Proposition 52K1755

Projet de loi abrogeant l'article 41 et modifiant l'article 63 du Code civil.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen

Submission date

Jan. 26, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative formalities civil register civil status

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. 4, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Van Cauter, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to point out that I wanted to participate in the discussion. I would say that this bill was examined in the Family Committee. Initially, there was a bill to increase the number of witnesses in a civil marriage. Furthermore, other members wanted to see the witnesses for civil marriage removed and had filed texts in this direction. Finally, after discussion, a compromise was found: witnesses would be optional for a civil marriage because their legal role had lost its relevance, but it was allowed to go from two to four witnesses when the brides wanted to symbolically reinforce the importance of their engagement, just as certain neighboring countries such as France provide.

I note that Mr. Van Hecke asks for the word. Are there other members? If Mr. Terwingen wants to speak, he must be present. So I ask you to inform him. In anticipation of the arrival of Mr. Terwingen, Mr. Van Hecke will be speaking.

Mr. Speaker, I did not understand in Article 41 that it was about the abolition of witnesses. I thought that the discussion of it would be for next week.

For a good understanding, we are now talking about Article 41 of the Civil Code.

This article is about something else in my opinion.

I did not interrupt Ms. Nyssens. She gave a presentation. I ask her, however, if she verifies for a moment whether her presentation belongs to the correct bill.

Mr. Terwingen, can you let the light shine in the darkness for a moment?

For the most part, we are talking about the abolition of Article 41 of the Civil Code. The article stipulates that the registers of civil status must normally be signed by the presidents of the court. The aforementioned obligation is repealed. This is the subject of the present legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the discussion on the witnesses is a very exciting debate, but it will definitely be on the agenda next week.

No one was speaking, but as I knew Mr. Raf Terwingen wanted to speak, I took the word to give him time to come. I know he wanted to remove an article of the Civil Code. Since many things are being deleted in the Civil Code for the moment, I thought I needed to express myself quickly! But here it is!

You are believed!

I have no doubt that Ms. Nyssens is not mistaken. She is always very ad rem. I thank her for her intervention and for winning some time.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to intervene on Article 41, because that is not a problem. I was just surprised that Mrs. Nyssens started on the witnesses. That is a debate that I would very much like to engage in, but I suspect it will be for next week.