Proposition 52K1495

Projet de loi modifiant la législation relative aux cadres temporaires dans les cours d'appel et les parquets généraux.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 16, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

backlog of court cases magistrate judicial power

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

Vooruit

Abstained from voting

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 ¶

Dec. 11, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

In the general discussion intervened only one speaker, Mr. Van Hecke.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it very brief. We have discussed this in the committee. I said then – and I repeat it here – that our group welcomes all initiatives that lead to removing the judicial downturn. We therefore principally support the draft which aims to equalize the different laws that exist.

Mr. Minister, there is, however, one comment that we should make and which is quite fundamental. In order to justify the draft law, the explanatory memorandum refers to numerical material to demonstrate that it is effectively necessary to invest further in it.

In the memorandum of explanation we have only seen figures for 2006. Not in 2007, not in 2008. After discussion, it was promised that these figures would be added to the report. This has happened, but only partially.

We have received additional figures in the Annex on the evolution of the backwardness at the courts of appeal of Antwerp and Brussels. So we can see that in Antwerp in a year time one has made another step forward. In Brussels, on the other hand, the backwardness has increased slightly, ⁇ as a result of other legal provisions aimed at addressing the backwardness but having the opposite effect.

It is remarkable that there are no figures from the other three courts of appeal: neither of Luik, nor of Gent, nor of Bergen, for 2006 and 2007. This is really unacceptable.

We are asked to continue to confirm a certain exception until 2010 because the fight against judicial lag is so important. However, we do not know what the figures are and what the evolution is in terms of judicial lag in three of the five courts of appeal. That is unacceptable.

There are two possibilities, Mr. Minister. Either you have those numbers and you do not provide them to us – but I know you in the meantime and assume that this is not the case – or you do not have the numbers of those courts of appeal. It would be possible, but those courts are obliged to draw up an annual report on their activities. Does that mean that those work reports have not been drawn up or passed on to the FOD Justice or to your cabinet? Do you therefore not have the actual figures of the evolution of the judicial lag in those three courts of appeal?

It seems to me that we are taking a measure that is in principle positive, but we do not know whether it is useful and necessary for some courts of appeal.

Last year we saw a similar work report. I still remember that the first chairman of the Court of Appeal of Bergen communicated that there was no longer any judicial retardation with him.

If we make such a decision, I consider it essential that we can have the operating reports of all courts of appeal, which contain a clear picture of the evolution of judicial lag.

We support the principle, Mr. Minister. I have told you, our group will support your design, but I will personally abstain, for the reasons I have cited here. I hope that we can have all the necessary information, if we have to conduct such discussions in the future. I would also like to ask you, if you are not aware of the results in three courts of appeal and if you do not have the operations reports, that you do what is necessary to ensure that those reports are made public.

Does anyone want to speak in the general discussion? The Minister has the word.

The last numbers have been added, as requested. These are the 2007 reports. That is not a single problem. I think they were already taken care of in the room.

Mr. Minister, in the committee you promised that you would do the necessary to submit the figures of 2007 in an annex. There are two courts of appeal: Brussels and Antwerp.

I want to help the Minister. In the pressure test only those two courts were included, but after a mail he corrected it. In the final version are also the three other courts, though according to a method that is not entirely reassuring, because the deadlines mentioned do not say everything about the numbers.

So the minister remains with the problem that one court of appeal in our country, in particular Gent, is able to issue figures on the day. We note that other courts of appeal who do not even want to give, on instruction, nota bene, of a former cabinet employee of the former ministers Wathelet and De Clerck, who now sends the notification to the courts of appeal that they should not give numbers, if they are requested.

Mr. Minister, I ask you to act, in particular with regard to Attorney General Visart de Bocarmé, and to tell him that he must not obstruct the concerns of the Parliament and the Minister regarding the recovery of the judicial delay.