Proposition 53K1922

Projet de loi supprimant la fonction de dépositaire central des protêts confiée à la Banque nationale de Belgique.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Servais Verherstraeten

Submission date

Nov. 30, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

central bank commercial law negotiable instrument

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 ¶

Dec. 6, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Ms Valérie Déom, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Based on the letter of Minister of Justice Stefaan De Clerck, CD&V has taken the initiative to take a number of measures aimed at reducing the workload at the offices, including the Labour Court and the Court of Commerce. We also sought to strengthen legal certainty regarding civil status, improve the efficiency of the databases of the central file of messages and the central register of marriage contracts and continue the computerization in the field of, among other things, the submission and transmission of documents.

These are various measures that, as we approved in the committee, will eventually come into force on 1 September 2013. In this case, it is left to the King to do this eventually faster. We provide for a later entry into force for the elements relating to the Central Register of Marriage Agreements, in order to further expand this register on the basis of the register as it currently exists with the notary. For this reason, we plan the entry into force on 1 September 2015. More quickly is also possible, to be determined by the King.

Initially, we were based on that letter from the Minister of Justice. We thank the various political groups that supported and signed this proposal. Various amendments were introduced from the various groups and in various areas they saw additional simplifications and reduction of workload. We negotiated the text with the cabinet, including the new cabinet of Minister Turtelboom, and a number of external partners, such as the Belgian Staatsblad and representatives of the National Bank.

Effectively, the various measures adopted in the committee relate to the completion of the central register of marriage contracts, the reduction of the workload and the computerization of the civil status, the intervention of the peacekeeper in the case of protected persons for sale and the electronic submission of documents of companies, foundations and partnerships; it is not insignificant that there is a significant reduction of the workload. In addition, it is about the submission of invoices by the unpaid seller – which could actually also be considered an unnecessary workload –, about the central file of messages and about a number of changes in the Code of registration, mortgage and register rights. Furthermore, it is not insignificant – the colleagues will remember the discussions of a few years ago – that the requirement of sending a registered letter upon notification of a court guard explosion is removed. When a court guard explosion could not be issued immediately and despite the fact that a note was already stuck in the mailbox, another registered writing was needed. Now it is said that this has no added value, that it means only administrative burdens and additional costs.

In the context of collective debt mediation, we have also provided for a partial reorganization of the offices and labour courts.

To the bill on the reduction of the workload is linked the bill regulating the transfer of the powers of the National Bank of Belgium as the central depository of protests to the central file of messages. We aim to complete the latter, including from the labour courts and on collective debt settlement.

Together with me, many colleagues regret that the more extensive various provisions on the informatization of Justice, which were initially included in the bill, were ultimately not included in the final text. I think, for example, of the establishment of an information management service to monitor the information in part, of an electronic database for suspension judgments, for judgments and judgments relating to maintenance payments in order to ensure the proper functioning and functioning of the DAVO, of the possibility of regularizing signatures on legal acts or of the computerisation of the rejection of inheritance.

I admit, and I think it is important to emphasize, that those proposals were not selected at the request of the Minister of Justice. The Minister is promoting the JustX project, in which she develops the idea of a global database of Justice that she intends to establish, in which all judgments and judgments are recorded and from which other databases or users can extract the data they need. In this regard, we have adopted a pragmatic attitude, in fact at the service of the offices and at the service of the staff of the bourgeois state. We do not want to make it difficult, although we would have wanted to send the informatization of Justice from Parliament a little faster. Our pragmatic attitude is that we want to implement the simplification in any case and not want to delay by other discussions. Therefore, we have left those provisions out of our bill.

The Minister of Justice is not present at the moment, but I would like to emphasize that we very strongly urge that the minister does a quick and good job of her famous JustX project. We support that project, but we would like and insist that this project is not just an announcement, because then I fear that the project JustX will end up in a project ‘just nothing’, as I sometimes hear say.

In conclusion, our group is pleased with this bill, which was a piece of titanium work. There were many discussions and negotiations in advance. It is ⁇ not a global proposal and ⁇ not complete, but it is important to make progress with small steps. If we cannot accomplish everything at once, then we have at least already taken these steps.

I would like to thank the staff who worked on the proposals. I also thank the members for their contribution.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will give a brief explanation of my bank.

We will, as in the committee, support the bill. The bill contains a number of good things. Mrs. Becq has already listed many points, but we still mention the completion of the central register of marriage contracts, the removal of the unnecessary mandatory paraffering and the adaptation of the Civil Code to the contemporary functioning of the civil state. These are all useful elements that we can have nothing against and which we, of course, also support. I signed the original bill.

The purpose of the original bill was to realize a number of so-called quick wins, which would reduce the workload for our courts and officials.

Unfortunately, the original bill — Mrs. Becq has referred to it — also contained a number of steps around the computerization that a modern Judiciary is still seeking at this time. Modernizations that were included in the bill and which could be easily put into practice, have, unfortunately, disappeared from the bill, although it was a small intervention, and this because — I will only pronounce the term — political games. The most useful proposals have therefore again been referred to the Greek calendars, because they would not fit in the new minister’s large, announced JustX project.

This is, of course, an ever-recurring story of the previous ministers. Thus we find ourselves in situations where today it is still impossible to fax documents to the court, let alone to use e-mails. At the moment we are nowhere.

Nevertheless, we will support the proposal, which contains a number of good elements. We, of course, also insist — we will continue to follow this vigilantly — that Minister Turtelboom will eventually bring her JustX project on the rails.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have signed this bill, we have followed the subsequent discussions, which have led to a number of amendments, and we have cooperated constructively.

As regards the note that some items are ultimately not included in the text, we have heard in the committee of the minister and its employees that it is intended to first get the technology up and then gradually make the adjustments in the legislation. After all, today the technology is not yet ready for it and so we would make laws that cannot be enforced, which must be postponed again and again. Hence the question of not working that way. As the Minister in the committee further explained her commitment and her JustX program, we can be confident that the informatization of Justice is progressing step by step. Everything could go faster. With this proposal, however, we are taking an important step.

Mr. Speaker, my group is also pleased that this text is successful since it has been on the table for many months. As Mrs Becq said, we are very pleased with the collaboration that has been established between all the political groups because this text was voted almost unanimously in the committee. I thank my colleagues as well as the people consulted whose experience and help have been very valuable.

As Ms. Lahaye-Battheu said, it is obvious that bills, unfortunately, do not make the revolution. Nevertheless, it is a step towards administrative simplification and towards reducing the workload for the various actors and administrations. This allows for cost reduction in certain areas of justice.

I will pause for a moment on a part of the text, namely the reorganisation of the offices of the labour courts, which comes from amendments submitted by my group. The objective of these amendments, which create a new chapter, tends to relieve somewhat the overwork in the courts’ offices, in particular in one of the most important sections, the section on collective debt settlement.

It is planned in particular in bulk to put on equal foundation the different grounds for revocation of the various collective settlement procedures. The Assistant Justice Ombudsman is entitled from the outset to request additional information. The obligation to attach a copy of the request to all creditors is removed, even if these creditors can obviously request it. It is also provided that the plan is no longer necessarily addressed to the applicant but to the creditor with an acknowledgment of receipt; a simple recommended letter is sufficient. The debtor will now be able to request the end of the procedure. It simplifies the sending of certain administrative-type decisions, which further reduces the cost and workload. Better communication of the replacement of debt mediators is planned to avoid possible errors and duplications. Finally, the obligation to hear the Ombudsman when replacing the Ombudsman is removed.

In short, this is a whole series of changes that, you see, will allow the transplants overloaded by collective debt settlement to save time and money, which will be important especially for citizens who are unfortunately increasing in number to resort to collective debt settlement.