Proposition 53K1344

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 216bis et 216ter du Code d'instruction criminelle et l'article 7 de la loi du 6 juin 2010 introduisant le Code pénal social.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

March 24, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

fine social legislation criminal procedure alternative sentence

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR VB

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) voted to reject.
• 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 ¶

June 30, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mrs Lahaye-Battheu.

Mr. President, Mrs. Lahaye-Battheu refers to her written report.

Mrs Van Vaerenbergh has the word.

The amendment to the amicable settlement law is now on the vote in the plenary session. Although my group is not in itself opposed to the extension of the amicable settlement, we have problems with the way this law came into being.

I repeat again the history of creation. The amicable settlement was achieved by a simple amendment by the majority in ongoing cases to the law containing various provisions. At the same time, the majority parties refused to conduct an in-depth discussion on this subject, while the amicable settlement implies a very profound change in our current legal system.

Afterwards, when it became clear that the new friendly settlement with heels and eyes had come to an end, the majority in ongoing affairs decided to continue still stubbornly. Instead of reviewing the law containing various provisions and conducting an in-depth debate on it, she, with the shame red on her cheeks, submitted a repair law.

The repair law was submitted while the discussion of the law containing various provisions had not even been completed. Therefore, we could not otherwise than ask for advice from the State Council. Although the State Council had a number of comments, the committee did not intervene. In its opinion, the State Council also clearly stated that it was willing to give advice on the content of the actual proposal to amend the law on amicable settlement.

Dear colleagues, given that questionable history and the fact that there was no possible broad reflection on the amicable settlement, we can only vote against later, but not because we are against the extension of the amicable settlement. Rather, we believe that the expansion of the friendly settlement is a must, and an important instrument in the persecution arsenal. However, a profound reform of our legal system must be treated with the necessary seriousness. Such a law cannot be unconsciously pursued by the hemisphere, as is now done by the majority in ongoing affairs.

We will therefore not approve this law, to give the signal that we disagree with the way this law has been treated.

May 12, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will briefly and broadly outline the creation of the bill. Initially, there were two bills. The first legislative proposal concerned an amendment to the Law on Market Practices and Consumer Protection, with a view to combating advertiser sales. The second legislative proposal concerned an amendment to the Law on Market Practices and Consumer Protection, as regards advertising contracts for internet business guides.

In its presentation, the CD&V group noted that advertiser salespeople have been tormenting the self-employed and enterprises in our country for some time. Over the past 25 years, the advertising sales sector has become highly professionalized, making the fight against it even more complex. Several organizations regularly complain about these practices, but yet the struggle does not prove sufficient to stop advertiser sales. Some judges appear to be insufficient in assessing the fraudulent aspect of the practices, which constitute fraud.

Although there are currently several legal instruments used against this misleading and fraudulent advertising recruitment, they appear to be too general and insufficiently focused to effectively stop advertiser sales. The proposal aims to include a similar provision in the Belgian law on market practices and consumer protection. Therefore, there can no longer be any doubt, among the victims, the prosecutors and the judges, that the alleged practice is unlawful and therefore no payment is due.

I come to the presentation of the N-VA faction. The proposal clarifies what should be understood by a advertising contract for an Internet business guide. It also stipulates that a written and handwritten, signed contract must be worked out, which must also meet a number of other conditions. The contract may, under the penalty of invalidity, in no case be concluded for more than one year. In addition, advertiser salespeople will have to provide a layout for those who wish to have a message included in the guide. That layout will need to be approved and self-signed, following the example of the usual approach for paper business guides.

After consultation between the N-VA and CD&V, the N-VA submitted amendment no. 1 in, which aims to supplement Article 2 of the bill with the text of its own bill. The applicant was of the opinion that the merger of the two bills would bring about a closing arrangement.

The N-VA submits a second amendment. It aims to provide in a new article 4 that this law shall enter into force six months after its publication in the Belgian Official Gazette.

Sp. a. introduces a third amendment. It obliges the issuer to notify the customer of the expiry of the annual period no later than one month before the expiry date of the contract. Thus, forgetting can be avoided and the customer is reminded that the notice must be registered and must be made no later than eight days before the due date.

At the request of the PS, the CDH and Open Vld, the bill and the amendments are forwarded to the legal service of the Chamber. All amendments are withdrawn and with the legislative technical corrections the bill of CD&V is unanimously adopted.

With your approval, I will subsequently express our views on the bill.

I myself, as a self-employed person, and the sp.a. group support the bill for the simple reason that some practices used by advertisers are not permitted. We support the proposal even more because it does offer a solution that can eliminate endless discussions and legal proceedings.

Parliament should take responsibility and contribute to the protection of, among other things, small self-employed persons and enterprises.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her sound report.

For several years, I have been involved in initiatives against the malicious practices of ronsellers, though in various qualities. I am very pleased to be able to work here today on a law to stop such practices.

For years, a number of misleading advertising advertisers have been deceiving self-employed and reckless entrepreneurs. Unizo, Voka and other professional organisations have received many complaints in recent years from entrepreneurs, who unknowingly concluded multi-year contracts for whether or not existing Internet business guides.

In total, there are 35 malafide ronsellers known. On our request to the competent Minister for Business, Mr. Van Quickenborne, on 23 November 2010, we responded positively to make the malafide companies known and published on the website of the FOD Economie. Also Unizo has posted the malafide ronselers on its website.

In the Netherlands, the annual damage caused to self-employed and entrepreneurs amounts to more than 400 million euros on an annual basis. Here, too, thousands of companies are caught up and are stunned by the current problem.

Over the past few years, such ronsellers have been carrying out their activities. They are very creative in this regard. For example, many entrepreneurs receive such a letter, with the colors of the Golden Guide and incorrect company files of their own company, where, for example, a lingerie company is cataloged as a iron store. The company must then correct the error. The phone number is missing, after which the company must fill in the phone number. Once the company has done so, it is bound by a contract for three years at an amount of 1,068 euros.

Near Gent, around Flanders Expo, the companies participating in exchanges at Flanders Expo are contacted by a Mexican company. The company concerned presents itself as the so-called official issuer of expogids, to which an amount of 1 081 euros is tied. The collection agency placed on the dispute is actually a Cypriot company.

Another example is a company from Vienna in Austria, which plays the company logo of the Internet. It then sends a invoice and claims to be the publisher of the official trademark register for registered trademarks. The damaged company is held to a sum of 795 euros per year.

Also, the rally practices for police and firefighters guides, whether or not existing, are all known to us.

Many ronsellers operate from abroad, both within and outside the European Union. They establish by agreement that only foreign law is applicable.

Many complaints are known to the services of the Economic Inspectorate, which has already made a lot of effort in this regard and referred the matter to the prosecutor’s office. However, the complaints are often dismissed.

As existing legislation leaves too much room for interpretation, a stricter regulation is needed. For example, the court of Brussels condemned the ronsellers, while the judge in Ghent ruled in favour of a German, malafide reclameronselaar – DAD – based on the reasoning that an entrepreneur can be expected to read the documents, and therefore also the small letters, thoroughly. On the basis of the aforementioned judgment, the aforementioned, German firm DAD, compelled all self-employed and entrepreneurs who had not yet paid for their misleading guide.

The business organisation Unizo also conducts a number of procedures for its members, in total already for an amount of more than EUR 20 000.

The legislative proposals presented, on the one hand those of CD&V under the leadership of Ms. Van der Auwera and on the other hand those of N-VA, came into one whole.

The bill clarifies what should be understood under a advertising contract for a guide, an address file, telephone book, lists for files and so on. We wanted to make this law clear. No payment forms, order forms, improvement forms or any forms may be offered without explicit and unambiguous indication that it is a contract offer at a certain price and that in the largest letter, both for price and for duration.

This law is an important step and we welcome the unanimous approval in the committee.

For foreign malicious companies that compile worthless Internet business guides, we would like to take additional initiatives, possibly in cooperation with colleagues at European level, which will take into account the related European provisions.

Finally, I would also like to make a small call to self-employed and entrepreneurs to think carefully before signing something, to consult their counselor before they pay something and not to let themselves in the heels anymore.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, which self-employed, business manager or even ASBL has never received a mail, fax, e-mail inviting him to correct the contact details of his company for an update? Who has never received the visit of a start-up inviting him to pay to insert an advertisement of his company in a catalog broadcast in the region or sold for the benefit of various works that, in most cases, have a largely questionable philanthropic purpose? Who has never received an invoice with a mention "remember", which usually pushes to pay it without generally checking its well-foundedness?

Unfortunately, these practices are still and always too many. They often pollute the lives of companies and associations. The common point among all these scams: enjoying a moment of inattention as well as ignoring the basic rules to make profits.

Although these unfair practices are already largely contrary to the rules of trade, it is still good to strengthen again and again the measures aimed at eradicating them. Besides this, the best way to avoid discomfort is still to avoid falling into the trap. To do this, nothing is worth being properly informed and prepared.

Therefore, information must also be enhanced to companies and associations. The SPF Economy has published a very good brochure in this regard. In the same order of ideas, it is necessary to continue the publication of a blacklist of companies active in the directory scam and, above all, to advertise it. This list exists and contains about thirty names. Finally, the best thing to do is also to encourage victims to file a complaint, which will expand the blacklist and discourage people tempted to do so.

The coordination of these various measures should, I hope, eradicate this plague. Naturally, we support this proposal.

It is not surprising that we will also support this proposal which we find appropriate.

This is the case in the business world: imagination is often unlimited there to make money. There are always the same actors: on the one hand, those who work out of greed and on the other, those who let themselves be caught out of naivety. This is what laws serve: to protect good practices, to prohibit what is unfair. It is also necessary to denounce fraud in these areas of unlawfulness and which deserve criminal sanctions.

However, often the challenge is such that we let things go and the reactions are not suitable.

It was important for our committee and our parliament to address this issue, especially since these unfair behaviors have two characteristics. First, means of communication such as the Internet, which fall into transnational, non-legal spaces, each state having its own legislation and rules, are now widely used. These means communicate information and requests.

Moreover, it is always the most vulnerable people or companies that do not have the time that are abused. Indeed, in our modern society, you need to go quickly, which sometimes prevents you from conducting checks.

Therefore, I support this bill, even though it could have been refined. But for that, we should have had a little more time. It is still true that we have made good progress, even though we have retreated somewhat from the amendments that had been submitted, emphasizing in particular their delicate nature.

I will conclude by saying that in view of the greed of some and the naivety of others, the work is not finished and that it will be necessary to resume the work to continue to fight against these unfair practices.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, when we are faced with such a problem in the House, we are placed in front of a huge challenge. We have a system of laws and rules that should indeed be sufficient in large part to punish the abusive practices, to which the subjects of both bills – which were also supported by my group – have rightly paid attention. Unfortunately, we find in practice, and you are very close, Mr. Uyttersprot, that the judicial apparatus does not seem to be able to apply the general set of rules that we have around market practices and which were brought to a more coherent and European-oriented whole during that previous legislature by the Minister of Quickenborne. The failure of the judicial apparatus brings us to these bills.

Although my group supports the initiative and will also support the final bill, I would like to take the opportunity to point out to all of you that we must be very careful in order to prescribe a correct model for every deviating behavior. We want to punish some kind of behavior, namely abuse of trust and deception and the like, but we cannot write a law for each particular form of deception or abuse or the like.

In short, we will support this proposal, but please let us be careful to make in the future for every detail or for every specific exploitation of illegal behavior a specific law, but try as much as possible to make the general framework translated into jurisprudence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for facing this problem and for supporting this proposal.

I am ⁇ not in favour of legislation for any form of deviant behavior, as Mr Schiltz said. By the way, this seems to me rather a term for the Social Affairs Committee or for Public Health. However, the situation has forced us to act immediately on this issue. The Law on Market Practices and Consumer Protection was the ideal law to be amended.