Projet de loi modifiant le Code civil et les lois coordonnées du 17 juillet 1991 sur la comptabilité de l'Etat en vue d'interrompre la prescription de l'action en dommages et intérêts à la suite d'un recours en annulation devant le Conseil d'Etat.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
-
The Senate
- Submission date
- July 12, 2007
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- administrative court civil law backlog of court cases damages limitation of legal proceedings
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Hans Bonte (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 ¶
July 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Sabien Lahaye-Battheu ⚙
Mr. Speaker, even though this bill concerns the amendment of only one article, Article 2255 of the Civil Code, we have worked intensively on it in the Justice Committee. During seven committee meetings, this bill was on the agenda. Among other things, the State Council was asked for advice, as decided at our meeting on 11 March 2008.
In his introductory presentation, the Minister of Justice explained that this bill aims to resolve an injustice, namely an injustice that arises if an administrative procedure before the Council of State takes too long.
During the general discussions, presentations were held by colleagues Giet, Crucke, Schryvers, Nyssens, De Schamphelaere, Van Cauter, Schoofs, Marghem and myself.
Several amendments were submitted and also approved.
The amended bill was unanimously adopted in the Justice Committee on Friday.
President Herman Van Rompuy ⚙
Three speakers are registered: Mrs. Van Cauter, Mrs. De Schamphelaere and Mr. Van Hecke.
Carina Van Cauter Open Vld ⚙
In view of the advanced hour, I will be very brief.
In the current state of regulation, civil claims are due to obtain compensation after the expiry of five years. This also applies to legal seekers who are faced with illegal government decisions and who initiate proceedings against them before the Council of State. This means that during the course of that procedure for the Council of State, the limitation period continues. Possibly, when there is an outcome in that proceedings, the claimants lose their right to compensation.
In practice, this has led to a flood of proceedings initiated as a conservative measure, which charge the courts, which are costly for the legal entity and which in a number of cases entail that those persons effectively lose their right to compensation if they have not acted in due time.
In order to remedy this, the current article 2225 of the Civil Code was amended, as amended in the committee.
We will therefore fully support the present bill.
Mia De Schamphelaere CD&V ⚙
Mr. Speaker, this may seem like a very technical draft, but it is of great importance for our citizens who want to defend themselves against unlawful government actions.
If they get right from the State Council, it may be that they are right with the government, but that they will not be compensated for their damage. That we wish to remedy by providing for a shocking effect, as regards the calculation of the limitation periods.
We also want to make some improvements to the draft that the Senate has sent us. Indeed, we are increasingly acting as a reflection room of the Senate. For example, we have broadened the scope of application by also entering into the laws on the national accounting, that all government acts are included in the scope.
Stefaan Van Hecke Groen ⚙
This is a very important legislative proposal. We will support it. We have done a very good job in the committee. In my opinion, this is one of the most important bills adopted during this legislature in the Justice Committee. If we in the Justice Committee have passed a law that benefits the citizen, then I think it is this law.
This law better protects the citizen against the government. The problem has already been described. If a citizen initiates a procedure at the Council of State and gets right, it means that the government has gone wrong. However, due to the limitation period, the citizen faced an inadmissible civil claim because the procedure before the State Council took too long.
This unfair and unacceptable situation can be corrected through this bill. The most important thing is that this bill is approved today.