Proposition 53K2741

Projet de loi portant insertion du Livre III "Liberté d'établissement, de prestation de service et obligations générales des entreprises", dans le Code de droit économique et portant insertion des définitions propres au livre III et des dispositions d'application de la loi propres au livre III, dans les livres I et XV du Code de droit économique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 8, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

commercial law right of establishment company law freedom to provide services legal code

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

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 ¶

May 23, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Leen Dierick, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, there is speed in the books of economic law. The Code of Economic Law consists of 17 sections, and we can only welcome the speed with which they are dealt with.

The project aims at the reorganization and coordination of economic law, to make the existing regulation a coherent whole based on a global vision. Book III deals with freedom of establishment, freedom of service and the obligations of enterprises. Mainly the cross-border bank of enterprises plays a central role in this. Even before the break, a few other books are coming out. The Ministry of Finance has also launched an information campaign.

We had hoped and suggested that the opportunity would be used to make general coordination, review and necessary adjustments. The examination of the present book was the right time and the right place to make some of the adjustments promised in the government agreement of 1 December 2011, such as access to the profession. The policy note stated more specifically: “Conditions of establishment: transfer to the regions, with a list of professions whose access remains federal.” In this book there is nothing about it. This is a missed opportunity, and this with one more year to go for this government.

With regard to the code itself, and more specifically with regard to the CBO, there is a lack of the necessary uniformity between the tenders. A distinction is made between, on the one hand, companies and individual ⁇ , and, on the other hand, self-employed ⁇ , including ⁇ important self-employed ⁇ , with millions of revenues and thousands of employees, as well as freelancers.

Both the companies and the one-man ⁇ must pass through the enterprise door and pay the registration fee. Others are officially registered but do not pay a registration fee, but withdrawal fee when they terminate their business.

Anyway, these are major differences and that require a uniformization.

We also have an important comment on the Government’s submitted amendment. Within the framework of the fight against fraud, undertakings that do not submit their annual accounts and balance sheets for three consecutive financial years will be dismissed on their own initiative.

Nearly 30 000 companies have failed to meet their obligations for three consecutive years.

Mr. Secretary of State, it is a noble initiative, had it not been that this provision has no meaning at all.

During the committee meeting, in the presence of the Minister of Economy, Mr Frank De Saer, staff director of ICT at FOD Economie, confirmed our observation that this deletion is only an indication. The VAT number remains. The company can simply continue to exist and there is nothing legally wrong with it.

I know you are serious about fighting fraud. Therefore, there are much more effective means and more efficient measures to do so, in particular through the chambers for trade investigation and through the competences of the trade courts in this regard.

However, this requires the activation of these possibilities. You know, Mr. Secretary of State, that there are courts that apply this strictly and actively and other courts that include it in a different way.

There are some positive elements in these laws. We have also worked constructively. Three of the amendments we submitted were also adopted.

For the above reasons, we will abstain.

I did not initially intend to speak in the discussion of this bill, because enough has already been said in the committee. The bill has been widely discussed.

In addition, it is also a draft law that the Flemish Interest can largely support. The Code of Economic Law, which is thus created, will finally provide for a logical sequence of various laws, which so far existed separately, without too much coherence. The proposal aims to strengthen legal certainty. This is also a concern that the Flemish Interest Group shares. It can only benefit the consumer.

We supported a number of amendments because we felt there was still room for improvement. Ladies and gentlemen, you have listed a few of them. We were able to submit our many questions to Mr. De Saer, Chief ICT Officer of FOD Economy, SMEs, Medium and Energy. We were served extensively and commercially. It was a debate like a parliamentary debate should be.

I slowly get to the core of my argument. When I myself submitted an amendment to strengthen legal certainty – you are apparently not interested in it, Mrs. the Minister – it was about the legal articles dealing with professional liability. I had the impression that it was the committee to do a fair, correct and correct political decision-making. Even Minister Vande Lanotte said that “there is no legal objection to systematically demanding additional guarantees.” The Minister said he could approve the amendment.

It was therefore an important matter. For some professions, one is legally obliged in our country to conclude a professional liability policy to compensate for damages to third parties. This is a legally mandatory professional liability with, among other things, legally fixed amounts and intervention limits.

The proposed legislation provided for foreign firms to establish themselves in Belgium and thus also have to conclude such a policy, in the possibility of extending the guarantees they had abroad to the guarantees that were mandatory in Belgium. It was about the ability to comply with legal obligations. That conditionality was, I think, too much in it and had to go out. The Minister followed me in this.

It is a shame that colleague Tuybens and Minister Vande Lanotte have walked, but then began the political games of the cordon sanitary. Therefore, I decided to speak on this issue in the plenary session. In order to keep the cordon sanitary standing, one really had to play a political game. I find that unfortunate, because it happens on the back of the user and the companies. For me this is unacceptable.

If the minister could agree with my amendment, then colleague Tuybens – again, it is very unfortunate that he is not present – must still give me an explanation why he should, if necessary, himself submit an amendment in which he replaces the word “must” with the word “shall”.

Colleague Tuybens, supported by the majority, still owes me a statement regarding the semantic distinction between “should” and “must” and what the usefulness of that replacement is exactly for the undertakings.

As colleague Tuybens said at the end of the committee meeting, the sanitary cordon had to be ⁇ ined. Therefore, he had to reject my amendment in all likelihood.

However, I am very pleased that I have submitted my amendment and will continue to do so. After all, if I had not submitted my amendment, the majority would have approved a bill today that had crushed legal uncertainty. I regret that way of working of the majority, which is hypocritical and hypocritical. In any case, I repeat that I am very pleased that I submitted my amendment.