as the first party submitted a bill to change the mandatory reconciliation. Our proposal initially held two steps, a first step in the council chamber and a second step, in case of non-reconciliation, in public sitting, but with an immediate flow in case of non-reconciliation.

In the committee, a majority – including PS and sp.a – appeared to support a complete abolition of conciliation in the council chamber. We joined that majority.

The proposal of colleagues Schrijvers and Terwingen was amended during the discussion in the committee, including in terms of the scope of application. I will not repeat this point. The amendment was made in order to really make clear textually – and thus to avoid misunderstandings in the field – that it is intended that the peace judge who determines at a public session that he fails to reconcile, immediately deals with the case on the ground. He is not intended to postpone the treatment to a next session.

There has been criticism of the proposal, among others from the VVSG. This has already been mentioned. According to the VVSG, this proposal would make the OCMWs less aware of the rental problems.

In our opinion, it is exactly the opposite. From now on, all lease matters, except those called for reconciliation in accordance with Article 731, shall be immediately recalled and the OCMW shall be notified whenever the uithuiszetting is requested.

In the past, for this bill, the OCMW missed a part of the rental matters, more specifically those that were settled and settled in the reconciliation phase. Of such matters the OCMW did not know anything. Remove that rule and immediately the matter will be brought in substance and the OCMW will be notified.

That is our response to the VVSG, apart of course from the fact that Open Vld is also convinced that the problem of some tenants regarding the housing rental law needs to be considered further.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, Open Vld will approve this proposal because it will make the lease procedure more smooth, with continued attention to a possible reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the bill proposals that we have to discuss today are intended to respond to the finding in practice that the mandatory procedure of prior conciliation in the field of lease litigation, introduced by the program law of 24 December 2002, has not achieved the aim sought, namely to promote agreements between parties in the field of lease litigation, highly sensitive litigation if any.

In a general way, I can join the findings and statements of those and those who preceded me at this tribune, Mr. Giet and Ms. Schryvers and Lahaye. It can even be argued that the conciliation obligation has had pernicious effects making the procedures longer and more costly. Conciliation only makes sense if all the parties to the dispute are willing to compromise voluntarily. If only one of them is present, or if one of them camps on its positions, it becomes futile to attempt a reconciliation. It even happens, in some disputes relating to lease delays, that some bad-faith tenants use this procedural faculty to dilatately extend the procedure and thus further dig the liability to be borne by their tenant.

It must also be observed – this point is ⁇ important – the unacceptable delays of the peace justice offices in fixing the calls for conciliation. Thus, for example, a request made to the Peace Justice of the fourth canton of Liège on 23 January 2008 was the subject of a notice of fixation only on 5 March for the hearing on 21 March, or two months later. Reason invoked by the transplant: lack of staff. Meanwhile, the owner is taken hostage and sees his damage increase by two months.

The indirect and highly damaging effect of such practices for the majority of good-faith tenants consists in the establishment of a certain distrust in the head of the owners who will be tempted – or who are already – to tighten their rental conditions or to cease to rent their property, all at the expense of economically weak persons and seeking housing.

Already during the drafting of the 2002 Programme Act, some fears had been expressed and have been confirmed in practice. That is why the MR has always supported the position that the legislator should correct the shot and remove the perverse effects of the measures thus adopted.

In the previous legislature, the MR group had submitted a text aimed at removing this mandatory conciliation formality.

This proposal was re-deposed during this legislature by my colleagues Daniel Bacquelaine, Olivier Maingain, Charles Michel, François Bellot, Marie-Christine Marghem and myself, and was joined to the debate as part of all the proposals.

As I said, there were no less than 4 proposals that were submitted but we signed our agreement in committee to join the one submitted by Ms. Schryvers and Mr. Schryvers. Terwingen, which was of course amended with the agreement of the majority groups.

In fact, the only effective correction for us consists in the pure and simple removal of this obligation of prior conciliation. Articles 731 and following of the Judicial Code generally allow any party to request conciliation before the competent judge without any specific formality being required. It is obvious that magistrates as well as lawyers, professionals and responsible, will encourage the use of amicable dispute settlement, conciliation or mediation, if such an outcome seems possible.

A fortiori, the judge of peace, judge of proximity by excellence, has as its primary task in any dispute to bring the points of view of the parties to the dispute as close as possible when this possibility exists. Any other modification aimed at ⁇ ining the systematic use of prior conciliation would retain the same disadvantages as the current procedure: length, cost and inefficiency.

Together with my colleagues, Marie-Christine Marghem and Jean-Luc Crucke, we are ⁇ pleased that the principle of removing the compulsory conciliation obligation in the field of lease litigation has been voted with a very broad consensus by the members of the Justice Committee. However, in an effort to compromise and to respond to the concern of some parliamentarians, it has been expressly mentioned in the text that the peace judge, to whom a dispute in the substance will be submitted, will first have to see to what extent it is not possible to reconcile the parties. In the negative, the procedure will continue immediately and normally to the bottom.

It is clear that, for the MR group, the magistrates, the professional justice actors will strive to encourage as far as possible consensual outcomes in lease disputes and that they will remain interested in reminding the peacemaker of its primary mission.

In addition, I would like to comment on some of Mr. Giet and tell him that the MR group is also open, as other groups are ⁇ or will report, to the discussion in the Justice Committee of proposals aimed at trying to better respond to the concerns of a number of people who, due to the circumstances of life, face a housing problem.

One can obviously speak of the proposal I submitted with my colleague, Ms. Marghem, aiming to give the CPAS a more proactive role in this matter. There are important things to do without causing too high costs. We could also speak of a proposal from Mrs. Lalieux, as part of the initiation of the proceedings, when there is notification by the register of requests or even when the court officers cite, so that to be attached to the introductory document of the procedure a document containing the names and contact details of the associations to which aid could be requested, whether by a tenant or a owner.

I would like to comment on a proposal from Mr. Landuyt wishing to allow, in particular in the context of proceedings before the peacekeepers, that tenants’ defense associations can help tenants. As he knows, I clarified to him in the Justice Committee that, if this proposal was examined, I would like an amendment, which I will submit in due time, to provide that the associations for the defense of owners can also intervene in this type of procedure.

I would like to tell Mr. Landuyt believes that allowing associations to intervene – as is the case with trade unions that intervene before labour courts – could cause lawyers to ask questions about the appropriateness of other associations intervening before other courts and in certain types of litigation. I have been very attentive to the comments that Mr. Brotcorne made me about this recently.

Finally, I would like to highlight the good collaboration that has been established between the different groups of the majority to discuss these proposals and to reach the solution that is proposed to you today, solution that we want effective and efficient for the benefit of tenants and tenants.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, etc. It was based on the conclusion that the current procedure with the compulsory reconciliation led to numerous problems. Among other things, the long duration of the procedure is one of the major problems.

This determination is correct in itself. There are problems that are unacceptable in practice. However, the changes that are now proposed are very drastic and yet have serious consequences in the rental procedure.

We must not forget that it is a procedure that most people will ever face. Then the figures were mentioned. Approximately 30% of people rent. The chances are real that people will ever face this procedure.

The compulsory reconciliation shall be abolished and replaced by an attempt to reconcile which shall take place at the hearing on the ground by the peace judge.

This fundamental change will have three major consequences.

First, the determination of the reconciliation session with the peace judge is abandoned. It is the experience of many who know the procedure that one wants to try to reconcile the parties, the best place to do that is the council chamber and not the session on the ground where 30 to 40 cases should be dealt with in a public sitting room.

Furthermore, we fear that the reconciliation procedure or possibility now provided in the procedure will in essence become a formality as we see it in some other procedures where some kind of reconciliation must be attempted by the President.

Second, when the reconciliation took place in the council chamber, the tenants were often accompanied by people who accompanied them, from the tenant organizations, to assist them in that procedure. This is a possibility that exists in conciliation procedures in the council chamber and does not give rise to problems.

If we now move the attempt to reconcile to a public session, it will become impossible for tenants to be assisted by representatives of organizations. That is absolutely not a good thing. Maybe there will be peace judges who will allow it, but in principle this will not be allowed. There will also be many peacekeepers or lawyers of tenants opposing this. This is a very important consequence of the bill that is now being submitted.

Third, because the reconciliation is shifted to the substantive procedure and takes place in public hearing, when an agreement is reached, one no longer speaks of a process-verbal of reconciliation as in the council chamber, but this will be acted in an agreement judgment.

So there is a verdict, a real verdict. That is to say, there must be arrangements on the costs of the court, including, for example, the judicial fee. The judicial fee has recently increased sharply and can easily reach 400 to 750 euros in rent cases. That is an additional problem for reaching an agreement, as one must now also reach an agreement on those court costs, which is currently not the case when the conciliation procedure takes place in the closed room of the council.

These changes are very unfortunate for us and will not solve the problems that are present. For this reason, we have submitted an amendment aiming to bring the reconciliation back to the council chamber rather than in a public session. This offers the advantage that there is a possibility for further guidance by representatives of tenants’ organisations and that there is no need to make a ruling on the judicial fee. In addition, our amendment also provides for an immediate substantive hearing at the next useful public hearing if the amicable settlement fails. This is what is already often happening in practice. There are practices in peace courts where the conciliation session takes place in the morning, for example at half nine. If reconciliation is not possible, the case can be handled immediately later in the morning, for example, at half ten. That possibility therefore exists.

We regret this change. We will not support these legislative changes. We will submit our amendments to vote. We hope that we will be able to count on the broad support of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I also take the floor on this matter. In recent days, I have been asked where the initiative came from and whether it came from any lobby. No to No! This initiative comes from practice. Those who attend the peace courts, those who read the doctrine on the subject, have quickly realized the shortcomings of the previous legislation, namely the slowness of the procedure and the often unnecessary delay of the procedure. These problems have been raised not only by lawyers but also by doctrine. It is therefore absolutely not a camp against the other, the owners against the tenants. Therefore, it was time to evaluate this mandatory conciliation.

Secondly, I realize that these days there is a confusion in the press and in the public opinion. It is not suppressed the attempt to reconcile before the peace judge. The Peace Judge is obliged to do so. Therefore, there is an obligation for the peace judge to attempt a conciliation. Compulsory conciliation in a separate procedure is abolished, but it does not abolish the duty of the peace judge to attempt such conciliation.

Of course, there is no punishment. In these matters, as in many others, there is no sanction for this attitude and I take for example the disputes before the labour court where the attempt of conciliation is always mandatory. Obviously, I dare to hope that the peace judges will respect the law and the bill that is submitted to us today.

I come to the third difficulty of interpretation. I understand the action of tenant associations for a few weeks, which, on the one hand, interpell us by saying that they have not been consulted and who, on the other hand, fear that they will no longer have a place in this kind of procedure. I am less pessimistic than these associations themselves. One of the speakers clarified that, at the moment, the role of organisations that generally defend tenants is important. According to the peacekeepers, their presence to accompany the tenant often varies and – I acknowledge it – it is somewhat the personality of the peacekeeper that makes right to these requests of the associations to accompany their client.

I believe that one day it will be necessary to decide in the Judicial Code on the place and the role of organisations in general of the right to be or the right to accompany. Many legislative proposals on the role of associations have been filed for a long time, whether in this matter or in other matters. Particularly in this matter, the legislator would do useful work to continue the discussion. I do not believe that it is the very principle of the abolition of compulsory conciliation that makes a problem now; rather it is the accompaniment of certain people by associations that work well. It is true that current legislation leaves much to be desired and that, in most cases, compulsory conciliation only prolongs the procedure. This is not good for the landlord or the owner.

A too long procedure may further increase rental delays and delay the solution of the problem.

Our group agrees to continue the discussion on the role of accompanying associations, including CPAS. They should be given a more important place, not only to warn them of the situation, but also to charge them to provide real help to the weakest parties. Of course, it is not always easy to react. They are heard, they send letters to the parties concerned without necessarily getting a response, because their means are what they are.

The debate is not closed. On our part, we are ready to face criticism about this bill and I am convinced that today’s vote is useful.

Therefore, we will vote on this text without any reservation.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the mandatory conciliation procedure is abolished. and Hoera! After nine months, there is finally an appearance of a solution to one of the dragons of laws adopted by the Socialists and Liberals during the previous legislature. If there had been no pressure from our group, there would probably have been nothing today. As an illustration, I would like to show you the articles that appeared in the press in the month of October, where you still calmly continued to do it and thought that this law was perfectly in order.

Meanwhile, the rental law continued to deal with problem after problem for nine months. Those who caused them continued to say that they were ideologically happy with the existing rental law. However, I can list a bunch of people who are not happy with the current course of affairs.

First, the tenants catch at the banks bot or face additional costs they didn’t expect, so they eventually can’t close a rental guarantee.

Secondly, the banks must today willingly and apparently without any defective confrontation or consultation and ⁇ without a clear general agreement give free credit for giving a rent guarantee. It is not for nothing that they jointly initiated a trial before the Constitutional Court.

Third, the municipalities are facing an inexhaustible task to control and preserve the mandatory display of the rental price.

Fourth, the tenants systematically give the pipe to Maarten. I would like to remind you that the rental market, which already has 18.4% of shares in the number of homes in Flanders, is shrinking even further.

Administrative burdens, the ghost of tax punishment – why else have you put the mandatory registration in this law – and a lack of protection are not strange to this. All this, while a report from the KUL commissioned by the Department of Housing Policy advocates for a supportive supply policy for the Flemish private rental market. It is therefore a blessing that this legal element will become Flemish matter in the future.

Meanwhile, it is our damn duty to remove the existing anomalies. Let us be honest: the abolition of the compulsory reconciliation procedure is the proverbial patch on the wooden leg. Let us not turn around the hot brick. We do not solve the fundamental problem, because the largest number of disputes before a peace judge is about default payers. 15,000 cases per year must be settled before the peace judge. It is estimated that rentalers thus lose about 20 million euros annually, mainly due to the homehoppers. I’m not talking about people who come into trouble bonafide and thus engage in a conversation with their landlord. I’m talking about the homehoppers who make it a sport to never pay. That is, by the way, a wash-out of the purple rights company that scavenged obligations but too much under the mat.

To express it in BHV terms: here too, work must be made without delay to correct the shortcomings of the lease law, regardless of who becomes the legislator tomorrow. I therefore call on the colleagues on their back to light up the plush and talk to the banks, the municipalities, the tenants and the tenants and not wait and the hot potato floats through to the West. Tenants and tenants have a bargain on who exactly when becomes responsible for a piece of law.

Our group will support the present bill but clearly warns that by not incorporating clear agreements on default payers we will not create legal clarity for tenants and tenants again. Despite the fact that there were talks in the walkways with the colleagues of Open Vld, CD&V and cdH – who clearly already felt something for a delimitation of non-payment as we had proposed it, namely: by expanding when the rental distance is equal to the outstanding rental guarantee – you once again swallow the PS dictatorship that does not want to know of a powerful policy. It seems like you are sponsored by the PS.

In summary: we approve the design but we will continue to hammer on the shortcomings, we will continue to strive for balance between tenant and tenant, and we go for a healthy private rental market. For, renting a property is more and more the apple for the thirst of every hard-working Flaming, and that does not put our faction at risk.

Mr. Speaker, I basically agree with the previous speaker: there is a lot of work on the shop in terms of rental legislation. We have clearly said in the committee that there is a lot to be "secureed" to that law; it is missing and goes wrong on all sides. Today, of course, we limit ourselves to the reconciliation procedure.

The former Minister of Justice had put so much pepper in it that the reconciliation procedure absolutely no longer tasted, with no one else. Therefore, apparently, the majority has voted to address only that problem, unfortunately. It was really necessary to deal with it. What was then done? In fact, the almost compulsory idea that had been put into the procedure was eliminated through the proposals of several colleagues from the majority parties. We can live with that. That is a very good first step, of course. The compulsory ideas of the PS are taken out and one comes to a more normal arrangement, in which the child is fortunately not thrown away with the bath water. It would, of course, be regrettable if the whole process of reconciliation, the attempt to limit the rental disputes, which must continue to exist and on which everyone agrees, would be squeezed into the germ. Everyone agrees on that. We will, of course, support the proposal.

However, we regret, as also cited by the previous colleague, that the federal legislature – the Parliament had his word in this, before a government was formed – does not take advantage of the opportunity to clean the ship with that legislation and to move with a thorough lease towards the federalization of the topic. This is a missed opportunity. We hope that Parliament will keep the honor to itself and get permission from the government to clean the ship with the rental legislation to ensure that it is cleaned of all the anomalies contained therein. Then one can come to a balanced rental legislation, which will prevent the states from sitting with a poisoned gift, when the jurisdiction in the matter is once federalized. I think we can keep this today.

As for the reconciliation procedure, we agree. However, the majority should still try to put the matter on the rows, so that the state states are not put to the bottom.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it has been known for a while that the new majority, which is also present here, within the framework of the present bill, has no sense of reconciliation. However, that is the least. She also has no social feelings.

The original intention – I emphasize this – was to improve the process of reconciliation, especially in the case of people being thrown out of their homes. That original intention was brought back to the mere abolition of reconciliation. I have a very last amendment.

I repeat in French that the current majority is not sensitive to conciliation. But there’s more serious: what you’re going to vote for is quite antisocial! The aim was to improve the conciliation procedure but, in fact, tenants will be relocated even faster. We have heard speeches about social tenants but the traditional tenant is no longer protected today.

I regret that Mr. Landuyt who caricates the text. I do not believe at all that people, tenants in this case, are served by making sure that the procedures are prolonged – inquire with the peacekeepers, you will see what it gives in the urban environment – and thus weighing the liability that already existed at the time of the introduction of the procedure.

I am deeply convinced, and I believe to have a social position in this matter, that one makes service to anyone when one allows a decision-making. I hear that you mention negative decisions, i.e. those that provide for expulsion, and I agree that there is no doubt. I recall, however, that the decisions are taken by magistrates who I hope are independent and impartial and who have to weigh the for and against in the context of the dispute submitted to them. They must be able to take into account the situation of each of the parties, thus also the tenants. It is not because there is a legal procedure that it is automatically negative for tenants. On the contrary, I have the impression that tenants are among those who are in a weak position and that the cantonal magistrates have a particular regard for their situation.

The fact that people who are financially, socially or intellectually disadvantaged and who, as part of a judicial procedure, do not have the opportunity to make their arguments as others do, are left in this situation for a long time, is not a good thing for the continuation of their lives and that of their families.

That is my conviction. You can call it a non-social position but, personally, it’s what I hold from some experience and what I can have as contacts with people in the field – fashion expression, I know, but that’s how they’re called.

For the rest, I deeply regret that you, Mr. Landuyt, have been brought to caricate this position, which I have just tried to clarify further.

Mr. Speaker, I think that in a democracy it should be possible to discuss the content without playing on the person. I will not make a caricature, but I will give a summary of a long presentation.

I don’t understand how it can be claimed that people are being helped by expelling them faster. The procedure is shortened, the procedure is abolished to help people better. But this is about people who need time to recover socially. Well, that time is no longer given to them. This is the effect of what is now put to the vote.

Juridically – this is not a caricature – there are two situations.

Or follow the situation of the land lease. The farmer who leases is first called to reconciliation if there are problems. That was the choice in the current law.

Because that is no longer desired, it was proposed to follow the path of the worker and the servant. Our Judicial Code provides for a procedure on the basis of nullity. There was apparently the problem: providing for a truly mandatory procedure of reconciliation, which one does not want to follow.

As far as we are concerned, that was the desecration. The intention of Mr. Giet may be social; the intention of the others ⁇ was not. There is no mandatory procedure for reconciliation. This is the content of the text as it applies to labour courts. I suggest, only for legal reasons, to do the same with regard to rental. This is also not wanted. We can only regret that.

Mr. Landuyt, I would like to ask you something.

Let me take a very simple example. Someone who enters a bakery, takes a bread and does not pay, we call a thief. It is in the benefit of such a person that he is restricted in continuing that behavior.

An unfaithful tenant of a house – so I’m not talking about people who react in time by walking to their tenant and trying to find a solution for themselves – to continue, that is pure theft towards the tenant. Such a situation should be resolved as soon as possible. This is also in the benefit of that person.

The figures, by the way, prove that the tenants often also have a payment plan for the property. If that property is occupied by a misleading tenant who does not pay, that person should be removed as soon as possible. Point on the line.

Mr. Van de Velde, you say that poverty is theft. Someone who cannot pay his rent is someone who has trouble. You want to make legislation on the scale of those who are malafide. We want legislation on the scale of those who are in trouble.

It is about people who act in a misleading way. This is why there are excesses. These excesses must be removed.

That is not serious! The peace judge can very well see who is malafide and who is not. The problem is that you have the misleading tenant in your head and that in the meantime you are putting the people with trouble on the street. That is the result of what you do.

No, Mr. Landuyt, it is about a moral value consciousness that has completely disappeared from our society and that damn rap must return. If you rent, you have to be correct. That is all we ask. We do not demand that by a procedure the tenants be put out of play for a long period of time because that is theft.

The courts are there to help the people and to listen to the arguments. You prevent judges from responding to this. That is what you do.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Landuyt, I think you have missed the opportunity to be more social than the liberals. We were in this more social than the socialists, in the sense that in our proposal we had proposed to make reconciliation still mandatory, but if this failed, to send the matter immediately to the peace judge, sitting on the ground.

In fact, we were of the opinion, unlike a number of other parties in this hemisphere, that a discussion or consultation in a council chamber can sometimes lead to certain solutions. This proposal was not supported by any party, neither by the sp.a, nor by the PS, nor by other parties. I think we have missed an opportunity here to exploit social sensitivity in this area.

We submitted that bill during the previous legislature, assuming that this could be the middle way and the consensus that could be found between the then majority parties to resolve it in that way. It was not accepted. We regret that a little. It is a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that the liberals are sometimes, and ⁇ often, more social than the socialists.

Mr. Speaker, I remind Mr. Landuyt of the comments of the tenant associations. The delays, the procedural harassment and the period that gets longer, that are matters that also play in the detriment of the tenant who wants to leave his home. There are such things as well.

I admit that this is not the majority of the cases, but we must look at them from two sides, from the side of the landlord and from the side of the tenant.

When I read in judges’ judgments on this procedure that weak parties are also discouraged, I feel strengthened by the fact that we support this bill, without wanting to grant the landlord or the tenant all rights.

These proposals, indeed, do not come from us – from us they would not be approved – but then at least we have the merit of joining those who in this case want to keep the truth in the middle and who ensure that the rental disputes are not overlegitimated.

This was the case with the previous procedure. That was not a good procedure, not even for the tenant who may have been sufficiently mediated to initiate a procedure, but not to maintain them against a tenant who was so much more powerful.

You must dare to look at things from two sides.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to Mr. De Padt who explained what the original intention of Open Vld was, in particular to keep the reconciliation procedure in the Chamber and, if it fails, to start the procedure as soon as possible.

This is exactly what we propose in our amendment. If you want to support it, you can approve it.

I would like to comment on the intervention of Mr. by Landuyt.

First, I can understand sounds wanting to defend tenants in the most ardent way. But as part of the implementation of a legislation on rental lease, a balance must be achieved between one and the other. Regarding compulsory conciliation, it is evident from practice, as many speakers have said, that an imbalance has been created, probably due to malfunction, in particular by some peacekeeping courts who have made calls for conciliation far too late. Practice has also shown that few people were seeking this conciliation.

Second note, we are well aware that some people in Belgium experience problems with accommodation and that due to the circumstances of life, for example the loss of their job, they may find themselves unable to pay their rent. Some situations can be dramatic and lead to terrifying gestures such as the suicide of this couple in the Liege region.

Only, at a given time, in the case of non-payment of rent, one will inevitably, with or without compulsory conciliation, reach a termination of the rent and a expulsion by the peace judge, in an interest of balancing the rights of one and the other. As I said in my speech and as we will have to discuss it again in the near future, it is necessary that the CPAS intervene more decisively in this matter. Remember that the CPAS are warned of expulsions at two times: at the introduction of the procedure because there is an obligation to mention in the petition, in the citation, that these will be transmitted to the CPAS but also when the executor means the judgment, moment when the CPAS is once again warned. In Liege, after collecting numbers, we unfortunately find that most CPAS do nothing. There are very few, especially in rural areas.

Therefore, the legislation, the Judicial Code, must be supplemented. That is why Mrs. Marghem and I have introduced a bill. I hope that when we discuss this in the committee, Mr. Landuyt will make as much effort as it does today to ensure that people who are so in need receive the help of the CPAS, have the right to an intervention on their part.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the position of Mr. Hamal as Vice-President of the Syndicate of Owners.

What Mr. De Padt says is very constructive. That is effectively what we have missed, a true mandatory procedure for reconciliation. I immediately agree. I have always advocated this in the committee. That is why I submitted my bill. I agree to do at least the same as at the Labour Court. Even that is not wanted. If one wants to conduct a discussion on the basis of the original proposal of the VLD, of Mr De Padt, who was not present, or on the basis of the amendment of Green!, which is the same, then we are sure to agree 100%.

This debate here gets a favorable tune and a favorable turn. There is a majority here to go back to the committee and examine this thoroughly.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Landuyt, I read in the report of the committee that you have shown interest in Mrs. Schryvers’s bill, which is normally approved here today, subject to some amendments, and that our bill only threatens to complicate things.

Colleague Landuyt, sorry, but you now simply change the gun from the shoulder while you have said other things in the committee.

I really wanted to say the same thing as colleague Lahaye. I remember the first meeting of the committee where this was discussed.

Mr Landuyt, you did not give a verbal report, because then you might have had to mention what you said in the committee. You wisely did not do that.

Your first observation there, however, was that you could not agree with the Open-Vld proposal because it brings a lot of procedural difficulties and that you felt most for the CD&V proposal.

Now you come up with an amendment. However, this amendment is by no means more social than the proposal approved by the committee. In fact, you are proposing the same text as in labour disputes, on the penalty of nullity, a conciliation procedure. It is nowhere foreseen whether this should be on its own, who should impose this. Even here the procedure is not different from what we propose.

Personal Fact