Proposition 53K1513

Projet de loi réformant la procédure de liquidation-partage judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Oct. 28, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure ownership notary judge judicial proceedings receivership

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 ¶

July 14, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Stefaan Van Hecke, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it brief. I understand that there is no report, but I still think it is important that the colleagues are briefly informed.

This is a concrete bill. However, laws from the Justice Committee are often very technical. The present design may also appear to be technical. Nevertheless, this bill is important for society, for civil society, because we will all have to deal with it sooner or later. Equalization distribution has to do not only with divorce, but also with inheritance, and I think we will all experience this sooner or later in living lives.

The bill that will be approved here and that comes from the Senate is good, not only and only because it largely follows the lines of the bill that I myself had submitted on the same subject. It is important that a number of problems in the field are now avoided. A faster and therefore more human settlement of the liquidation-distribution will be achieved. For this purpose, several legal instruments are now provided so that this can happen. This is good for all citizens who are faced with it. It will also be more important the longer. After all, even in the case of divorces we note that the longer the more disputed divorces take place after the divorce has been declared. This has to do with the acceleration of the divorce procedure, which delays the problems to later, especially when it comes to the distribution of marital assets and the like more.

I will talk concrete about the content. I mention the acceleration of the procedure and the avoidance of unnecessary costs.

Unnecessary costs are countered because the draft law assumes that procedural delay mechanisms are allowed as little as possible. The possibility of appearing in court is reduced to a minimum, avoiding significant costs for the parties to the proceedings.

A second important point is the deadlines. Accelerating the procedures should allow the case to progress. We need to critically evaluate deadlines. The different deadlines can also be updated by the parties themselves. An evaluation will endeavour to verify whether we are not overtaking the goal and giving the parties too many opportunities to do so.

A final point is the active role assigned to the notary. I think that is very important. All players on the field, lawyers and notaries, will have to apply this law. Notaries will need to realize that they must play an active role. For this purpose, the law also gives them the tools, the weapons, to speed up the procedures. The notary will therefore play an important role and possibly even challenge his own responsibility if he himself does not cooperate in the whole procedure that should lead to an acceleration.

I agree with the words I have just spoken. and Terwingen. This account of liquidation-sharing is eminently technical, but we must not forget that, behind this sharing, people are in difficulty or even suffering.

Until now, there were complicated procedures, long and without delay; they sometimes lasted very many months, if not several years. Now, finally, we regulate and frame the event with much faster procedures, which will humanize this technical record.

We are going in the right direction with the creation of the Family Court, which we will discuss next week. It is this family court that will become competent to deal with these cases. It is a profound humanization of justice that is drawn. I am delighted.

The problem of judicial liquidation-distribution has a long history.

In 2007, when we reformed the divorce, there was already a question of including the judicial settlement distribution.

In the end, this proved impossible at the time, with the consequence that in the meantime the divorce on the ground itself has become so fast and simple after the liberal reform, the liquidation-division of the marriage community in some cases has remained so complex and long-lasting. I emphasize in some cases, because we must not forget the large group of people who, after divorce, quickly come to a settlement-distribution based on their suggestions and questions. The group that continues to argue for years, I think, remains the minority.

Since 2007, the Senate has been in the hands of each other, with the Senate on the one hand and the professional federations – the Royal Federation of the Belgian Notarial, OVB and OBFJ – on the other. They have drawn up a legislation that is substantially neutral.

It is not encrypted between property law, marital property law and inheritance law, but it is rewritten the procedure in which the relevant professional groups, and colleague Terwingen has already mentioned, will have to introduce a new discipline, given the very strict deadline regime.

There are also no additional costs. This is also an important point that should be mentioned in this important legislative change.

The objectives have already been cited. For our part, I would like to briefly highlight what is very important for us: first, that the procedure is accelerated, and secondly, that the course of the procedure and the deadlines are made predictable.

Separated couples will now have a calendar for themselves, as they now have for judicial proceedings, and will know when they will last see a settlement-distribution realised.

Agreements between the parties shall be promoted at every stage of the procedure. Partial agreements will also be possible. The role of the notary clearing officer becomes an active role and that active role is strengthened.

We must be honest and say that the Senate has done a thorough job. The Secretary of State described the hard work in the committee. Hearing was held, the State Council was consulted, a joint amendment was submitted and unanimously voted.

We held a brief but intense discussion. We have asked important questions for the report on a number of points. We also submitted and approved a number of amendments.

Very important was the discussion on the appointment of the boedelnotary. Is the principle one notary or two? The principle is one notary.

The timeline was requested. In the committee we saw how long a liquidation distribution can still last. This is a maximum of 17 months. It is still long, but it is limited in duration. Today it is of unlimited duration. One can be stuck in a liquidation distribution for years.

A final point addressed in the committee is the simplification of formalities and the reduction of costs. A number of amendments were adopted in this regard to enable the notification, which originally occurred by means of a courtship explosion or registered letter, also with a signed receipt.

This amendment allows the notary to hand over the text of his minutes to the parties after the conclusion of a discussion, provided that there is a signed receipt. The text that originally came from the Senate was intended to make a registered letter or a judicial defense explosion necessary.

We unanimously approved this in the committee. I think I can decide that this legislation is an important milestone in the divorce reform. This will allow the ⁇ 20 000 couples who divorce each year on the basis of irreparable disruption to also see their money and property distributed in a transparent manner and within a statutory period.