Projet de loi modifiant l'article 207bis du Code judiciaire, organisant l'accès des notaires à la fonction de conseiller suppléant au sein d'une cour d'appel.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
-
The Senate
- Submission date
- May 20, 2009
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- higher court notary judge judicial power
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo N-VA FN VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Dirk Van der Maelen (Vooruit) abstained from voting.
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 ¶
Jan. 21, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Raf Terwingen ⚙
I refer to the written report.
Stefaan Van Hecke Groen ⚙
I am pleased that the new Minister of Justice is present here today. I am curious whether we can hold an interesting debate today about the additional magistrates.
As in the committee, we will not approve this draft here, for a fundamental reason. We believe that it is not the job of non-magistrates to play temporary magistrates. Now lawyers are called to this position. The proposal extends this to notaries. This is very problematic. We can discuss this for a very long time.
Instead of extending the measure, we propose that the Minister of Justice take steps to abolish the system of supplementary magistrates and replace it with structural measures. These magistrates will be replaced in case there are problems and there is a shortage of magistrates. This is not a good system. It would be better to work with a pool at the level of the district, at the level of the country, with magistrates deployed in the places where there is need and where the backwardness needs to be removed.
There is also the not insignificant problem of interference. We have already talked about this, but this is about something else. I refer to the report of the Investigative Committee on Tax Fraud. There, we have thoroughly investigated why tax fraud files are not brought to a good end. Specifically in Brussels, we found that one of the causes was the fact that individuals performed different functions. They are deputy magistrates, professors and lawyers. As a professor, they write whole theories about how the law should be applied. Then they sit as magistrates and try to bring their theories into the jurisprudence. The next day they go as lawyers in another court and use their jurisprudence to illustrate their own great right.
This has been demonstrated very accurately, especially during the sitting behind closed doors where horse and man are mentioned. It is one of the big problems when we allow lawyers, from time to time, whether or not permanently, to become magistrates. That is fundamentally wrong, incorrect and even dangerous.
I understand that sometimes it is necessary to resort to lawyers, but then it should be limited to very exceptional cases. We need a new system, a structural approach to judicial backwardness. We must not expand it as we do today.
Therefore, we vote against the draft. We hope that in the coming years we can put an end to the system and effectively find a structural solution to the judicial downturn, with professional magistrates who are completely independent, around which there is no swim of dependence.