Proposition 52K1334

Projet de loi modifiant le Code civil afin de moderniser le fonctionnement des copropriétés et d'accroître la transparence de leur gestion.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Katrien Schryvers, Raf Terwingen
Ecolo Zoé Genot
LE Clotilde Nyssens
MR Xavier Baeselen, Olivier Hamal, Pierre-Yves Jeholet, Marie-Christine Marghem
N-VA Sarah Smeyers
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Thierry Giet
VB Gerolf Annemans
Vooruit Hans Bonte

Submission date

July 7, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil law joint ownership

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 ¶

July 15, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Renaat Landuyt and Valérie Déom. Mr Landuyt refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the text presented to us today is a proposal for a law aimed at modernizing and ensuring greater transparency in the functioning of co-ownership.

This issue has been the subject of long debates in the Justice Committee over the past eight months. At the request of the members of the committee, hearings were held so that the relevant stakeholders could express their views on the articles of the proposal.

These hearings took place in four periods. Initially, the members of the commission heard co-owners. In a second time, we audited representatives of real estate agents, syndics, property administrators, representatives of the National Syndicate of Owners and Co-owners, as well as a representative of Test-Achats. In a third session, we heard magistrates, notaries, representatives of the Institute of Corporate Auditors and the Institute of Accounting Experts and Tax Councils. Finally, during the last hearing session, we received lawyers and representatives from the academic world. Each of these hearings resulted in an exchange of views between the members of the committee and the persons heard.

These hearings drew our attention to multiple questions raised by the text of the proposal. Therefore, there was a long work of amendments to respond to the relevant comments of the hearers.

The amendments target most of the technical changes to the text and have not affected the philosophy of the law. However, some substantive issues, most of which divided jurisprudence and doctrine, were also addressed and had to be resolved. I will refer in particular to the question of the fate of the abstentions, the name and tasks of the board of directors, the fate of sub-associations, the information to be provided to the new acquirer of a building of the co-ownership. After discussion, solutions have been developed for all of these problems.

The legislative work was done from the beginning to the end in collaboration with all the signatories of the proposal. Through this constructive work, we have achieved a clear improvement of the original text. Also, it was in the quasi-consensus, i.e. 10 votes for and 1 vote against, that the text was adopted in committee.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my group, I would like to emphasize that life in co-ownership and the management of it is a subject that concerns a very large number of our fellow citizens. A third of the Belgian population lives in an apartment subject to the rules of co-ownership.

The triangular relationship of co-owner, syndic and management council is a source of many conflicts. If we stick to the literature and disputes related to the right of co-ownership, we find that the number of trials is growing exponentially. Who hasn’t heard a co-owner complain about the high cost of common charges, complain about another co-owner or about the so-called abusive management, mainly financial, by a syndic?

As the problems arose, the questions multiplied, it was necessary to find solutions and remedy those issues that were essentially related to the lack of transparency in the head of the trade unions and the problem of access to information by the co-owners.

This complex matter, it must be said, was governed by the law of 1994, but this law did not allow to handle all the problems that could arise, ⁇ within the framework of this triangular relationship to which I referred, namely between co-owners, unions and management boards.

For its fifteenth anniversary, this text will therefore be reworked in depth. Indeed, it was high time to legislate to ensure better functioning and more transparency in the management of co-ownership and also to reform certain accounting and financial aspects of the law. The constructive work carried out in the committee helped to improve the text, in order to fully meet the objectives I have just stated. In this context, my group will support this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, the current law on co-ownership now celebrates its ⁇ fifteenth anniversary. It was time for a legislative change. The relationship between the co-owners among themselves and between the co-owners and their syndic has evolved. Not always in the good sense, with the meaning that the law actually needed to be adapted so that the functioning of the co-ownership is modernised and made more transparent, so that the parties concerned have a clear picture of their rights and duties.

As previously stated by Ms. Déom, the bill was a work beyond party boundaries, with constructive cooperation. Hearing was also attracted and demonstrated that there is no such thing as average co-ownership. During those hearings, a wide range of problems, concerns and suggestions in the context of the co-ownership occurred. On the basis of the hearings and a number of opinions, the text was improved by more than one hundred amendments.

Regarding the amendments, I would like to stand on four points on behalf of my party. First, it is now provided that a co-owner presides over the general assembly. The mandate of a syndic is described in more detail. The possibility is provided for computer access to documents relating to the co-ownership.

Second important amendment: substantially there are also profound adjustments, where, for example, the mandate system can be more fully recognised in the law. It shall also indicate the arrangements for court fees in the event of a dispute between the association of co-owners and a separate co-owners. Where previously in the law text could only be found that the syndicus was to manage the assets of the association, it is now described in detail how the syndicus should exercise this management.

A third, very important point is the extensive attention paid to providing the necessary information when selling a lot. At the moment when people make the purchase of a co-ownership, they will now be informed by the notary even before the compromise is signed what constitutes co-ownership, what are the rights and duties, what is related to the syndic, so that one does not buy a cat in a bag.

One last point that I would like to draw attention to is that this text also provides a translation of what is already happening in practice today. For example, we think of the option for co-owners to submit agenda items for the annual general meeting.

Since not every co-ownership has the same practices, the law provides for a period of five years during which the statutes can be aligned with the legal provisions. Therefore, there will be enough time to adjust the statutes to the new legislation.

In short, this new law should make life in and with a co-ownership for all involved – the syndic, the co-owners, an association of co-owners or the candidate-buyer – more smooth and pleasant.

Open Vld may decide that this text represents a significant step forward, both juridically and socially. After all, we must not forget that many people are affected by co-ownership. I would like to point out a survey from a few years ago, which showed that in Belgium at least 3.5 million people, or about a third of our population, live somewhere where one has to deal with the rules of co-ownership. In short, Mr. Minister, every day a large group of people has to deal with those rules because they live in a property in co-ownership with others. We find it a good thing that all these people will be better informed of their rights and duties through the new law. We fully support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to thank the colleagues who took the car of this bill for their enduring commitment and for the steady rhythm that we have put into the day in the committee. This proposal is supported across party boundaries. I would like to thank, among others, Mr. Hamal, Mrs. Nyssens and Mrs. Genot.

We have achieved a good result, resulting in a number of adjustments to the law on co-ownership, which dates back to 1994 and which was already a whole innovation in itself. That law provided for the legal personality of the co-ownership and for the rules concerning the quorum and the required majorities, and so on. It also took care of the relations between the co-owners among themselves and the co-owners and the syndicus.

At this time – we have noticed this during the hearings and also to the regular public who attended the committee whenever the bill was debated – a lot of people are affected by the problematic course of affairs within the structure of the legal entity that manages their apartment. This is often related to anonymity. The co-owners do not know each other. The syndic takes full responsibility, but involves the co-owners too little and informs them too little. In this way, cohabitation in an apartment building, in addition to the difficulties that exist daily to live in good neighborhood, is enhanced by the poor structure and poor functioning of the legal entity of the co-ownership

Therefore, but also for the sake of psychological insights and due to the rigorous functioning of many of these associations, now a number of practical proposals come up in this bill. We hope that this will make life in apartments easier and that the anonymity can be broken more. These are important elements, including for our group.

The anonymity is broken by the list of co-owners being disclosed to each owner. As a group representing a fifth of the common parts, one can also convene a general assembly. Separate legal entities may also be established for separate parts and entities. For example, if there are separate buildings in a residential park, then it is not necessary to wear meeting hours to the specific problemology of one building. It becomes especially also visible that the general assembly is the assembly of the co-owners, because one of the co-owners, and no longer the syndic, will be the chairman.

In addition, the emphasis is on transparency. The accounting and financial management aspects should become clearer and more comprehensive. It should also be uniform and understandable for all co-owners. There is a circumstantial half-year report, submitted by the co-ownership board. There will be accounting rules uniformly specified by the King, and a normalized accounting system. In a whole range of circumstances, prior consent from the general assembly will be required before the syndic can act, in order to prevent conflicts of interest or possible mistrust. Furthermore, the mandate of the syndic can no longer be silently renewed, but the express consent of the general assembly is required.

We therefore hope that with these practical adjustments, with this modernization and with the transparency of the legal entity of the co-ownership, the neighborhood will be facilitated. We would like to cooperate constructively with the main initiators and we will gladly approve this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, today, the examination of these different bills reflects the example of a parliamentary work that we have desired ⁇ consensual and comprehensive.

Consensual, because my colleague Clotilde Nyssens and myself have desired, around the same bill, to gather as many parliamentarians as possible, more specifically groups of this assembly to reach a common bill meeting the concerns of one and the other.

Complete, because we were able to start from a text that contained a number of suggestions. In addition, we were able to hear all the stakeholders involved, including peacekeepers, lawyers, notaries, university professors, individual co-owners, representative associations of owners and co-owners and representative associations of trade unions and building managers.

As part of the work carried out in the committee and in the continuation of these ⁇ interesting hearings, we were able to make a summary of all the comments and comments and thereby improve the joint proposal that had been submitted and which is presented to you today before being submitted, tomorrow, to your vote.

All this implies a starting point: the 1994 law on co-ownership. This law celebrates its 15th anniversary this year. When it was voted, it was indispensable. Indeed, until that time, co-ownership was governed on the stricto sensu juridique level by a single rather short provision of the Civil Code. The 1994 Act made it a much more structured subject already aimed at addressing a number of concerns in the field of co-ownership. I would like to recall, in particular, one of the very important points: to give at the time to the co-owners the legal personality, without counting a number of rules as to the majorities required for votes in the assembly, or even as to the different actions that the co-owners could attempt to assert their rights.

As I just said, this law celebrates its fifteenth anniversary. It was worth drawing conclusions and considering whether some improvements should not be made in view of the current co-ownership practice.

As Ms. Lahaye-Battheu recalled, the number of people currently living in co-ownership in our country is ⁇ important: it is about 4.5 million people and about 1.2 million housing. This is proof that the subject must be closely followed, especially since, according to the figures, each year more people will live under the regime of co-ownership. This is also the reason why a number of rules on this subject should be harmonised as best as possible. Similarly, the experience of the last fifteen years has shown in more than one title that legislation has gaps in certain aspects.

Whose fault is it? We can talk about the different speakers. Let us first speak of the co-owners by lamenting their disengagement from the management of their building, their frequent absence at assemblies, their sending of a preferred proxy to a personal presence. All this is not in a way to promote the democratic functioning of co-ownership. As recalled, the norm is to see general assemblies of co-owners chaired by the syndic and not by a co-owner. Furthermore, it has been found that general assemblies last much too long, sometimes whole nights, without the agenda being exhausted, which leads to the convocation of a new general assembly. Thus, even in terms of the relations between co-owners and their participation in assemblies, a clarification of the law proved important.

Then there is the problem of management boards, which we will now call co-ownership councils. The 1994 law clearly specified that the management of co-property must be provided by the manager, the board of directors assisting and controlling him in his management. Some saw it as an opportunity to turn it into real councils of administration, reducing to nothing not only the role of the syndic but also the responsibility of the syndic by creating a blur.

In addition, we can talk about the role of trade unions. Criticism was becoming more and more frequent. Many co-owners complained of a lack of availability and opacity of management. They also suffered from a lack of communication with their syndic, in particular with regard to documents concerning the management of co-property. Of course, the trade union profession is an ingrate profession. It is rare that it is unanimous at the level of a co-ownership. To want to manage a co-ownership based on a majority of 51%, this is not possible; it needs to gather a sufficient majority. Sometimes you have to take the consequences.

Many problems also arose at the level of building management, in particular with regard to the quotes to be requested from contractors for important works or the evaluation of contracts for regular supplies. Some spoke of collusion with professional bodies. Therefore, a number of rules had to be clarified and guards had to be provided.

I will not return to the objectives of the reform because they have been explained long and broadly in the explanation of the reasoning of the bill proposal which we are discussing today. I will come directly to the new legislation and what it envisages.

In terms of generality, there are of course very important points. This is, first of all, the possibility of providing subgroups in large co-owners. In co-ownership sometimes consisting of hundreds of homes, wanting to manage everything can be a problem. Depending on the physical characteristics of these buildings, such as different entrances, subsets could be provided.

Residential spaces were taken into account. It is important! As unbuilt, these spaces were not necessarily covered by the legislation on co-ownership and escaped them on the basis of judgment decisions. From now on, co-ownership legislation will also apply to groups of unbuilt buildings.

As already mentioned, we point out that statutory provisions not in accordance with the legislation will be considered inapplicable and considered replaced by the corresponding legal provisions. There is a need for co-owners within a reasonable period of five years to carry out a coordination. There has been a long discussion about the duration: three years, five years or shorter. We eventually stayed there for five years.

A few days ago, I found that the file of a building dating from the 1950s included two leaves in very poor condition, which constituted the actual status, as well as other leaves, including the co-ownership regulation which itself referred to a document attached to a report of an expert geometer at the origin of the determination of quotas. All these documents no longer necessarily existed in a coherent manner. It is therefore important to be able to coordinate all the documents and eventually adapt them to all the new legal provisions.

I could also extend myself to the headquarters of the co-ownership, to the quotas-shares in the common parts, to the acts relating to the common parts, etc. It should also be emphasized that the co-owner who wins a legal proceedings against a co-owner will no longer have to bear, at least in accordance with its quotas, the fees and procedural costs incurred by the co-owner. This is an extensive topic of discussion that caused a certain discomfort towards the winning co-owners. On the other hand, when the co-owner wins partially, the judge is mandated to proceed to the distribution of what will be attributable to him as well as to the co-owner.

If we come to the important changes made to the various organs of co-ownership, there is first of all the general assembly which must remain the sovereign organ of co-ownership. It must be presided over by a co-owner and the date of the general assembly will be provided in the statutes, in such a way that the co-owner may, if necessary, request in advance the entry of points on the agenda.

It should be known that some trade unions, even today, refuse to register points at the request of the co-owners due to a lack of democracy and openness. Now the new legislation is sufficiently explicit on this subject.

I could extend myself long on the modes of convocation and the content of them, on the procurements that will be limited to arouse a greater participation of the co-owners in the assemblies, because this is precisely one of the objectives of our reform. Other measures concern the agenda of the assemblies, the quorum of presence that will be assessed at the beginning of the AG, abstentions, which will not be taken into account in determining the number of votes for and against. This reform will allow co-owners to make decisions by mail exchange if necessary.

The board of directors will in the future be called the co-ownership council. It is made mandatory in the co-ownership of more than 20 lots, excluding lots consisting of garages or parking lots. The co-ownership board will not be responsible for assisting the manager in his management and controlling him, but to ensure that the manager properly carries out the tasks and decisions taken by the AG. This is a specific role.

This is an important innovation, and I thank Ms. Nyssens for finding this solution in French legislation, which is very comprehensive. In some co-ownership, co-ownership councils play a very useful role. It was necessary to provide for the possibility for the General Assembly to entrust them with certain tasks, defining them in a precise manner, noting, of course, that these cannot be tasks or competences falling within the General Assembly as such. These duties shall also be entrusted to them for a maximum period of one year, by a majority of three quarters, in order to allow such democratic control at the level of co-ownership.

We want to hold the co-ownership councils accountable by asking them for a semi-annual circumstantiated report.

The co-ownership board is also mandated, like any co-owner, to ask the administrator for all desired information on the management of the building. Innovation of legislation: if the control role of co-ownership councils is removed, it is necessary to provide for an audit of the accounts and we provide for the presence of an auditor of the accounts who may, according to the choice of the general assembly, be a co-owner or a person outside the co-ownership.

At the level of proper management of co-ownership and syndicates, there are many innovations in this area. We talked about the duration of the mandate of the syndic and it will also be necessary, once the general assembly has designated a syndic, that there is a written contract that reinserts the modalities of collaboration between the one and the other. The employee must have a civil liability insurance. An important clause on conflict of interests is also provided, so as to avoid a syndic who manages the building does not request, without warning the co-ownership, quotes to the company of his son-in-law, for example.

I take the example of a judicial syndic appointed by a peace judge and who is charged with carrying out works in a building. The syndic asks for quotes and he realizes that one of the companies he asked for quotes is a company of which he himself is the chairman of the board of directors and whose son-in-law is a delegated administrator. He hadn’t warned the co-owner at all, but a co-owner whispered realized this conflict of interest after checking at the Monitor.

In the future, according to figures that will be decided by the assembly, therefore a plurality of quotes will be needed for important works at the co-ownership. This does not seem apparently logical when you listen to a representative of the trade unions who spoke this morning on the RTBF radio. He does not understand why it is necessary to ask for several quotes because he is accustomed to working with one or another business body and that if one asks for several quotes, it will cause prices to rise because, as the business body is not sure to get the market, it will give a higher price. This leaves me a little puppy.

Once a year, and this will please our friends at Ecolo, it will be necessary to carry out an evaluation of regular contracts of supplies such as gas, electricity or oil. It is important to compare prices and to resort to competition in the context of market liberalization. This may allow you to realize that, energetically, you consume too much in a building and that this is an opportunity to request certain premiums in order to reduce consumption, especially those granted by the Regions.

Mr. Minister, important thing and work for you in the coming months – I was already asked this morning to know when it would come out: in terms of accounting in co-property, we will provide for a standardized minimum accounting plan. For small co-owners, it will be something more flexible. It does not preclude that it is by royal decree that all these accounting provisions must be adopted. Therefore, the authors of this new law urge you to prepare as soon as possible for the drafting of these rulings that are awaited with impatience.

Finally, the last point in terms of legislation, information to buyers. This is very important in co-ownership where it has been found too often in recent years that many buyers had the impression of having bought a cat in a bag, not imagining that a series of scheduled works would have to be paid and not being warned of problems in the building. We have provided much more comprehensive information from this point of view to avoid this type of problems.

This is the satisfaction of the work done. I would like to point out some points that have not been resolved to our colleagues as well as to all those who participated in our work, not to mention one of your collaborators, Mr. Herman, whose involvement we have appreciated from the beginning. He wanted to impregnate himself with the matter and at certain times he was able to stick us to certain points, pushing the reflection as far as possible to find the best solutions for everyone. We will still have to work on these points in the coming years and I hope that we will find on them the same consensus as in recent months on the proposal we are discussing.

The first point is the question of the privilege to be granted to co-owners regarding the unpaid of these co-owners. Mr. Minister, we must be aware that in the event that one of the co-owners does not pay what is due in current charges or for the works, it is necessary that someone pays and that someone, it is the other co-owners. However, it should be noted that all multiple apartments do not necessarily accommodate especially native people. Anyone can find themselves in co-ownership. This can cause some co-owner difficulties in cascade. It is therefore necessary that, when selling a lot, one may provide for a right for the co-ownership to be repaid in a privileged manner compared to other creditors.

We did not wish in the state to go further: you know like us that discussions are taking place in particular before the Committee Corporate Law and Commercial Law on claims in terms of privileges; a privilege for suppliers, a privilege of the state to remove, etc. The message we received from your office was to flat the mortgage law and what is provided in terms of privileges in order to avoid any cacophonia.

You should be able to open a debate quickly and you yourself had expressed the wish in a way to clarify the situation. But by remaining aware that, in co-ownership, this type of initiatives will be welcomed in a positive way: a strong demand appeared from this point of view, but we did not want to anticipate because, in terms of privileges, we are aware that balances must be ensured between all creditors. Providing a privilege for co-ownership is legitimate, but what about the privilege of the mortgage creditor? Tomorrow, will all these mortgage creditors still agree to grant mortgage loans knowing that automatically, part of the amounts they could recover through their mortgage risk escaping them because of this privilege for co-ownership? This risks causing a lot of disruption in the real estate market as such and access to mortgage credit.

Balances must be sought and found in this matter.

Another issue to be addressed is the legislation on professional and non-professional trade unions. Today, in the field of professional deontology, some syndics fall under the IPI (Institute of Real Estate Professionals); they are real estate agents, but they can also be professional syndics without being subject to their own deontology. These professionals can be lawyers, architects, geometers and do their profession very well, but fall within another type of deontology, that of lawyers, architects, geometers. It is not necessarily the same rules and the same philosophy. Per ⁇ it will be about gathering everything under one hat, to determine.

Furthermore, non-professional syndics, volunteers in co-ownership are to be greeted: their work deserves recognition, but they cannot afford to do things less well than a paid syndic under the pretext that they are volunteers. Another balance to be found. Standards must also be respected. This is a whole reflection to be made on this subject.

Let us also note, on the level of the construction sites, Mr. Minister, an even more complex reflection: to see to what extent a particular procedure could be envisaged in matters of co-ownership.

When compared with a lease dispute, in case of disputes between a owner and a tenant, in most cases, they do not live in the same building. At the limit, even if it is the mist, they do not see each other and will not fight.

On the other hand, in matters of co-ownership, for those who know the life in multi-apartment buildings, it should not be forgotten that in case of disputes, these people live together, side by side daily, either in the basement, or in the elevator, or at the general assemblies. Also, not being able to quickly resolve the conflicts that occurred between some of them is not a great thing.

A last complex point deserves to be discussed again. Decisions taken by a general assembly may give rise to contestation by a co-owner, because they are irregular, fraudulent, etc. as provided for by law, within three months from the sending of the PV, provided that the text is voted tomorrow. However, decisions for which cancellation is requested require time. I return to the issue of special procedures for co-ownership. Therefore, if the following year, you are dealing with the same irregular, fraudulent or other decision, you will have to attack it again as long as it has not been canceled the first time.

In addition to these problems, as soon as a decision is made at the level of co-ownership, it should be allowed to implement it, for example, the replacement of a roof. In this case, a three-month period is reasonable to bring an action for annulment of that decision. But beyond this deadline, the trade union must be able to order the works, make them perform. Therefore, it must be avoided that five or ten years later, one can still, if necessary, request the cancellation of a decision that has been implemented and also paid by the co-ownership.

I would like to be longer. I would like to thank all my colleagues for the very high quality of the work done. You may have noticed, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, that many other construction sites remain open. But your first duty, Mr. Minister, will be to ask the relevant departments of the Ministry of Justice to prepare the Royal Decrees of Execution relating to this accounting specific to the co-ownership. This is not an exceptional work. This has already been done for the ASBL. The same will be done for the co-owners.

What to say after the intervention? Hamal, passionate about co-ownership? If you want Mr. Hamal be in a good mood, tell him about co-ownership!

Fifteen years ago, a law on co-ownership was passed. I remember that Mrs. de T’Serclaes was a rapporteur. When I submitted to the Senate, during the previous legislature, a very small bill containing five or six articles on co-ownership following a few letters received, I had not imagined the parliamentary course of this matter.

I am pleased with the method we have chosen in the Chamber. A collective parliamentary method: stand around the table for a project that interests everyone and, with good will, find pragmatic, easy solutions to resolve conflicts and above all make the life of our fellow citizens more peaceful.

With large majorities, there is a way to do a lot of things in the Justice Committee or in other committees. It doesn’t always take a whole tralala to vote for fundamental reforms like this. You don’t waste your time for hours in a commission or in an informal working group. Here is the method.

In the end, I think everything has been said. We have not opted for a French model of law. The French law on co-ownership is extremely long. It makes dozens and dozens of articles, because it regulates authoritatively the set of questions that could arise in the co-ownership.

After studying this legislation, we found that it was too detailed and that it risked to wreck the life of co-owners. We have chosen to extend the few articles of the Civil Code that are found in the current legislation, which is too short to be able to solve some problems that persist within the co-ownership.

The fact that these texts were deposited agitated the actors, not only professional associations, trade unions but also peace judges. One or two years ago, at the beginning of our work, I was surprised to feel a reluctance to change the law from the peacekeepers, preferring to refer to the jurisprudence. It must be said that the jurisprudence on co-ownership is phenomenal. The literature on co-ownership at the level of peace courts is impressive. I also read a book entitled “170 questions about the general assemblies of co-ownership”. This is not very sexy, Mr. Minister! I grant it to you! However, this proves that legislation needed to answer certain questions.

The Peace Judges then organized a huge congress in Wallonia and Flanders where many actors were present to demonstrate that they had all the answers, through their jurisprudence, to the questions that arose. We chose another option; we decided to change the law in an extremely cautious and pragmatic way. This is not a revolution! I agree with.

I simply remind you of the titles of the subjects that have dealt with us: the mission of the syndic, the property council, the accounting of the co-property, the information of the acquirers during the transmission of a lot, the general assembly and its modalities, the 1.001 questions that arise when all this little world tries to concert once a year to solve problems and the creation of sub-associations of co-property. These are the important chapters of our work.

Like the mr. Hamal said, there are still things to be done, including on the professional and disciplinary status of syndicals and access to the profession. It does not seem to me that it is in our competence to deal with these issues in the Justice Committee. This is the responsibility of the Economic Committee. As for the deontology of the actors circulating in the management of co-property, it should not be regulated by the Civil Code.

Finally, I refer to the many common legislative proposals. This is an interesting collective management model for working in parliament without wasting time!

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, for me, the subject is special; at first, it was even almost a sentimental subject. I’ve always heard my grandfather – who was one of those professional pitfalls that trade unions must hate – say that oil was paid too much, above the market price, that it was scandalous and that the decision of the general assembly was not respected. He was not the only one who reacted like this, I could see it.

Regardless of the municipalities, poor or rich, a large proportion of our fellow citizens live in apartments of which they are owners or tenants, apartments that must be managed. The subject is therefore important for owners, since it is at their level that all major decisions are made in terms of investments and charges that weigh heavily on the budget. For tenants, the subject is equally important since the owner reflects the charges on them. So the topic is really crucial. A lot of money is wasted.

It is also in some way a mini-democracy that is experienced here. In the Belgian society, one does not learn to manage several. Some people who are part of associations or sports clubs learn this difficult work of negotiating, seeking consensus, being in the majority or in the opposition, trying to skip these obstacles. This is what we see in co-ownership. As not everyone is used to it, it is not always easy. You may be tempted to resign and let the professionals do. Sometimes it goes very well, other times significantly less!

I would like to thank Ms. Nyssens and Mr. Hamal for guiding us in this real parliamentary work. We sat around the table, majority as opposition, to work on small things, on bigger problems, illuminated by auditions. I think we have been able to perform a quality parliamentary work even though it is clear that it does not solve everything. We have not revolutionized the matter. We tried to oil the rods. Not everything is resolved. There are still a number of construction sites.

We have made progress in three major areas. First, at the general assembly level, we tried to see how we could improve the situation and make sure that co-owners take over the leadership of the debates. It is important that all powers are not in the hands of a single entity. For example, in Wallonia, we are trying to make sure that it is no longer the mayor who chairs the municipal council. We have considered this dynamic at the level of co-ownership.

Having a fixed date for the general assembly is also an important element. It will be possible to anticipate the discussions and therefore have fewer surprises. The detailed agenda will also be a progress. I take the example of the mention "roof" on an agenda. It is not known whether it is a small repair or if it is a large, very expensive work. It is therefore important that the wording of the points of the general assembly be as clear as possible so that people are better informed. This will also allow for a simplified minutes that will be quickly accessible and on which you can decide faster.

One of the other issues in this case are the accounts, the sums drawn. At present, we see that the situation is sometimes difficult. Sometimes there is only one account on behalf of the syndic on which the money of the different co-owners transits. The decision to equip each co-ownership with a bank account will enable a much healthier and serene management.

The fact of having a standardized accounting will also professionalize this work that sometimes lacks transparency.

The second major construction work we have been working on is the transformation of the management board. If this went well in some co-property, it was more difficult in others. Initially, we had chosen the option that the co-ownership board should absolutely not interfere with management but we realized that it was more complicated than it seemed. It is clear that, in a number of cases, the council becomes a bit the friend of the syndic and defends him. But in other cases, this board has a job to do in order to lighten the bill as these are things that the trustee should not take care of.

The final solution that has been found, i.e. a co-ownership council to which a large majority of the general assembly – since it has been decided that three-quarters of its members should be present – can entrust certain tasks, it seems to me a good way to proceed. Another important element in the coming years will be the contracts concluded with the trade unions to clarify the tasks to be accomplished. As there are typical lease contracts, we will see the types of syndic contracts multiply. This will be widespread and will allow co-owners’ assemblies to better identify the points they want to be dealt with by the syndic; this will allow for more serene work.

The possibility of subdividing mega-coproprieties will also be interesting, but it will remain an important construction site in relation to this quality of syndics. It is very nice to reform the law but it is not uncommon that the law is not respected. This is the greatest discouragement for people: it is realized that the syndic did not respect the law, this resulted in a conviction and everything continues as before. In the worst case, you change the syndicate to later realize that he has also been convicted. There is clearly a problem and the way the profession is currently regulated is not enough. I hope that in the coming months we will be able to tackle this great construction of deontology. The law must be respected and syndicates convicted repeatedly for breaking the law must be dismissed. This sector must be a trust sector given the masses of money it brings.

First, I can only express my appreciation for the parliamentary work that has taken place here, across all party boundaries, at the initiative of colleagues Nyssens, Hamal and many others involved.

Second, indeed, I think it is now up to our services to determine which implementing decisions should be drawn up. Some concerns for the future have already been signaled, such as the organization of the security, the discussion, and so on. These are things that I think are useful and that may also further distract our attention. Initiatives can still be taken in this regard.

So I have a great appreciation for the work and I will with great enthusiasm continue to defend the bill if it is evoked. Maybe it will be discussed in the Senate, where I will defend it with great enthusiasm.