Proposition 52K2165

Projet de loi modifiant le Code civil en ce qui concerne les témoins au mariage civil.

General information ¶

Author

PS | SP Valérie Déom

Submission date

Sept. 17, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

marriage

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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. 25, 2010 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, the bill was initially discussed in the Family Law Subcommittee in the meetings of 9 December and 6 and 13 January.

Ms. Déom initially explained her proposal, which consists in giving a married couple the possibility in the future to appoint two to four witnesses, while today this is limited to mandatory two witnesses.

During the discussion, Mr Terwingen submitted the amendment no. 1 submitted to allow marriage candidates the freedom to appoint or not appoint witnesses. If one chooses to marry witnesses, the amendment allows one to appoint a maximum of four witnesses.

During the discussion, the representative of the Secretary of State pointed to us three arguments. First, while in recent years for acts such as the birth certificate and the death certificate the use of witnesses was abolished because it was only ceremonial interventions, this bill goes in the opposite direction. In particular, it provides for the possibility of increasing the number of witnesses. Second, the representative pointed out to us the fact that, in the case of the civil status, there is actually only a very limited space for the signature of the witnesses. A third additional argument was the fact that in a marriage conclusion the witnesses must establish the free will agreement of the young couple.

The applicant of the bill responded by pointing out that the legal meaning of witnesses has evolved into a symbolic meaning.

Subsequent amendments were submitted by Mr. Logghe and Mr. Landuyt.

The text was forwarded by the subcommittee to the Justice Committee. The Justice Committee examined this bill very briefly on 26 January, after which it was voted on 3 February.

Ms. Deom has in the Committee on Justice a global amendment no. 5 submitted, which aims to replace the text of the bill. The amendment clarifies that marriage retains an important symbolic function and is in fact a form of social recognition of that stage of life. The presence of witnesses at that moment can be very important. However, according to Ms. Déom, it must be acknowledged that such presence should not be mandatory. The future spouses should be able to decide on this.

Furthermore, there was an intervention from Ms. Nyssens who said that she would support the text. Ms Smeyers announced that she would vote against the proposal. Mr Terwingen expressed his support for the proposal. Mr Van Hecke regretted that, I quote from the report, “the committee is spending its precious time on such proposals.”

There were also interventions from colleagues Logghe, Hamal and Libert.

Ultimately, the Justice Committee adopted this proposal with ten votes in favour, two votes against and one abstinence.

So far this report.

If you allow me, Mrs. Speaker, I would like to make a brief speech on behalf of my group on this proposal. It is true that this bill has undergone a strange evolution during the discussion. It went more specifically from the possible extension of the number of witnesses to the freedom to choose from zero to four witnesses at the marriage celebration.

For Open Vld, three arguments were important during the discussion. First, the freedom to determine the number of witnesses within the fork from zero to four. Second, the argument of the possible administrative simplification for those who choose to take no or only one witness. Finally, the fact that the inequality that still exists today between ecclesiastical and civil marriage is thus removed. In the ecclesiastical marriage one can call several witnesses, and in the civil one is limited to two.

Time will tell which direction the young married will take. Either the abolition and limitation of the number of witnesses, or the expansion thereof. I know that some of my colleagues have acted rather degradingly and will act in connection with that proposal because it would only address a “little thing”. My answer to this is that we discussed the proposal in a limited time. We worked quickly and efficiently. Furthermore, that so-called “littleness” can benefit the civil marriage of some couples and hopefully also make them happier.

Mrs Lahaye-Battheu, thank you for the comprehensive and good report. All elements are cited. For our party, which will approve this bill, the importance of the bill is not so much in the creation of the possibility of four witnesses. Apparently there was a social support for it, there was a social demand for it, there was a certain necessity for it. In this regard, my personal opinion is that if it does not benefit, it does not harm either.

The importance of the bill, however, lies in the fact – the majority has followed my amendment, which was subsequently repeated in the global amendment I submitted together with Ms. Déom – that there is no longer an obligation. For CD&V, this is the most important element in the bill. There are a number of arguments for this.

First, witnesses have a certain historical and legal interest. In the past, many people could not read or write, and it was important that there were witnesses to provide proof of a particular act, of a particular legal act. However, this is completely outdated. That obligation is no longer so necessary.

Secondly, as Ms. Lahaye-Battheu has also said, it fits in some ways into the story of administrative simplification, and it also fits in any case into the modernization of the bourgeois state, which my party, by the way, is thinking about and which we will eventually come up with a draft. For the sake of modernization, it is important to keep the administrative burden as low as possible.

Therefore, we will support the proposal, also by analogy of, Mr. Speaker, the fact that other witnesses in civil acts have already been abolished, think of the witnesses that were previously needed in a death certificate, but also think of the witnesses that were necessary in a birth certificate.

I remember that between 10 and 15 years ago there was also some social debate about the abolition of the witnesses to that birth certificate, for the simple reason that one assumed that then one would no longer indicate the child and there would be fewer festivities. In the meantime, I realized that there are no more complaints about this. In analogy with those two abolitions, the proposed abolition is also no more than logical.

For all clarity, there was a legal necessity, there was a legal interest. The importance of the witnesses has not become a legal, but a symbolic story. Rules in the Civil Code are not intended to maintain symbols, but only to create legal certainty. Therefore, we will support the bill, in particular because of the abolition of the obligation.

I think we should pay attention to this very important legislative proposal. It is probably one of the most important laws that we will pass this legislature in the House.

There are a lot of problems with justice. The Justice Committee meets two days a week. We have a lot of work. Well, the proposal really shows what is the priority of the majority. A sub-committee on Family Law has bowed over the very important proposal three times. The result was that some would prefer to abolish the witnesses, while others wanted more. The compromise is that everything is possible. Instead of a possibility, namely two witnesses, there are now five possibilities: four witnesses, three witnesses, two witnesses, one witness or no witnesses.

The choice has been expanded. In the context of administrative simplification, this is, of course, a very great progress. I hear the liberals defending with a lot of verve, while I heard the former secretary of state, now minister, speaking about the Kafkatest. We had to look at whether we didn’t make everything too complicated, and so on. With this proposal, of course, we make it all too complicated. If people want to get married, they will have to make that choice at the municipality house. Some will not know what to do.

The formula of two witnesses has always been known. They say, if it does not benefit, it does not harm. In my opinion, colleague Terwingen, it can also give rise to a number of conflicts. Suppose someone chooses the classic formula with two witnesses. Per ⁇ there were others who would have liked to be witnesses and who may then be angry, because the possibly not used to push a third or fourth witness forward.

I don’t think it will really be a progress in practice. I do not really see the usefulness of the change. I think the system of two witnesses, as it is now, did not create really big problems. I don’t understand why we need to change it and make it much more complex. We will not support the proposal.

Mr. Speaker, it is one of those bills in which one could ask in a first reading and a first impression what objections can be raised against it? However, those who have listened to colleague Van Hecke will also find some of his arguments in my argument.

We are the party of tradition, the most preserved party in this hemisphere. There will be no controversy about this. So one can wonder why the Flemish Interest would not approve such a law, as the number of witnesses is being expanded.

We are not in favour of the preservation of the traditions inscribed in the law at all costs and ⁇ not for the sake of sentiments. Particularly the sentiments have played here and not the concern for the institution marriage, not the rationality, not the ratio legis of the witnesses.

We argue that the abolition would ⁇ have been the most logical and the only option if one had really wanted to consider a change. There are no more administrative, practical or legal grounds and no more grounds for legal certainty to maintain witnesses. If one had wanted to change something, one would have better kept it at two, because now one – colleague Van Hecke said it already – will get no, one, two, three or four witnesses. In short, the official of the civil state will only get it harder. This will lead to more mistakes and mistakes. I wonder if one will still be so happy if one or two weeks after marriage one receives a phone call from the civil servant. Errors are always possible. Mistaking is human. This creates the possibility of errors. The parties who have not cared at all about the institute of marriage in recent decades now want to convey some feelings and showel elements to the marriage.

The most foolish argument in the family law committee was that two witnesses could give a problem, and that it would be better to have four witnesses, because then four people could sign. One will only be the fifth or sixth candidate-witness, who will now also not be able to co-sign this law. In fact, it would have been better to create a guest book. The whole room could have signed. Per ⁇ the biggest administrative simplification would have been that in which witnesses would no longer be honored as witnesses.

In short, this is not a revaluation of the institute marriage, but rather the opposite. This is a further banalization of the institute of marriage. Therefore, we do not understand why there would be arguments for approving this legislative amendment.

I do not want to raise polemics over such simple bills. I think the cynicism of Mr. Van Hecke is wrong. He can do it this way, but I assume – I think the other members of the family law committee will join me – that there was no opposition of Greens in the family law committee, where it was somewhat discussed at that time! There was no argument against this at the time. They even supported it.

Regarding the Flemish Interest, I should state the same. Furthermore, I note that the abolition of the obligation is important. I am pleased that at least that aspect, which I brought with my amendment, is supported by the Flemish Interest.

I would like to comment quickly on Mr. President’s remarks. and Terwingen.

The Family Subcommittee did not take the time to consider other proposals. She is working. She prepared the text on the contributive parts that was much anticipated. We are also waiting for the examination of the text on disability and on the family court. I believe that we have devoted in all and for all an hour of the Justice Committee to this text.

It is clear that this will not revolutionize justice. That is not their goal either. Its goal is to simplify people’s lives and improve the lives of future spouses.

In addition, a representative of the Ecolo-Groen group! He participated actively in the family subcommittee. Per ⁇ it would be necessary to agree within this group on the attitudes to be taken regarding the bill proposals that are discussed in committees and subcommittees.

I believe that the compromise reached is in the direction of simplifying administrative procedures and social recognition of marriage witnesses. For the rest, we will see how the law will be applied in the future.

Thank you, Madame Deom, for this clarification.