Projet de loi modifiant l'article 587 du Code civil.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
-
The Senate
- Submission date
- July 12, 2007
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- civil law usufruct
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD 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 ¶
April 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Katrien Schryvers ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present draft, the so-called wine cellar law, was previously discussed and approved in the Senate on the basis of a bill submitted there. It was discussed in the Justice Committee on 11 March last year.
In accordance with Article 578 of the Civil Code, the fruit consumer has the enjoyment of the thing of which he has the fruit use, but under the obligation to maintain the thing itself. This provision, of course, creates difficulties for consumable goods which cannot be used without consuming them.
Article 587 of the Civil Code regulates this situation by imposing the obligation of the fruit consumer on the sole owner at the end of the fruit use to return an equal amount of goods of the same quality and value or the estimated value.
Article 587 therefore gives the fruit consumer the choice to return the goods in kind or their value. However, it does not specify how the value of the goods should be calculated. The fruit consumer can therefore choose between the value at the beginning or at the end of the fruit consumption. This possibility opens the door to real speculation for the benefit of the fruit user.
This draft law aims to solve that problem and thus only permits either the return of the goods in nature or their value at the time of the return. In French law, a similar solution has been chosen.
During the discussion in the committee for justice, the discussion arose as to whether or not this is an interpretation law. Furthermore, it was emphasized from various sides that the draft does not interfere with the contractual freedom of the parties.
The draft was approved with 12 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.