Proposition 53K1538

Projet de loi modifiant le Code civil en ce qui concerne la copropriété et modifiant l'article 46 du Code judiciaire.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Sarah Smeyers
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

June 1, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil law joint ownership

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Party dissidents ¶

• Rita De Bont (VB) voted to adopt.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to adopt.

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 7, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to thank the services for supporting this report, the colleagues who initially provided me with the role of rapporteur and those who subsequently also did so when appointing the co-rapporteur.

The bill proposed by colleagues Smeyers and Van Cauter aims to make the necessary adjustments to the law on co-ownership. Ms. Özen pointed out in the committee that the overall revision of the legislation on co-ownership that was established in the previous legislature is necessary. Nobody disagreed with this and at the same time everyone realized that it is also necessary to implement the punctual changes immediately.

First, the choice of residence is legally fixed at the offices of the syndicus. There is no doubt about this from now on.

Second, the costs of the call for the general meeting of the co-owners shall, from now on, be unambiguously borne by the Association of co-owners.

Third, the ranking of competing powers under a single powersholder is now legally established.

Fourth, the rather dubious provision relating to the mandatory or non-obligatory co-ownership website is removed from the law because it was not clear whether it was an obligation and because it created a lot of confusion.

Fifth, from now on there is an incompatibility between the mandate of the syndic and the membership of the Council of Joint Property.

Sixth, there is an extension of the deadline for the syndic to seize in the hands of the notary.

He submitted three amendments and one sub-amendment. All of them were accepted, as well as the bill that was unanimously adopted.

by Mr. Brotcorne refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the rapporteur who has well summarized what this bill is about. Last week, the bill was approved, which Mrs. Van Cauter and I had submitted. The period within which the basic act must be amended shall be extended. That was already a good step. Today, hopefully, we will also approve a number of smaller, practical matters that should facilitate the life of the co-owners in a co-ownership.

The first point is the discussion of whether or not a website is mandatory. We have helped the world out of this doubt. I think this has already been the subject of a verbal question, in my opinion, of Mr. Terwingen, but I am no longer sure. The Minister replied that it was never actually intended to make a website compulsory within a co-ownership. That may be just a small measure, but for a syndic who is sometimes a volunteer or simply a co-habitant of the apartment or of the co-ownership, it would mean extra work and extra costs. With these, it is that euvel out of the world: a website is not mandatory.

The following small practical problem concerns circular mail in the hall of the apartment building, mail intended for the syndic who does not always have his own mailbox in the apartment building because he had to make residential choices in the apartment building itself, but does not always have a mailbox there. Now this has also been corrected. The syndic gets the opportunity to make the choice of residence at his own address, which is no more than logical.

Mr. Landuyt, I see that you are listening attentively. That gives me pleasure.

A number of small adjustments were made. There is a harmonisation of the deadline, also for the syndic, to seize with the notary. In the case of the sale of an apartment building, the notary must contact the syndic to know if there are still delayed payments. If these are large amounts, the syndic may consider seizing. He now has a slightly longer term: fifteen days instead of the previous twelve days.

I will also make a small clarification regarding the costs of convening the general assembly. We live in an increasingly dematerialized or electronic world, so it should also be possible to receive that call by e-mail, e-mail, and not, as it used to always be, by registered letter. Of course, as is often the case, there are small discussions between the co-owners about who should bear those costs. One receives that invitation by registered letter, while another chooses e-mail.

Now the law stipulates that the costs are borne by the co-owner and are borne by all co-owner pro rata. A small step for us, a small step for Parliament, but a great improvement and practical simplification for many co-owners.

I would like to thank the Commission for its support and cooperation. I also thank Mr. Terwingen for the amendments he submitted to improve the proposal. I would also like to thank the signatories who may now take the floor.

Mr. Speaker, a few words to join me with what Mrs. Smeyers concluded.

In the previous legislature – I also look at colleague Terwingen – we submitted a bill to make the legislation on co-ownership easier to apply and more transparent. We have more than a million co-owners in this country. That means that this legislation has an impact on many of our citizens.

We concluded that the proposed solution was generally welcomed, but that it raises some interpretation questions on certain points and that further refinement of existing legislation was needed. We were able to work quickly. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee for the prompt agenda of the proposals. Per ⁇ her co-signature of the proposal is not strange to that.

However, it has succeeded. We were able to provide a response in a very short time for the co-owner who was the requesting party for clarity. We have demonstrated that Parliament is still able to do what can be expected of us.