Proposition 53K1751

Proposition de loi modifiant certaines dispositions du Code judiciaire.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Siegfried Bracke, Sophie De Wit, Koenraad Degroote, Sarah Smeyers, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh

Submission date

Sept. 23, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

public prosecutor's department judicial power judicial proceedings separation of powers

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA 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 ¶

Oct. 17, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I refer to the written report drawn up for both bills together.

Dear colleagues, I have asked the President to schedule these two bills today. It is, therefore, a matter of the bills 1751 and 1752 which wanted to translate a number of recommendations of the High Council for Justice into legislation. More specifically, it concerns the recommendations made by the High Council following the Fortisa affair. The Justice Committee did not approve the two bills on 10 July 2012. In these circumstances, I would like to invite this meeting to take a stand on the proposal for rejection.

Meanwhile, it is due to the recession and the municipal council elections a few months ago that we have discussed these proposals. Therefore, I can rather refresh what those proposals are about.

Following the Fortisa Affair, the Supreme Council had insisted that it should be impossible for magistrates to be deployed to cabinets in order to avoid interference. There is an exception, namely for the Cabinet of Justice. The Flemish parties therefore made clear that this is effectively necessary. This, however, was counted outside the head of government, Mr. Di Rupo. He stated: “The opinions of the Supreme Council for Justice are interesting but not binding, neither for Parliament nor for the government.” We all know who is dominated by the government.

A second, extremely important point, which was cited by the High Council for Justice, was that it absolutely needs insight into ongoing cases.

Following the case-Annick Van Uytsel, there has been criticism repeatedly about the fact that the section “magistrates” could not be examined, while this was possible for the police section. Where is the logic? The Committee P may have access to the ongoing files, but the High Council for Justice cannot have access to the judiciary. This is typical Belgian.

Both proposals were sent to the State Council after explanation in the committee, which had only a few technical and procedural comments. We could easily eliminate them with a few amendments, which our group has submitted.

However, what followed in the committee was unseen. The discussion of the proposals happened to follow immediately at an hearing with the High Council for Justice on the case-Van Uytsel.

The Supreme Court had just said that its own committee, which was to conduct an investigation into possible errors of the court, should be able to start that investigation while the judicial investigation is still ongoing. It should not be now. That was a big problem in the case-Van Uytsel. Jean-Luc Cottyn, chairman of the Supreme Council for Justice, said that he has been in this position for eight years and that he has already addressed it several times in Parliament. Some members of the majority, including Mrs. Van Cauter and Mrs. Becq, felt that this urgently needed work.

A few minutes later, even before the cock crawled three times, the present proposals were voted. Unfortunately, both ladies disappeared during the mood in the backstage. This resulted in the Bill No. 1751 abstained, with six votes for and six votes against.

Dear colleagues, since these are some important but simple changes that can remove the errors in our system, I here make a sincere appeal to you all to send these proposals back to the committee, so that there, after eight years, we can finally take a step forward.

You hear it right, dear colleagues, the Supreme Council has been asking for recommendations and changes – it is not the force of change, it is ordinary changes – for eight years, ⁇ the possibility of being able to look at ongoing investigations.

I am not alone with my question. On 29 August 2012, the Supreme Council addressed a letter to the Government, to Mr Di Rupo and to the Minister of Justice, in which it requested that it be finally impossible to dispatch the magistrates into cabinets.

Let us learn from the mistakes made in the past and resume the discussion in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I can largely bear what the colleague said. These proposals are very good proposals. We supported them in the committee, but they were rejected by the majority.

This is incomprehensible, especially since there was then unanimous agreement on one point, which was included as a recommendation in the report of the investigation committee-Fortis. It has been said there that it is not healthy that magistrates are deployed to cabinets. One exception was made, especially for the Cabinet of Justice.

The problem was raised by the committee and by the High Council. When we interpelled the Prime Minister about this in the spring, however, he referred those recommendations very gently to the rubbish, saying that they are all interesting things, but that one is not obliged to follow them.

We note here that the majority did not have the courage to make that decision. In words it is always beautiful. The adage “Listen to my words, but above all do not look at my deeds” is here very applicable to all majority parties who have not had the courage to make that logical decision.