Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 janvier 2007 sur la formation judiciaire et portant création de l'Institut de formation judiciaire.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- CD&V Leterme Ⅱ
- Submission date
- Oct. 4, 2011
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- budget vocational training judicial power
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR VB
- Abstained from voting
- N-VA
Party dissidents ¶
- Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.
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 ¶
Nov. 10, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Kristien Van Vaerenbergh ⚙
Mr. Speaker, I refer to the written report and immediately switch to my own argument.
I will first outline the draft law. The Law on the Institute for Judicial Training (IGO) provides that the budget must be at least 0.9 % of the wage mass in the 2 years following the entry into force of the law. From 2011 onwards, the budget must increase annually by 0.25 % to 1.9 % of the wage mass.
As the start of the IGO was delayed, there are remaining credits from the year 2010. These funds are now transferred to 2011. This transfer would take place through Article 91 of the Act of 22 May 2003 concerning the organization of the budget and of the accounting of the federal state.
The draft stipulates that the transfer should increase the allocation by 0.25 % only from 2012 onwards.
With the objective of the design itself, we have no problems. There will be no increase in the budget this year. What we have a problem with, however, is that in the explanation is stated how the transfer should be realized. In fact, it is intended to carry out the transfer of the 2010 appropriations through Article 91. However, Article 91 has not yet come into effect. It shall not enter into force until 1 January 2012.
We have no problem with the principle. We find it strange that the transfer is realized through an article that does not yet exist. The transfer will therefore not be legally valid. We will abstain from voting later.