Proposition 52K1645

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 92, 109bis et 1301 du Code judiciaire.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Katrien Schryvers
MR Olivier Hamal, Marie-Christine Marghem
Open Vld Herman De Croo, Guido De Padt, Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Thierry Giet

Submission date

Dec. 5, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure divorce

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. 11, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am not referring to my written report, but to my two written reports on the subject.

Yet another thing?

I repeat that I refer to my two written reports on the subject.

Then we will take a record of your report. Ms Van Cauter asks for the word in the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister of Justice, colleagues, at present, all claims relating to the status of persons, for example a marriage, in the degree of appeal are dealt with by a chamber of three councillors. Even at the level of the court of first instance, proceedings relating to the improvement of civil status documents must still be submitted to a three-judge chamber. The purpose of the bill is to enable those claims to be handled in the future by one counselor or one judge in the court of first instance, respectively, with the advantage that a number of magistrates are released to exercise other tasks. In this way, we can step by step do something to combat the judicial backwardness, which still plays our sides, Mr. Minister.

Our goal is therefore process-economic in nature, but with respect for the rights of defence. In fact, every appellant or interrogated person will still retain the right to request his treatment before a Chamber of Three Councillors in the degree of appeal. Therefore, our proposal does not affect the rights of defence.

Finally, colleagues, I think that in this way we do not only contribute to the fight against the judicial downturn, but that we can also deal with these cases in a better way. We think of the plea of the Chairman of the Court of Appeal in Gent, who explicitly pointed out to us that in this way a mediation solution in these cases will also be better sought.

Mediation and process-economic action are two steps in the right direction for the major reform of the judiciary. These may be small steps, but at least in the right direction. I urge the House to approve this proposal.