Proposition 52K1149

Projet de loi modifiant l'article 119 du Code judiciaire et l'article 57bis de la loi du 8 avril 1965 relative à la protection de la jeunesse, à la prise en charge des mineurs ayant commis un fait qualifié infraction et à la réparation du dommage causé par ce fait.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Daniel Bacquelaine, Xavier Baeselen, Jean-Luc Crucke, Pierre-Yves Jeholet, Marie-Christine Marghem

Submission date

May 9, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

child protection infancy judicial power criminal court

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Renaat Landuyt (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 ¶

Feb. 12, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, within the framework of the exhibition mandate, it is provided that in each court of first instance one or more chambers shall be provided which shall be empowered to make judgments concerning young people who have been exiled.

These youth courts assigned to these chambers should consist of three judges. In order to be validly composed, two members of this Chamber must have received the training required for the exercise of the office of judge in the Youth Court. A similar arrangement is provided for the courts of appeal.

Colleagues, in the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 13 March 2008, it was stated that no equivalent measure has been taken when the youth court has dismissed an uncorrectional crime and the court of assises must therefore take note of it and bring the minor to trial. Indeed, the magistrates of the Court of Assises are currently not required to have received training in the field of youth protection.

The subjects of this proposal seek to address this by amending Article 119 of the Judicial Code and Article 57bis § 1 paragraph 1 of the Law of 8 April 1965 on the protection of youth, so that from now on, where at least one of the perpetrators or one person is a minor and must be tried by the court of assises, this court must, in order to be legally composed, be composed of at least two magistrates who have received the necessary training for the office of judge in the court of juvenile justice.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, there were protests from colleagues Baeselen, Schoofs, Lahssaini, Terwingen, Van Hecke, Déom, Nyssens and myself.

The amended bill was adopted with 10 votes for and 1 abstinence.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we are not overwhelmed by legislative work to the point of not taking the time to discuss legislative proposals on the agenda. Since there is only one today, let’s take advantage of the opportunity.

I thank the Rapporteur for the excellent report of our work presented to the Assembly, work on justice to be rendered to minors. Mr. Minister of Justice, this assembly and the Senate have often discussed the issue of youth rights and the type of procedures to be activated in the face of minor offenders who are also often minors in danger, who deserve special attention but for which society must react when criminal acts are committed.

The Justice Committee did not consider this time a fundamental reform of the youth protection law, this debate having already taken place in our Assembly during the previous legislature. I remain convinced that the reform that has taken place, even if it constitutes a good basis, will be brought in the coming months and years to be reviewed and undoubtedly corrected, so much as the acts of violence committed by minors, including serious acts, are now multiplying.

I thank the members of the Justice Committee for the work provided on the occasion of the examination of the bill I had submitted and which aims to resolve the problem of minors returned before the court of sitting and in particular the discrimination that was highlighted in the judgment no. 49/2008 of 13 March 2008 by the Constitutional Court. It reproached the legislator for having provided that in the case of referral of a minor delinquent to the correctional court or a specialized chamber of the latter, that minor was found before magistrates with special training in youth law, while a minor returned to the court of assises is judged by professional magistrates whom it cannot be certain that they have completed specialized training.

One way to resolve this discrimination was to adopt this law in the Justice Committee so that at least two members of the court of assises to which a minor is sent have completed a specific training in youth law. The Minister, through his representative in the commission, stressed that this training was in reality an internal training in the magistracy, of about fifteen or twenty hours.

The practical feasibility of the proposal will not, in my opinion, create great difficulties and the objective can be achieved. When making legislative work, we must always ask ourselves whether the measure we take will not cause too many complications in the functioning of Justice. In this case, the material elements provided by the Minister reassure me. I am convinced that this measure is entirely feasible and that it will not only enable a better functioning of Justice but that it will bring special clarifications to the magistrates of the Court of Assises who are brought to judge minors. I would like to thank once again all the democratic formations that have supported the bill in question.

Mr. Speaker, the CDH group will vote this bill. It is always good to respond promptly to the decisions of the Constitutional Court. This proposal is inspired by a judgment of this Court. The Justice Committee has done a useful job by promptly voting on this improvement.