Proposition 53K1499

Projet de loi modifiant diverses dispositions en vue d'établir un registre national des experts judiciaires et établissant un registre national des traducteurs, interprètes et traducteurs-interprètes jurés.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen, Servais Verherstraeten

Submission date

May 24, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

organisation of professions civil procedure database expert's report ordered by a court criminal procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR 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. 20, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, our Justice Committee was invited to consider proposals for the National Register of Judicial Experts and Translators-Interpreters. These texts were the subject of the same discussion.

Several bills had been submitted, the main of which were by Ms. Becq and Mr. Becq. Terwingen, to which the proposals of the PS, MR and N-VA have been added. The discussion of these proposals was the subject of meetings in December 2012, May and July 2013 and again in January 2014. A meeting was dedicated to the hearing of field actors, magistrates and university professors.

Regarding the register of judicial experts, Ms Becq, in her introductory presentation, recalled the state of disorganisation in which the task of judicial expert has been exercised for too long, with an infinite variety of experts, a total absence of procedure for measuring the professional qualities of one and the other, a total lack of transparency and information regarding how experts are appointed by the court and sometimes even by which court, the existence of unofficial lists in some courts and not in others. In short, the feeling that every magistrate facing the appointment of an expert did what he wanted or what he could.

The aim is to put order in this matter because too many problems arise, including the quality of the conclusions, the mode of defrauding, the absolutely unreasonable deadlines within which the reports are submitted, the use of fantasy titles to which it is resorted to boast its expertise. A regulation of these matters was therefore necessary, in particular since the request was supported by the Supreme Council of Justice.

The first proposal creates a register of experts holding a legally protected title who, alone, will be entitled to receive judicial expertise, unless the exception is motivated by the magistrate.

The procedure for selecting the approved experts will enable only those experts who have a number of qualities, namely technical knowledge in each area of expertise, basic legal knowledge and absence of criminal records.

It was also necessary to address the issue of expert fees, noting that late payment of judicial experts and sometimes low remuneration have a negative effect on the number of judicial experts willing to accept and carry out these tasks entrusted by courts.

Finally, a transitional measure is envisaged in such a way that persons who already exercised the function of expert before the entry into force of the law have sufficient time to meet the new conditions imposed by the law.

As regards the status of translator, interpreter or interpreting translator, Ms Becq presented the strength lines to frame the exercise of these translation tasks by legal provisions. We are here in a bit of the same situation and the bill aims to establish a status for these professions as well as a national register.

Various amendments were submitted as a follow-up to the discussions and hearings conducted by the committee, mainly in the area of judicial experts. Essentially, the changes were as follows:

- the need to have five years of experience in the eight years preceding the period of registration in the field for which the expert candidate wishes to be enrolled;

- a sentence for a rolling offence does not preclude registration as a judicial expert or other offences that would not manifestly constitute an obstacle to the exercise of the profession of expert;

- the requirement that the applicant has not committed a breach of the ethical rules of his professional group has, on the other hand, been removed;

- the possession of a diploma and a document attesting to professional experience must allow to establish that the applicant has the necessary qualifications.

Several other technical amendments have been submitted. Amendments were introduced by Mr. Degroote who wanted to obtain the entry in the Code of Criminal Instruction of a regulation adapted for the designation of judicial experts. The committee was of the opinion not to retain these amendments and those related to it, considering that these provisions should be the subject of modernization of the criminal procedure in its entirety or in a more general way.

Our committee unanimously adopted the report. Nevertheless, I must draw the attention of our colleagues to the fact that after the report was submitted, the legislative note issued by the Chamber’s Legal Service had proposed some technical modifications, approved by the committee, which were the subject of amendments. However, there was an error in the written report as, in its original version, it is mentioned that the committee did not give its consent to a particular comment from the legal service. I read it because it is important for the report: “The proposed article 991octies, 2°, provides that proof of legal knowledge is provided by an attestation of such knowledge issued by an educational institution approved by the King. It may be questioned whether the notion of educational institution is not too strict. The proposed wording excludes, for example, training that would be organized by professional organisations.”

The erratum that has been published tends to correct this error. Therefore, the text to be adopted in the plenary session has been corrected on the legal level. The corrected version is written as follows: "Article 991octies. The evidence referred to in Article 991quater, 6°, shall be provided by presenting to the Minister of Justice: ... 2° in respect of legal knowledge, a certificate of such knowledge issued by an institution approved by the King."

Subject to this correction, the report remains up-to-date and can serve as a basis for discussion.

This proposal provides for the legal criteria for the recognition of experts and interpreters. In order to be included in the national list, a number of conditions must be met. For example, one should have relevant professional experience in specific areas of expertise and demonstrate legal knowledge. It also provides for guidelines on any temporary or definitive removal in the event of repeated deficiencies or inadequate performance.

Working with informal lists, not based on the qualities of experts, sometimes led to incorrect conclusions or abuse. In addition, the High Council for Justice was the requesting party for the present legal arrangement. Thanks to the bill, the judicial experts will not only be recognized, their title will also be protected from now on. Only experts on the national list can be appointed by the court in a particular case, except in exceptional cases, for example in case of urgency or when there is no specialist on a particular subject on the list.

We have submitted an amendment to regulate the status of the expert in criminal matters, based on the recommendations of the working group referred to by the colleague. It is regrettable that it was rejected; it is in fact a general fact that the statute of judicial experts and the examination of criminal experts are not regulated in it.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not mention its purpose, the cooperation between experts and parties, and the evidence value of the expert report. Furthermore, any provision on a real status of the expert is lacking in our Belgian legal system. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a genuine status of expert in criminal matters, as well as a sound expert procedure, in particular with regard to the appointment and functioning of judicial experts.

By voting down our amendment, these issues remain dead letter. The present legislative proposal is going in the right direction and the quality of the research will be guaranteed. Therefore, our group will support the bill.

Judicial experts in general, interpreters, translators, sworn interpreters play an essential role in the functioning of justice, especially in the criminal chain. It is therefore essential for the judge to be able to recruit specialized and quality experts in both civil and criminal matters.

When certain questions arise, justice requires technical advice to be given by independent and impartial experts. Judicial expertise is a tool that must be reliable from the point of view of scientific reasoning, understandable and exploitable by the judge so that he can make a judicial decision in full knowledge of the case.

The bill proposed to be voted today aims to introduce a real title for judicial experts, translators, interpreters and sworn-in translators. It aims, on the one hand, to provide for a national register of these experts and, on the other hand, to regulate the conditions for entry there.

Currently, designated experts are selected from unofficial lists. No official standards, no guarantees are provided. All this does not prove the quality of the expertise, nor the impartiality of the expert. This list is made up by magistrates but it is not known on what basis, on what criteria. Therefore, nothing makes it possible to ensure that the expertise was carried out according to the rules of art by a person who has the skills required to render it.

In a world where technical knowledge is increasingly complex, not being able to ensure the professional qualities of designated experts both in their field of expertise and in terms of basic legal knowledge is problematic. It must be ensured as far as possible that the expertise can be properly used by the judge.

As you can see, a regulation of these issues is needed more than ever. This will now be the case. My group will therefore vote in favour of this text.

We are delighted to finally be able to pass this bill in this plenary session.

The establishment of a national register of judicial experts and the associated proposal to establish a national register of translators and interpreters is not an unnecessary luxury. Several colleagues have already referred to the fact that at the moment there are no quality requirements and that each court therefore can actually freely choose who to be appointed as an expert and as an interpreter, without any legal framework for this.

It was also a question of the field, of the translators-interpreters. I once made a tour here with them and they then suggested that there was no arrangement for them, not even in terms of quality requirements. Subsequently, we found that the same problem occurred with respect to the judicial experts.

We have held extensive hearings with various magistrates in the Justice Committee on this subject, which were mostly positive. Both the College of Prosecutors-General, the National College of Judicial Experts representing a large part of the professional group, and the Belgian Chamber of Translators, Interpreters and Philologists were requesting parties to this register.

In the context of technical matters, experts play an increasingly important role in the legal process, as soon as a judge has to rely on the expertise of others on technical knowledge. In that sense, I believe that the importance of expert advice will only increase throughout the entire proceedings. It is therefore important to establish the necessary quality criteria for this purpose.

I refer to the story told by Attorney General Liègeois in our committee, about an assistive case in Tongeren where a doctor was called who measured the temperature of a body and of water without necessity with his hand. This, by the way, resulted in a problem due to the inexpert way of acting.

We have formulated the proposed quality requirements to ensure that both competence and reliability are important elements. However, we have also ⁇ ined a balance between the conditions of access, on the one hand, and avoiding a large proportion of judicial experts and translator interpreters, on the other. Therefore, we have proposed both degrees and required experience as criteria, as well as the demand for legal knowledge, acquired through an institution recognized by the Minister of Justice. We believe that professional organisations can play an important role in this.

Therefore, quality requirements are imposed. This may have positive consequences for the experts, who have long demanded a correct and timely remuneration. Once the register is there, we think that there will be a clear view on those who are recognized and on the number of recognized experts. The legitimate demand for a correct and timely remuneration will therefore, in our opinion, be addressed.

The register of translators and interpreters is based on the same principles. In this context, I would like to emphasize, if we approve that proposal, that the Parliament thus enters into a part of the European Directive on interpretation and translation, which in fact should have already been transposed into our Belgian legislation. The Ministry of Justice said it was working on this conversion, but so far we have not seen any results from the working group. In this sense, I think that we are taking an important step, including in the transposition of that European directive.

Finally, colleagues, I would like to thank you all for the constructive discussions we have held, also in the committee meetings, both following the hearing and subsequently during the discussion of the various amendments and the attention points raised by the various parties.

I hope that with this bill we will make an important step forward in the quality of our judicial administration.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, this is a proposal that constitutes a real step forward for the proper functioning of justice.

A National Register of Judicial Experts, established according to strict rules of qualification and competence, is quite a rare thing to be emphasized. Finished therefore the unofficial lists, ended the random choices of experts who are not competent or not diligent to carry out the expertise entrusted to them. A national register of experts is an essential basis for quality judicial expertise. It was time to figure out the number of years devoted to the study of such revolutions.

I am also pleased that this opportunity was used to introduce an idea, which I had developed in a bill, namely the establishment of a national register for translators, interpreters and translators-interpreters. So we are moving in the right direction.

This is a good thing for experts as well as for interpreters and translators: the possibility exists to designate an expert who is not registered in the national register and this in various hypotheses such as the unavailability of the competent expert, for example.

Even if it is necessary to professionalize these functions, it is necessary to remain flexible to palliate practical difficulties. The main thing is that the expertise takes place and that it is entrusted to a competent person.

Finally, this initiative would have failed in effectiveness if the bill had not provided for the possibility of temporarily or permanently removing judicial assistants in the event of inadequate provision or conduct infringing on the dignity of the profession. This is indeed the price to be paid for having quality experts, who will contribute to the proper functioning of justice. Each link has its importance, each link must work properly in the service of the justiciable.

The MR will support this initiative, which gives the magistrates a new working tool that should prove very effective.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, our group supports the objectives of the present texts. A register of judicial experts has been discussed for a long time. Already since 1967, our Judicial Code stipulates that courts and courts may draw up lists of experts, in accordance with the rules determined by the King. Until now, there has been no further than official listings. So far, anyone can be appointed as a judicial expert by way of speech. There is a complete lack of legal conditions and quality criteria.

There is also no statute for sworn interpreters, translators or translator interpreters. This means that those who translate or interpret in the context of a judicial procedure do not have to meet certain criteria either.

During the discussions in the Special Committee on Sexual Abuse, which gave rise to the recommendations, this issue was also addressed. Many have expressed the need to create clarity about who is now expert in what field. This has translated into a number of recommendations. From a general point of view, the experts to whom the prosecutor’s office or the criminal courts address, both for perpetrators and victims, must meet specific quality and training requirements.

Several actors, I refer to the High Council for Justice, have in the past advocated for a sound register of judicial experts. For this reason, it is time to develop the criteria that judicial experts, translators, interpreters and translators will need to meet in the future in order to be included in the national list. In our view, it is an absolute must that persons who, on behalf of Justice, often have to perform very delicate investigations, bear witness to a high level of competence in their field.

The procedure currently provided sets standards both in terms of competence and in terms of qualification. This will undoubtedly enhance the quality of expert reports and translations.

It is obvious that there will therefore be fewer disputes, which allows a lot of progress process-economically, so that these laws will undoubtedly have a cost-saving effect.

For my group, these are the objectives and prospects that fit within our image of Justice: efficiency and quality in the service to the citizen.