Proposition 52K1211

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions en ce qui concerne la signification et la notification par pli judiciaire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Mia De Schamphelaere, Raf Terwingen
MR Jean-Luc Crucke, Marie-Christine Marghem
Open Vld Guido De Padt, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

June 3, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure criminal procedure

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 ¶

Feb. 25, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms Valérie Déom, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Our group has always been happy to support this proposal, for various reasons.

In fact, the difference in notification between criminal cases and non-criminal cases was introduced by the Act of 1985. Then a significance almost always happened to the person himself. But, of course, the times have changed. Our society is more mobile. There are more single people and there are more double earners. This method of notification is no longer adapted at this time.

This method creates a significant administrative burden for the police services. They must search several times for the person to whom it is to be communicated. The police offices must then establish a register. The notification must be registered. They must receive the recipient. The envelope must be classified and then searched. They must be signed by the recipient for receipt. The receipt must be sent to the parket. The unreported envelopes should still try to hand over to the police services.

There are many figures argued in the committee about what this exactly means to manpower for our police services. It is usually said that it is about 1% of the working hours of all our police officers combined.

Of course, it is very important to entrust less administrative tasks to the police, so that the police can focus more on the essential tasks. This is one of the advantages of the present proposal.

There was a lot of discussion about the modalities of the proposal.

We have proposed that it must be issued by the court executor in the place of residence, or in the absence of a place of residence in the place of residence of the recipient, and therefore not, as originally stated, “on the spot”. This amendment was approved.

We also submitted an amendment on the color of the envelope. You may be wondering what we are actually dealing with in the Justice Committee: debating the color of a envelope. However, it has an important impact in the field of privacy if only the notifications related to criminal cases were received in a purple envelope. I mention, for example, a recipient who lives in an apartment block where the mailboxes are cabinets with a transparent door, or, for example, mailboxes where the envelope protrudes. It is then very clear to everyone, where such a envelope is provided, what it is about: the person concerned has received a conviction in a criminal case.

Then there has been a long debate about whether or not to send registered. We finally agreed to the position of Mr. However, in practice, especially in the case of notifications in criminal matters, 80 % of the recipients do not receive the registered letter. Of course, this means additional costs, including for justice. Nevertheless, given the content and the added value for the police discharge, we have joined the MR’s proposal to keep the registered letter.

Therefore, it will no longer occur in the future that a citizen receives two documents on the same day, one in civil matters in the mailbox and one in criminal matters, which he must pick up at the police commissariat. We support the proposal and we are grateful to the original applicants. We hope that this will reduce the administrative tasks for the police.

The bill was initially submitted in the previous legislature by colleague Guido De Padt, but I have with great pleasure defended it in this legislature.

Colleagues, the notification in criminal cases has been carried out, meanwhile, for 25 years, since the law of 24 May 1985, unlike those in all other cases. Mrs. De Schamphelere has already said it. The principle implies that the notification in criminal cases must still be made to the person concerned or to his or her family members. If this is not possible because no one is found at home, the court executor leaves a notice on the spot, in the mailbox, which includes the following. I quote: “The court document is strictly personal and must be picked up by you, provided presentation of current notification and your identity card and possibly a copy of the statutes for legal entities.” The court officer also leaves a copy of the explosion at the designated police commissariat.

If the persons in question do not go to the police — depending on the police station, the people are given a week or several days — the round that the district officer must do begins. The neighborhood agent goes to the site once or twice, sometimes three times. Ultimately, the police commissioner must report to the prosecutor the date of issue or the reason why the exploit could not be issued.

In all other matters, colleagues, if no one is found at home, the court executor leaves a copy of the document in the mailbox and sends the court executor a registered letter the following day informing the possibility of retrieving another copy at the office of the court executor.

There has been a lot of discussion about this letter in our committee. Should it be a registered letter or can it be a regular letter? This is ⁇ not the essence of the text. Collega De Schamphelaere has already indicated that the committee ultimately, based on a number of opinions, chose to retain the registered letter.

With this proposal, therefore, the notification in criminal matters is equated with that in civil matters. The consequences are the following.

First, there is a discharge of our police services from an inappropriate task for them. This argument or consequence has also been the reason for the proposal. It is primarily a stool for the local police, but also in the federal police report in connection with ten years of police reform was fiercely pledged for this legislative change.

Colleagues, a survey by the Standing Committee for Local Police shows that at least one to two full-time equivalents could be released by the new scheme per zone. This means for the whole country, where we have 196 police zones, at least 200 to 400 police officers who can now devote themselves to the real police work.

Second, another important consequence is the simplification. There is a simplification for citizens because they no longer have to go to the police station to remove the explosion. They will find it at home in their bus. However, there is also an improved notification for citizens, because they can immediately, instead of that ticket, see what it is about, what they are called for, if it is a summons, or what is decided by the criminal judge when it is a sentence.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have come to my decision. I thank everyone for their support for this bill and I also thank the Minister for his support. We hope that this text will make the police happier and give more time for the actual police work. However, we also hope that citizens will be informed of major explosions, of important calls, in a faster manner. We therefore hope that there will be fewer court sentences, because people will immediately find the calling in their bus, which may also relieve justice for a bit, because after a court sentence often follows a resistance and twice the same work for our judges. We will therefore support this proposal.

We agree with the proposal because it is an amendment for the better. However, there is an important side note, as already cited by colleagues De Schamphelaere and Lahaye-Battheu. What I say now is really for the report. We felt more favorable to the argument of the College of Prosecutors General and the Conference of Flemish Court Officials to not complicate the procedure with an additional obligation of notification by registered letter. We therefore do not follow the reasoning of the Order of Flemish Balies and the OBFG. In our view, the costs are not proportionate to the revenue of any legal certainty. That being said, for all clarity, we still support this bill.

Since 1985, it has been known that the meaning in criminal and civil matters is regulated in different ways. Indeed, when an act of citation in criminal matters could not be signified to the person who is the recipient of it, Article 37 of the Judicial Code prescribes that the significance consists in the delivery of the copy of the act of citation, therefore of the citation, to the police station. The court executor shall leave at the domicile or at the place of residence of the person concerned a notice indicating the place where the exploit may be removed, in this case to the police office.

In such cases, the police station must take the necessary measures to ensure that the copy of the exploit is handed over to its recipient and must also notify the public prosecutor who has requested the notification of this very important document since it is the one who introduces the criminal instance and which allows the person cited to know what is accused of him and when his trial will begin. The public prosecutor who has requested notification against that person must know whether he has received or, if not, why he did not receive the exploit in question.

I have two comments on this proposal. On the one hand, from the moment when the civil meaning is aligned with the criminal meaning, police services are released from administrative tasks, allowing them to work on other things. On the other hand, I hear well that my colleagues, kindly because they wanted to make this simplification pass, joined the amendment submitted by Mr. Libert who absolutely wishes that the courtier who warns the interested party of his passage do so by recommended letter. There was an important discussion on the need to proceed with sending by recommended letter.

It was not at all a question of suspicion towards police officers but a question of organization and respect for the rights of defence. Imagine someone who is in the collimator of justice and the prosecutor's office, who returns from vacation and who is immediately arrested by the police and taken directly to the detention house because a default judgment has been issued against him and that judgment has been communicated to him under the conditions I just explained to you: he must be able at a given time to oppose. It is therefore very important that one knows in the procedure how and under what conditions the person was warned of the fact that a meaning of citation was sought against him.

For all these reasons, my colleagues, I thank you for your support. The Council will, of course, vote on this bill.