Proposition 53K2858

Projet de loi portant réforme des arrondissements judiciaires et modifiant le Code judiciaire en vue de renforcer la mobilité des membres de l'ordre judiciaire.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 4, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

German-speaking Community judicial reform magistrate labour mobility judge judicial power territorial jurisdiction

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

July 17, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The [...]

Mr Landuyt, it is not because you said nothing in the committee that there is nothing in the report.

Some draft laws introduce fundamental changes. Therefore, I do not wish to refer simply to the written report. I will explain the work. That is not to say that I will read the report in its entirety as Mr Landuyt did in 1997.

The committee discussed the draft law and the legislative proposals attached to the discussion during seven meetings. During its meeting on 11 June 2013, the committee decided, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber, to organise hearings. A number of actors were invited to provide written advice.

The Minister of Justice explained in the introductory presentation the draft law in detail. The Minister is of the opinion that after the police reform it is time to reform the judicial system as well. The preparations took over 25 years. The government has set itself the goal of completing this historic reform during this term.

She explains that the present bill is the first of a series of two, which should shape the judicial reform. The Minister has the ambition to submit the second bill to Parliament before the summer vacation. That bill aims to implement a management structure and provides for a gradual grant of autonomy and management of the court’s human, material and budgetary resources.

The Minister also highlights the importance of Justice for our society as a rule of law. She notes that the proper functioning of the judiciary has been increasingly questioned in recent decades, despite the fact that the corps is manned by numerous skilled, talented and expert staff.

Reform is needed to restore confidence. They have the following objectives: first, better governance and greater efficiency for the governance of the jurisdictions; second, removing the backwardness and speeding up judicial proceedings; third, quality of judicial proceedings, better service and sufficient proximity to the citizen.

The Minister then gave an explanation of the methods to be followed to ⁇ the reform. It refers to the explanatory memorandum and cites the following points: first, a scale increase; second, mobility and specialisation; third, a greater autonomy of the existing management; fourth, administrative simplification and ICT; fifth, the introduction of a full-fledged organizational culture.

Following the explanations made by the Minister, the various political groups presented their general views in the general discussion.

The rapporteur regrets that this bill was not discussed together with the bill on the administration of courts and courts announced by the Minister, which would be discussed later. He emphasizes that such a comprehensive reform cannot be dealt with by Parliament at a glance.

The Green Party is in favor of scaling up. He also refers to the Atomium negotiation a few years ago, in which 16 districts were selected in a substantiated way. The government has decided to move from 27 to 12 districts.

The MEP also fears that the geographical reform will lead to districts that are too large to operate efficiently, on the one hand, and districts that will then be too small, on the other hand, taking into account the management structure that still needs to be introduced in a subsequent draft.

The loophole Mobility of the members of the judiciary causes great concern among the magistrates. They fear that the relocations could in essence be suppressed disciplinary sanctions.

The speaker also believes that the figure of participative management proposed by the Advisory Board of the Magistracy is very attractive and important to introduce, including in the Judiciary. In this way, the decisions will be taken in consultation as much as possible and they will therefore be carried out much more.

Mr. Bert Schoofs speaks on behalf of the Flemish Interest Group and says he can support the principles of scale, mobility, specialization, administrative simplification and ICT.

The Minister has made an effort to pour these principles into a legislative initiative. The Member must, however, conclude that these principles are not applied consistently and consistently everywhere.

With regard to the doubling of the judicial district of Brussels, the member notes that the Flemish negotiators had once again to dig the bottom. This loses the logic of what this reform could have led to.

The member can understand the special situation of Eupen, a situation that has, however, been exposed to Henegouwen. Henegouwen will become one judicial district, but will have two prosecutors. That wraps all logic when the comparison is made with other arrondissements such as Antwerp.

Ms Laurence Meire notes that the government has committed itself to reforming the judicial landscape. This has been discussed extensively in recent years. According to the MP, the proposed reform is still for improvement.

The bill has sparked criticism and concern. In part, that was right, the speaker said, but sometimes that criticism and concerns were also inspired by the fear of change.

Given that the reform consists of three components, it would have been more useful to analyze the proposals simultaneously. However, the member will ensure that the three components are coherent with each other.

Daphné Dumery, on behalf of the N-VA, joins the approach proposed by the rapporteur. It also considers it appropriate to treat the draft law together with the announced draft law on management. The N-VA group has long advocated for a reform of the judicial landscape and is therefore more than a petitioner for an efficiently functioning court.

However, the present reform contains a number of serious structural errors. In addition, the instrument of preference, the Unified Court, is deducted.

There is also criticism of the way in which the judicial district in Henegouwen is organized and it is deeply regretted that the Unified Court has been completely abolished. Furthermore, there are also observations concerning the Waals-Brabant arrondissement, which will receive its own judicial arrondissement, while Vlaams-Brabant, consisting of the Leuven arrondissement on the one hand and the Brussels arrondissement on the other, will eventually not receive a separate arrondissement.

Mr. Christian Brotcorne has the impression that certain points of criticism involve merely an intention process, although the bill contains some imperfections. The Government aims to facilitate the organization and functioning of the judiciary. The judicial structure has not been substantially reformed since Belgium gained independence, while it has become necessary to anchor the know-how, remove the judicial lag and make the judicial actors act faster.

As a result of the reform, the judiciary will take place on a larger scale. Too small courts are vulnerable. Thanks to scale enlargement, the problems in certain districts can be better addressed. Furthermore, the recruitment of specialized magistrates is only possible if the work is carried out on a sufficiently large scale.

Regarding Henegouwen, Mr. Brotcorne recalls that he preferred two separate judicial districts for the province of Henegouwen rather than the solution currently envisaged. The sub-arrondissements threaten to cause difficulties. For the speaker, it is important that the existing sitting places continue to exist.

Mrs Gerkens considers it unacceptable that the bill under discussion was not received within a reasonable period, which is, however, necessary for a serene debate. The speaker agrees with the objectives of the bill in question, in particular the valorisation of the court, the improvement of the public service of Justice and the elimination of judicial lag.

By the way, the selected layout is not applied consistently across the entire line. In the province of Henegouwen there will be no two arrondissements, but a hybrid arrangement will be developed. Also regarding the autonomy of the judicial districts, Ms. Gerkens makes reservations. The division of affairs, which determines the division of the departments within a district, will be subject to a control of a political nature, while in fact it is also a management instrument.

Marie-Christine Marghem notes that the Dutroux case made it clear that the Belgian police and judicial institutions needed to be reformed. As for the police, the new configuration took just ten years. It has taken even longer for the judicial landscape reform to become concrete. The Minister has the merit that she insisted that the present bill would be submitted now, all his text improvements still desirable.

Like other members, the speaker regrets that the present bill and the preliminary bill aimed at ensuring an autonomous management of the judicial organization were not submitted and discussed simultaneously. These texts, however, show a certain general coherence.

As regards the choice of the geographical classification, the criterion taken into account is clear, although it is not immediately coherent. The size and density of the new districts will vary. For example, why is the province of Henegouwen an arrondissement with two prosecutors of the King, while other arrondissements of a similar or even larger size only count one? According to Ms. Marghem, Henegouwen could have dealt with one King’s Attorney and one Corps Chief.

Mr Stefaan De Clerck is pleased that after years we can finally begin the actual discussion of the current reform. The draft law aims at better management and greater efficiency of the judicial services. The speaker therefore adopts a positive critical attitude towards this bill.

Referring to Mrs. Marghem’s observation on the economic effects of the draft law, the speaker considers that there are sufficient magistrates. More specialization should be sought. It should also be noted that Belgium has a large number of court buildings. Belgium scores both in the number of magistrates and in the number of buildings above the European average.

Ms Carina Van Cauter notes that after decades of analysis, the reform of the judicial landscape will finally get its seat. The present text is the beginning of what a judicial reform could be. It clarifies that such a reform can only be successful if the actors of the judiciary are willing to cooperate. The hearings held in the committee therefore vote her hopefully.

The Open Vld group has always been in favor of a justice reform that can benefit citizens. It is therefore that its group does not want to touch the labour courts and the trade courts, which have short transition times. Therefore, its group is not in favour of the establishment of unitary courts.

Ms. Sonja Becq, like the minister, is of the opinion that this reform does not mean an endpoint. There must be an efficient judiciary in the service of the legal subjects. Informatization will play an important role in this.

It calls attention to the adjustments in respect of the peace judges and the police judges in the judicial district of Brussels.

Mrs Kristien Van Vaerenbergh emphasizes the need for the reform that is being discussed. It regrets, however, that the Government does not intend to address the preliminary draft law on management together with the present draft. Furthermore, she considers it not a good thing that in this bill the idea of unitary courts has been deviated.

Colleagues, so far, in general, the views from the various groups in the committee. On this, of course, the Minister replicated and began the article-by-article discussion. The bill contained 160 articles that were discussed extensively and which the rapporteur will not further discuss. He refers to the report.

A total of 169 amendments were submitted and the texts were updated. In the end, the text was adopted by ten against four votes with one abstinence. In this context, the reporter would also like to thank the services for the excellent work in the drafting of this report.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the reform of the judicial landscape is a long-awaited chronicle.

The most recent thought exercise was the Atomium Consultation, which was set up by your predecessor. Initially, that consultation included many good elements, but unfortunately it was dismantled. You have incorporated some of its elements in your reform, but unfortunately this remains a weakened version of a profound structural reform.

I will first make some general concerns and then go deeper into some construction errors and discriminations in your design.

First, we have criticism of the phased course. We ask ourselves whether all these puzzle pieces will fit well together. I will summarize them: the re-registration of the landscape and mobility, on the one hand, and the management and financing, on the other; the disciplinary law relating to the magistrature, family and youth court, the reform of the judicial district BHV and the announced workload and performance measurement. We have doubts about that salamitic tactic or that duplopuzzel tactic.

The closing point of this triptych, the third design, is the design on management. That is ⁇ the most important design. Alleszins stands or falls your whole reform with that third draft, because everything is inseparably connected.

Nevertheless, the examination of the two draft laws, which have become one, showed that Parliament had no knowledge of the third draft, even though everything is closely linked. I would like to recall that your coalition partners were also in favour of that the whole of that reform could be dealt with in the committee and that we would at least have knowledge of that third draft. I refer to what Professor Van Orshoven of the High Council for Justice said about this, in particular that Parliament was put on the wrong leg. At the moment, we are still guessing how that third design will look like and how those three parts will merge together.

A second, general note, is that the system of workload and efficiency measurement still needs to be fully rolled out. We all know that the workload between the different courts is very different.

One court has a lot of work, while other courts have a lot less work. Some courts even have relatively little work.

Suppose that the workload measurement would show that, generally speaking, certain courts have a very large shortage of multiple magistrates. Where appropriate, how could the increased mobility of magistrates on the ground ever respond to such a shortage? No chief of the corps will want to renounce its magistrates in order to place them in another court. After all, a hole is filled in order to make another hole. Therefore, mobility will not change the problem. In short, the workload measurement should have been done before the reform, but not after it.

You may opt that everything will be subsequently adjusted and adjusted through coordination and repair legislation. However, this method is a typical Belgian abomination. Everything actually comes down to the fact that you want to build a house, which must be rebuilt immediately afterwards, because the doors and windows do not fit into it.

Mrs. Minister, I have the impression that you will not win the beauty prize for the above reasons alone with the present reform.

Then we also regret the speed with which you have tried to pursue this reform by chasing the Parliament and actually by pushing our throat. After all, if it is the most important reform since 1830, why have we only had a few weeks to discuss it? Why have we only been able to organize a single hearing in the morning?

Although this reform may look beautiful on paper, although we do not see it so, yet one does not stand behind it on the ground and therefore this is a dead mouse. You may claim to have sufficiently taken into account the opinion of the magistrates, but strangely enough, during the half-day of hearings, a lot of comments and points of criticism were expressed and the relevant professional group even felt forced to come out on the streets, which is unseen.

Mrs. Minister, you always claim that there is criticism because it is the first reform in thirty years. However, you cannot reverse the roles. It is not because there is criticism that it is a good reform.

The last point concerns the Unified Court. During the discussion in the committee, we have made several statements on the Unified Court. Unitary courts are not included in this reform. The labour and trade courts are established at the level of the district, except in Leuven, Brussels and Nijvel, where they are organized at the level of the judicial district.

The latter does not have much in itself, as there will be no sub-specialization in Leuven and Nijvel at all, due to the small number of social judges and judges in commercial matters. Furthermore, the peace courts and the police courts are not integrated into the court of first instance, which is of course an additional barrier for the creation of unitary courts in the future.

In the committee, you swung with the opinion of the National Labour Council. As an argument against the Unitary Court, it argued that it fears that the Unitary Court would result in less specialisation, that there would be a reduction in the accessibility of the labour courts and that lay judges would no longer sit. That fear is completely unjustified, because even in a unitary court there can of course be room for those lay judges.

I continue to hammer on it, because we think it is a capital mistake. All Flemish parties, including CD&V and your party, Mrs. the Minister, were in front of the Unified Court. The Supreme Council for Justice was also in favour of it, as well as the Order of Flemish Balies. It was the most efficient mechanism to drive Justice into the 21st century, but we all know who said “stop” to it. That was the PS. Therefore, the Unified Court is not involved in this reform.

I would like to come back to the many inequalities and disagreements in this reform.

First, it is tragicomic, but the judicial district of Henegouwen will exceptionally count two prosecutors of the King, while the other districts will logically all have only one. This is also clearly shown in the table on page 48 of the Annex to the design.

I have an additional question on this. Also in that table on page 48 it is clear that in the judicial district of Brussels only one prosecutor of the King is indicated, while I thought that it would be intended that in the future there would also be a prosecutor in Halle-Vilvoorde. The table shows that the Attorney of the King of Halle-Vilvoorde may not be a truly full-fledged Attorney of the King. It may be meant differently, but it is stated in the table.

The argument that Henegouwen is a case apart by its population, extent or socio-economic diversity is, of course, nonsense. This argument may be equally beneficial for other districts. The district of Antwerp, for example, is also very large and also has a lot to do with. This also applies to Ghent and Luik. These districts also have a metropolitan area with characteristic problems such as metropolitan crime, immigration pressure, as well as districts and agricultural areas. The State Council has also expressly commented on this. The Council of State also found this exception very discriminatory and had you floated back; you had to come up with a new argument. You had given an additional argument.

Madam, in this debate on Hainaut, which I am still with a lot of interest, the only objective argument is systematically forgotten that the dimension of the new district coincides with the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal. This problem is then automatically eliminated.

In our view, Mr. Brotcorne, that is not at all an argument that justifies that exception, but you will undoubtedly come back to it in detail again later. There is no reason why there should be two parks. There is also no reason why the Attorney General would have only one Attorney General under him. During the committee meetings, the Minister was never able to give a proper answer to the question of the reason for that exception. ( the protest )

You have not been able to convince not only me, but also the State Council. If you do not trust my judgment, you should at least listen to the State Council. He is legally best placed to judge, but also he was not satisfied with your arguments.

Even your comparison with the Brussels district could not convince as an argument, because that comparison is not true. Brussels is a bilingual region. Halle-Vilvoorde is a unique area. You cannot make that comparison at all.

I will therefore no longer ask you for accountability, for you will not be able to answer it today either. We all know on whose question those two parquets came to Henegouwen.

The fact that there will be two parks and two prosecutors of the King in Henegouwen also brings a new twist. In the future, we will have a preponderance of French in the College of Prosecutors-General. In the future, we will have seven French-speaking prosecutors and five Dutch-speaking prosecutors. The Flamings are once again being made a minority group and you work with them funnyly, apparently without any problems.

Furthermore, it is curious that Henegouwen will also have two police courts. Antwerp and Gent have only one. There will also be two seats for the court of first instance in Henegouwen, while that court will still have only one president. Therefore, it is and remains a great mystery what the added value of those two seats is. It seems more and more that – I look first again at the PS and the CDH – two full-fledged judicial districts in Henegouwen have been wanted to be installed and that you have been assigned the task of masking that as well as possible.

My second point is that each judicial district will have a chairman of the peace judges and the judges of the police courts, except for the districts of Brussels and Eupen. In those two districts, the President of the Court of First Instance will assume that role. For Eupen, this can be perfectly justified by the fact that the district will have a unitary court, but for the district of Brussels there is no explanation for this. When we asked you in the committee for a justification for that different treatment, you referred easily to the BHV Act of 2012.

In this way, you always get rid of it very easily, because you simply shift the responsibility on others, as if you are not yourself Minister of Justice, who is yet also competent for the further implementation of the BHV law. Therefore, you are also responsible for correcting the scratches. You know very well what the consequences will be here again. It is not an innocent system. Through this arrangement, the French-speaking chairman of the court of first instance will have a veto right over the peace judges and police judges in Halle-Vilvoorde. This is also a discrimination, which here, through the reform of the judicial districts, is once again painted. We already knew this when the reform of the judicial district of Brussels was approved; here it comes out again explicitly.

Third, in the districts of Brussels and Eupen, there remains one chief graffiti per peacekeeping court and per police court. In all other districts there is only one main griffier for all peacekeeping courts and police courts and that at the level of the judicial district. It is still unclear why this unequal treatment would be justified here. Also here you refer simply and simply to that BHV law.

Fourth, Waals-Brabant will have its own judicial district, Vlaams-Brabant will not. The division in a judicial district of Leuven and Brussels is ⁇ ined. In addition, Article 156 of the Constitution, which marks the boundaries of the jurisdiction, is being revised, but you apparently still do not know what you want to start with it. This, of course, opens the door for the inclusion of the district of Leuven in the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal of Antwerp. The risk is therefore not unthinkable that the territorial unity of Flemish-Brabant will be destroyed.

As we have heard, the plan exists to responsibilise the corps commanders in the context of management, by giving them control over their own budgets and personnel. However, your design contains provisions that indicate an increase in centralization. The Attorney General, the First President and the Minister of Justice may take certain decisions regarding the external mobility of lower magistrates without the consent of the chiefs of corps concerned. Those latter will, rightly, at appropriate times have to be accountable for their achievements, despite the threat of undermining their domination, their autonomy by centralization.

Because these three components are not treated together, therefore, again, it remains to guess about the possible mutual impact. This again shows the importance of the third draft, which we should have been able to address together. You leave the Parliament in the unknown and you actually take a walk with parliamentary democracy.

The Rules of Division of Cases may make certain sections within a judicial district exclusively competent in certain matters. At the moment it is far from clear what the practical consequences of this will be on the ground. Indeed, it is not unthinkable that this will result in a significant increase in the workload for the officers who will have to ensure the mobility of the files. We see that this really causes accidents, for example files that are lost, and deadlines that are not met.

It is apparently intended that the King’s Prosecutor will become a manager and that the department prosecutors will take over the legal leadership for their department. For this reason, in the place of the former Prosecutor of the King comes a Section Prosecutor with above it the Attorney of the President of the King. Now well, that can be a good arrangement, but it is still very peculiar that for the judicial districts of Leuven, Brussels and Nijvel no department prosecutor is appointed. The argument that the population numbers are different is not valid, since Leuven has approximately the same number of inhabitants as Luxembourg, while the latter gets three department prosecutors.

Mrs. Minister, even your repeated argument that you have taken a picture of the existing situation and that you have injected the new structure on it is not valid. Indeed, in the four judicial districts I have just mentioned, a King’s Prosecutor equally deserves a departmental Prosecutor to take over the legal leadership. In addition, the seats in for example Bruges, Gent, Antwerp, Luxembourg and Liège should therefore not have a branch prosecutor. The essence of a reform is, by the way, that one seizes the opportunity and momentum to change and improve an existing situation ab initio.

More generally, I can say that the relationship between the chairs of departments and the first replacement vice-chairs is also not yet fully clearly regulated in the draft. Also, the ratio between the new main graffiti, the department graffiti, the graffiti-head of service and the old main graffiti and so on is still far from clear.

Finally, the introduction of the right to be heard in the case of mobility is a good thing. We support that. In order to truly enable mobility, always and everywhere the consent of the magistrates concerned is, of course, difficult to ⁇ . I have the following concerns.

Do you have any idea, Mrs. Minister, what the impact will be on the motivation of the magistrates who do not agree to their relocation? Isn’t there the risk that Corps Chief X will have to give up a motivated magistrate, while Corps Chief Y will get an unmotivated one?

I turn around and conclude. However, the designs contain many inequalities and disorders. The opportunity to establish a unified court was missed. Furthermore, the reforms do not appear to be carried out by the magistrates on the ground and may overcome their objective if no faster work can be done on workload measurement and efficiency measurement, simple procedures, integrated IT systems, which are naturally connected to them, and more resources for efficient justice. Unfortunately, we cannot approve the present draft.

For years, there have been discussions to reform the judiciary landscape. Indeed, the territorial structure, the distribution of courts and the management within the Judiciary date globally from their creation at the annexation of our regions to the French Republic in 1795. For years there has been a question of the number and extent of our future judicial districts. Reforming the judicial landscape is therefore not a luxury. For my group, this reform – ⁇ useful, but strongly criticized by the sector – is not perfect.

The projects on the table have been the subject of many criticisms but also fears; fears sometimes legitimate, but other times related to the fear of change. The comprehensive reform will consist of three parts. Only two of them have been analyzed so far. They relate to the decrease in the number of judicial districts (from 27 to 12 districts), to the mobility of magistrates and staff, and finally to the management. For the PS group, this reform of the judicial landscape is unacceptable and only stands the way if it allows to improve the fate of the prosecutors. For this, the maintenance of the places of hearing is essential and we will remain attentive to ensure that the distribution of cases continues to respect a justice of proximity, a justice accessible to all.

The reform of the judicial districts, mobility and management stands the way if it helps to tackle judicial lag, improve the efficiency of justice and ensure quality handling for all cases, from the simplest to the most technical. The judicial landscape reform is positive if, indeed, the scale enlargement allows the specialization of magistrates and the professional treatment of all cases.

Sometimes it is necessary, Mrs. Minister, to rethink the obvious, to launch new dynamics, to give momentum. However, these impulses must obviously respect the principles of law and in particular constitutional principles such as the immovability of magistrates. In this case, it is essential to ensure that the consent of the magistrate is obtained in the vast majority of cases. Voluntary mobility will always be more effective than imposed mobility; and only a mobility indispensable to the proper administration of justice deserves to be imposed. It is therefore important that the magistrates are at least heard and that structural mobility cannot be imposed if it is manifestly unreasonable in relation to a concrete situation.

Finally, in order to avoid excess or abuse of power as much as possible, it is necessary to provide for the establishment of an effective remedy before an appropriate instance.

The discussion began in the committee. The third part of the project will allow us to ⁇ this. We are looking forward to him with impatience. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. At the end of the parliamentary year, this is a very positive step in the judicial reform. There has been a lot of work done over many decades. There was the report-Van Reepingen. There was the Dutroux discussion. There was Octopus. There was Themis. There was atomium.

So this is the final debate on the first two parts of a trio that covers the larger districts and on mobility. It is important that this is approved as part of a larger whole, linked to other matters within the Judiciary, for the holiday in the Chamber.

We have been working on reforms for a long time. We have all experienced them. Since the 1990s, many things have changed in the judiciary. We have already established the College of Attorneys General in 1997. That is not so long ago. The High Council for Justice, the Council of Procurors of the King, the Criminal Enforcement Courts and the Houses of Justice have also been established. The Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office was established. These are all relatively recent institutions.

Now we need a broader framework for the courts themselves, after we have established a number of advisory bodies. I will return to that later, because I think there is still a mandate in relation to the multitude of advisory bodies that have been established in the past.

It is a global reform. A number of steps are now being concretized: the scale expansion, the re-registering of the district formations and the mobility of the magistrates and staff with a view to greater efficiency and specialization.

There are other elements that will still need to be expanded: the establishment of better, representative bodies. Following the establishment of the College of Attorneys-General, the College of the Headquarters should also be established, possibly also with a joint management service.

There is also a demand for the introduction of management, the integral management; both for the headquarters and for the public prosecution.

There is also a demand to rationalize all judicial policy and advisory bodies.

It makes no sense to have a High Council for Justice and a General Council of the Partners of the Judicial Order, and a Commission for the Modernization of the Judicial Order, and a Advisory Council of the Magistrates. A rearrangement is needed.

A topic that we have not discussed now, but which has already been regularly raised in the past, is the question of the extent to which the prosecutor’s office can better become a whole. Should the auditor be separated? At Atomium has already questioned whether a restructuring of the public prosecutor’s office has taken place. I think it is better to evolve into a structure. A division of the labor audit would result in efficiency gains.

An incomplete element that has already been discussed before is the social status of the magistrates. It has long been on the shelf. Someday we need to realize this, but not now. With the districts and mobility, we are already taking big steps.

The principles have always remained the same. We must strive for greater efficiency, reasonable deadlines, better quality, more specialization, more flexibility, close to the population but with a stronger management capacity. We need to introduce a new organizational culture. These principles have been formulated before and are still applicable.

We must not only serve the citizens better. The figures also show that the confidence in the institutions is not very high. The latest survey from 2010 showed that confidence in education was 94%, in police 85% and in the judiciary only 61%. Therefore, it must regain confidence. Parliament, on the other hand, gained only 53% of confidence. The press is even lower.

The recent European scoreboard shows that many data are not available. The comparison between the functioning of the judiciary in Belgium and the other countries is difficult. We do not have the necessary elements.

These principles lead to the need to restore trust in the judiciary. That has long been the ambition.

We can do that now because the Brussels issue has been resolved. However, it must be repeated that the solution in the form of a separate arrangement for the judicial district of Brussels has opened the way for the rest of the country. It has been a red thread in the debate, namely our respect for the law of 19 July 2012, a very recent law, which has fundamentally rearranged the judicial district of Brussels. This has been a very positive case for me that will contribute to the efficient functioning of Justice in Brussels.

Another element is also to be mentioned. I also mentioned it during the discussion. In the debate, we did not fundamentally ask for larger budgets, and the minister did not. In principle, we have enough magistrates. With the limited budget – if I can call it so – of 1.8 billion, all elements, in particular sufficient personnel and buildings, are available, both in terms of infrastructure and in terms of human potential. With those people, it should be possible to carry out the rearrangement and ⁇ the goals.

To be able to do that with those people, it has been necessary to decide on a scale increase with larger arrondissements so that the operation would be addressed more efficiently, but above all so that there would be a better management and a better responsibility at the base and on the ground with the corps chiefs. I will return to that later.

In principle, the budget should be sufficient. That is not the problem. It is good that we now change the structures. Colleagues have already cited that it has not become a unified court. We have long talked about the ideal image of a unified court. However, it has become a differentiated solution, negotiated at Belgian scale and with exceptions at various times.

Certain specialties, such as the Labour Court and the Commercial Court, have also remained separate. However, I repeat my request to distinguish the judicial independence of the courts, such as the Labour Court and the Commercial Court, from the organizational integration. In other words, I hope that in the larger districts all courts – of first instance, trade and labour – will be integrated and organizational arrangements will be made. In this way, the operation on the ground can be very well coordinated.

Therefore, it is a slightly paved landscape, but still with the conviction that through good consultation between the various pillars steps forward can be made.

There are many positive things in the current legislation. When it comes to larger arrondissements, I preferred sixteen arrondissements, which everyone knows. After all, I was convinced that a scale of 500 000 to 800 000 inhabitants would be a good scale with sufficient magistrates and also sufficient involvement with the environment. There is now a political choice made by the introduction of provincial descriptions, to which certain exceptions apply. That choice has been well discussed and we will put ourselves down on it.

A second positive thing is the mobility that will be much larger than before. We have made the amendment that the magistrates should be systematically heard and that in certain cases the agreement should be reached, which is in itself a positive step.

At the insistence of CD&V, a change was made to the rules of division of cases after the debate. The Division of Matters Regulation is a newly created tool with which the organization will be reviewed. We advocate that this should be done on an objective basis and not à la carte, so that it is not about undermining the good progress of a case, as it was originally written in the law, but that this would be objectivable.

Also positive is the new role of the greffies and of the staff included in the legislation. In particular, I refer to Article 50, which, however, has required some debate. That article deals with the way in which documents can be deposited at the office of the Grand Court in each of the sections of the Grand Court. This requires a great deal of flexibility. This is also new and will create a new practice that may offer positive opportunities.

Finally, we also reached a good agreement on the notariat, with one notary per 9 000 inhabitants as the principle. The other provisions must be determined by the Government and the King. This is also positive. I also mention the better organisation of the peace courts and the police courts with a chairman per district. The balls are free to choose the way they organize themselves. These are all important and positive things.

There are also some agreements made with regard to the future. In conclusion, I think it is important to report this. The first question is, of course, the need for synchronization of the various initiatives. We now have the districts and mobility, the disciplinary and family court and the draft on management. It is important that the draft management is implemented and attached to the present draft, so that we obtain a great coherence.

That coherence will be crucial, because it makes no sense to create larger arrondissements or to organize more mobility if there is no better management. This is the third part that should be in line with what we have done so far. We have therefore put a strong emphasis on this. It is good that political commitments have been made for the simultaneous entry into force and for the alignment of the texts. This synchronization of the various components is ⁇ necessary.

Yesterday, in the debate about the judicial enforcement officers, the question arose whether the new disciplinary courts should not also be involved for them. We need to work synchronized. This can only benefit the whole.

A second important agreement is that concerning the workload measurement. I got support from colleague Dewael when I noticed that the figures for Limburg are very high. This was not part of the SALK program, but the figures show that the number of magistrates per population in Limburg is much smaller. This is a historical shift stretch that is further reinforced by the fact that the Limburg added judges have been added primarily to Antwerp parket resorts, not to Limburgse. This is one example. This is also the case in other provinces and in other specialties.

In other words, the question of carrying out the workload measurement not only as a study, but also to draw conclusions has been re-formulated. It is now not included in the legislation, but the necessary commitment was taken to discuss it when we talk about management. If one wants to manage well, and if one wants to be flexible, one must know the workload and one must examine where there is too much or too little work and where the available people can be best deployed. It is rightly stated that in other countries, for example, a periodic adjustment takes place every five years. This is also necessary for us, and I think that the minister should take the lead for this.

As regards Brussels, the government has already confirmed that the initiatives taken by the magistrates have still not led to adjustments. The government must now clearly take the lead and make the necessary calculations to determine, on the basis of the workload measurement, where corrections will need to be made. It is crucial that this will be solved in the future through the design over management. I think we should give all magistrates a perspective of adjusting those frameworks.

Today we take a picture of an existing situation, but in the future we need to be able to deal with it flexibly. The essence of this design is that there must be flexibility. The workload measurement is a necessary element for this and therefore needs to be legally anchored, more than today, under the leadership of the government, so that all corpses can be given the perspective that they will be allocated the right number of magistrates, based on the actual workload. In this way, the workload can be normally distributed among the available staff members. This is a crucial point. Agreements were made on this. I repeat clearly that for us this is a point of absolute conviction and a breakpoint. In the future, it will need to be incorporated into legislation.

A third point relates to the debate that was mainly held with colleague Marghem, namely – also on this subject his agreements were made – the question of whether or not magistrates should, in the light of mobility, have a means to say whether they agree, or whether they still want to discuss it again. It is not a difficult procedure. For us, it should not be a difficult procedure, but of course it also takes place in the design “management”.

As regards the way in which the chief of the corps, whether or not with his management committee, makes decisions on the placement and relocation of magistrates, there must be a means to avoid problems and to be able to exchange views on them. Various proposals were made. Questions were asked to do so through a mediator. There were also proposals to appoint an evaluator. There has been a discussion about the chairman of the general assembly or the management committee. It is for me for a moment, but we feel something for the management committee to be responsible within a court. This is definitely to be arranged. It must be defined in the “management” plan.

I think that there should be consultation on this subject, knowing that the famous sanction déguisée or the imprisoned punishment has already been included in the disciplinary legislation and that the possibility of going to the disciplinary court already exists if a chief of the corps makes certain decisions concerning certain magistrates which are clearly felt to be a sort of sanction to remove them from a court, rather than a measure of good administration. This possibility is included. That is a good decision, but between the normal human resource assignments and the disciplinary sphere there is a grey zone, which may need to be channeled within a good management. There is also an agreement and a commitment of the Minister to come up with a solution.

So the conclusion is that design management is very important. In this regard, we must look at how not only a decentralized operation is established but also the responsibility of the corps chiefs is sought. The above has always been explained by everyone. It is evident from all the documents that it is also the core of the direction we must go, so that magistrates are driven to direct their own personnel, finances, ICT, security and all matters related to the daily organization and the daily management of their court. This will be done by district and province. This is about large entities. The above is the goal that must be achieved. Therefore, the importance of design management is also great.

We have, of course, read all the opinions of the High Council for Justice, of Professor Van Orshoven and of the Standing Assembly of Corps Chiefs. All these recommendations go in the above-mentioned direction. We are convinced that this is the basis for a good, coherent legislation, which may be discussed immediately after the holiday, once the opinion of the State Council has been received and the texts are ready for debate.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the conclusion is that I am ⁇ pleased that the work of many years today under the leadership of the current Minister of Justice, Annemie Turtelboom, is concluded and that we now have a final debate on the matter.

Reform is an important step. She is not out. There is still a lot of work in the store. There is another third part and there are many other related subjects. However, it is a necessary step and an important stage that will be completed today. It’s a stage in a round we’ve been driving for a long time. Today’s stage is not the end of our round. We will continue to follow stages on television.

I would like to thank everyone who contributed to the reform. I also thank the Minister for the efforts made. I also thank the officials. They are there and I want to thank them very especially for the excellent work they have done. After all, writing and rewriting such texts is not always easy. However, they did this quite well, of course also in cooperation with the services of the Chamber.

So I thank you for the cooperation and hope that we now evolve as soon as possible towards more confidence in Justice. I thank everyone.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, the modernization of the judiciary is a step that follows the reforms of the police and the establishment of the Supreme Council of Justice initiated in 1998.

To constitute an obvious necessity, it remains no less a bettor. You have realized it. In fact, this reform must refine the structures of the judiciary while respecting the requirements in terms of ethics and human effectiveness.

As I have already deplored on previous projects, the gap between the professional world of justice and its user, the justiciable, continues to grow. This fracture is regularly fuelled by misunderstandings due to the lack of skill to know and to recall the foundations of the law, as well as the lack of willingness, sometimes, to fully apply its effects. Because it must be admitted, driven by the urgency, we do not always manage to correctly write the norm which, however, has the vocation to impose itself on all.

The difficulty arises from the fact that the judiciary cannot be reduced to its sole apparent mission, namely to settle disputes on the basis of a pre-existing norm. It embodies and guarantees, in addition and in an additional way, the values enabling the preservation of the rule of law as well as the respect for democratic principles and public freedoms. He must therefore ensure his mission of public service in a manner consistent with these expectations: to respond to the image and perception of the justifiable of the function of judging while not failing his mission of guarantor of democracy.

The Constitution and the major international charters affirm these essential and fundamental principles by establishing the standards to ensure the impartiality of judges.

This small preamble, Madam the Minister, dear colleagues, to emphasize the crucial importance of the challenge that this project represents. The latter part of the constatation, and we adhere to it, that the distance that is established between justice and the citizen is due to the justified impression of the latter that the jurisdictions are slow, poorly equipped, and incomprehensible to the common of mortals.

Reorganizing the territorial organisation of the courts through a coherent cutting-edge grouping of resources where necessary through increased mobility and specialization of magistrates allowing economies of scale is a praised and legitimate goal.

We can only welcome the willingness of the project to go in this direction. But its success depends largely on the chosen directions. Maintaining neighborhood justice by preserving the current places of hearing that are the old arrondissements is a good thing. It was in fact important that the modernization did not take place at the expense of the justiciable, who must be able to benefit from the same proximity of the structures.

The articulation between these different levels as planned in the project seems to us to ⁇ consistent efficiency. The organization is based on two layers: the division and the arrondissement, one contained in the other, each occupied by a chief of corps and its judicial staff. The level of the district is also devoted to the organization and management of this new territory. Everything seems to be best in the best of the worlds.

Nevertheless, the choice of geographical dividing leaves – this has already been said by some colleagues – many differences between the new arrondissements in terms of size and disparate population density. The chosen criterion, namely the provincial level, could indeed not be applied everywhere in the same way, so that the new cut proposed is characterized by a certain lack of consistency.

The continued proximity for the justiciable has also not always guided the measures applicable to judicial professions such as court officers and lawyers, who will inevitably be impacted by this blind change of territorial scale. In this case, it would also be necessary to ensure a service close to the citizen.

The actual impacts in terms of economies of scale are not visible at first. Indeed, if the management structures move to the upper level while the hearing sites remain in place, this implies the maintenance of human and material resources expenditure. We may see this in the third section of management, which for now remains a black box.

The second major aspect of this project concerns the organization of increased mobility and specialization of magistrates. We can only welcome this ambition shown by the project. The mobility of magistrates, when it is well dosed, according to the specific needs of the courts and especially when it is based on good faith and the collaboration of each, as the Minister has recalled, must enable to ensure without damage the continuity of the public service Justice and the provision of skills where it is necessary and when it is necessary.

In short, the bill that is submitted to us tends to a greater de facto geographical mobility within the new arrondissement whose territory extends, but also between arrondissements in the courts of appeal.

The idea is also to concentrate specific competences within highly specialized courts. This vision of the judicial institution that wants to be modern, emerged from pure common sense: to distribute the human and material resources to the most adjusted number of justiciables and disputes on a given territory. We will see if the project succeeds.

This reform must, in any case, avoid two major gaps. First, we should not mask by increased mobility, some sort of façade agitation, the structural problems of staff in terms of magistrates and judicial personnel, eminently linked to the socio-economic needs of the living basins of our country. That is why this reform should be accompanied by a powerful tool for measuring workload and socio-economic analysis. Secondly, it would also not be necessary that, by an excess of authoritarianism, the reform strengthens the absolute power of super-chief bodies on their fief, causing us to make an extraordinary good back and thus move from the twenty-first century to the feudal era, while our goal must remain an effective modernization of the institution for the benefit of the justifiable.

The placing of a power without internal control in the hands of the heads of bodies concerning the movements of magistrates from their jurisdiction presents a risk of perverse effect. Nothing could therefore prevent decisions on mobility based on political opportunity or even hostility from being made when they do not provide a better service to the prosecuted person or improve the efficiency of the judicial organisation. If we listen to Mrs. Minister, we should be able to count on the good faith of the heads of bodies, leaving for a few cases isolated unfounded decisions. But a single case would suffice to damage the reform ambition, undermining the constitutional principle of immovability of magistrates, which guarantees above all their independence and impartiality, essential qualities for justice rendered in a rule of law.

I am obviously convinced that, in most decisions, a consensus will be reached by responsible professionals. I also welcome the fact that it has been clarified that all these mobility decisions will be governed by adequate motivation and prior hearing of the person concerned.

I further emphasize that the bill creating the disciplinary court for magistrates gives the latter jurisdiction to know decisions that would prove to be disguised disciplinary sanctions. However, it could happen that a body leader makes a mobility decision that is not a disguised disciplinary sanction but based on political opportunity, for example.

That’s why I have long advocated our duty as lawmakers in a rule of law to establish counter-powers and to provide for an appeal and/or mediation to know and resolve incidents of excess or abuse of power.

To all those who do not like freedom, I say, “Don’t be afraid!” Every democracy worthy of that name establishes itself and functions on the logic of separate powers to which a logic of counter powers responds. Therefore, it is not about blocking the mobility that the project calls for its will, but about eliminating the decisions that are not related to it by introducing the means of mediation that I mentioned. For all the reasons the judges invoke, the judges profess to apply the principles. In other words, it is not because there is a remedy that there are more problems, nor is it because there is no one that there are fewer.

We have to act as Democrats. And this question must find a solution, as you promised, Madam the Minister, during the discussion of the draft on the management of the courts. It is regrettable that this third part has not been presented and debated with the first two of which we are talking today, while it is supposed to oint the rods. I don’t yet know what we’ll find there, but I hope its essential accents won’t disrupt our work today.

I will be very careful, you can count on it. In the meantime, we will grant you the benefit of the doubt by voting in favour of your two proposals.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, too often we have heard in the past and we still hear that the people have lost their confidence in Justice and want Justice to perform better in terms of the functioning of the judicial apparatus.

The analysis of what all went wrong and goes wrong in Justice was done out of the clothes: insufficient transparency and efficiency in its functioning, a too complex structure of the judicial landscape, the ever-increasing regulation and jurisprudence of society, an unacceptable backwardness in the handling of files for the legal seekers, a lack of customer-friendliness in the proceedings and, finally, the loss of credibility due to a number of insoluble cases.

For decades, there has been a comprehensive and fundamental reform of the judiciary, but it has never been achieved.

However, justice is one of the core tasks of government. The citizen has the right to right, close and in a quality way. This requires not only attention to flow times, but also constant attention to the quality of the statements.

It is therefore correct that the government agreement was included in order to shape the long-awaited justice reform. It is your merit, Mrs. Minister, to have started this as a chef with a sharp knife, after consulting and consulting with all actors of Justice, without going out of the way of any debate, with the willingness to refine through amendments after hearings in the Chamber Committee and with respect for the continuity of the policy.

I think here, colleague De Clerck, of the Atomium Consultation that went crazy after the N-VA left the consultation. I would like to remind you, Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh.

Mrs. Minister, you have taken decisions as a chef with a sharp knife, and today is the first of two bills, which now concrete a reform of the Judiciary, which has been on the spot for so many years, now puts in place.

We have come to a point where the act is attached to the word. This draft, which aims to remark the judicial organisation and strengthen the rules on mobility — following the announced text on management — is setting off a significant evolution. As a result of the re-registration of the judicial organisation, the courts of commerce and labour are organized by jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, the courts of first instance and the police courts are now divided into twelve arrondissements and the peace courts continue to be organized in cantons. This re-registration is necessary for the purposes of autonomous management and for the purpose of an efficient use of resources, and thus inevitable.

Colleagues, I have understanding for those who advocate for a unified court. Contrary to what could be thought from the reading of the report of the discussion in the committee, our group is indeed in favour of a unified court, but with the exception of the police courts and the peace courts. We were, in fact, of the opinion that if it were to be added to the Unified Court, this would increase the number of cases at the Court of Appeal, where the greatest downturn exists, and would thus be counterproductive. The fact that a scale was chosen at the district level, with the preservation of the courts of commerce and labour courts, but on a sufficiently large scale for effectiveness, was for us no reason to stay still, but to agree with what is now ahead.

Completely new, colleagues, is not necessarily better. Better is just better. In addition, striving for a new structure and the right scale was not a goal in itself for us; it was a means to get to a better justice. This does not necessarily mean starting again from scratch, but it also means building on what works well. I have said it many times, the organizational structure of the peace courts is not problematic at the moment, so why not maintain and integrate them into the new structure as included in the present draft?

Colleagues, the present draft is at least a progress draft, which does not exclude evolution, even with regard to the unitary courts. We fully support this, but you already know that.

An indispensable tool in this design to come to a modern and high-quality Justice is to increase the mobility and specialization of the magistrates. Currently, magistrates still have insufficient opportunities to specialize in a particular legal field and there are insufficient opportunities in terms of mobility. The extent to which magistrates will be given space to specialise is determined by the size of the judicial districts. The planned scale increases will give more room for specialization.

Colleagues, for the Open Vld it is important that the proximity of Justice is not affected and this is even reinforced in certain places in the draft. This design is of course not the end point. Once these new structures come into effect in practice, it will need to be demonstrated whether it is necessary to further adjust, in order to subsequently adjust the possible inequalities that this adjustment could cause. You know that it is also decided to declare Article 156 of the Constitution subject to revision, so that later the boundaries, and then we come to the dossier-Henegouwen, can be worked.

Finally, colleagues, a word of appreciation for the countless benevolent actors of Justice in the field. Renovating and advocating for innovation is never innocent, there is always something going against the plane. It is as if one deals with those who are day by day in the weather for the rights of citizens. Colleagues, this design is nothing of all this, this design is not a settlement. It is a means for the benefit of these actors of good will. I wish them a lot of success in the application of this design.

I hope that Mr. Landuyt will intervene in this debate, because I think he may be the only one to defend this project without reservation, as he did in the committee. I wonder how this dossier could have arrived today on the banks of the parliament to be submitted to vote, while the various members of the majority are very critical in their interventions. They only talk about what is missing in this project and the threats that weigh on its implementation. I wanted to make sure that Mr. Landuyt would intervene to raise the morale of Mrs. the minister who, in my opinion, did not expect to receive so much criticism.

Today we are voting for a reform that has been expected for many years. What a missed opportunity! Many times we have missed the opportunity to really bring a reform that is worthy of that name. The reform of the judiciary is ambitious. Ecolo and Groen supported it by participating in the Atomium Working Group in October and December 2009, at the instigation of the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Groen. by Clerck.

I do not think that the failure of this working group is to be attributed to the N-VA. On the other hand, she probably feared the collegial and participatory process in which we were engaged, and which worked very well. At one point, the N-VA preferred to leave this working group rather than go to the end of the process. This misunderstanding had to be corrected.

In any case, any reform must lead to tangible improvements. We want structural changes to be made in the judicial organization in order to make progress possible. These reforms must be based on criteria of feasibility and added value for judicial staff, but above all for the justiciable. A cost-benefit analysis makes sense. Because, although it has been demanded for more than twenty years, this reform is proposed today in a context of unprecedented budgetary restrictions. Even though justice is a department that has been relatively immune to linear restrictions, it suffers from backward means and reforms. Therefore, it seems to us that we must go through a revaluation of justice and satisfactory access to courts.

We are in favor of judicial reform. However, some elements of the project submitted to us by the present majority and the precipitation with which the minister has worked in recent weeks encourage us to abstain. I come, by the way, to learn that the Senate, which was also to debate this matter today, has decided to postpone the debate to the parliamentary entrance.

My comments are of two orders. First, on the formal level, judicial reform is expected since the Dutroux case, that is, since the mid-1990s. While the police have been fundamentally restructured, Justice has struggled to make arrangements to improve its effectiveness.

As I said earlier, the logic of the present reform is the fruit of the initiative of former Minister De Clerck in 2009, interrupted by the 2010-2011 political crisis – and not by the N-VA. Despite the criticism of the lack of consultation of the field actors, the minister took back the flame. Despite communication problems, the first two parts of the proposed reform are accepted by the main stakeholders concerned, all aware of the importance of such a restructuring. However, what will happen when the draft on management autonomy is submitted to parliament by the government? He is already denounced in the press by those who support the reform of the judicial landscape and the new mobility rules. Therefore, we can see rather negative signs for the third part of this reform.

In any case, we have repeatedly criticized the federal majority’s strategy of examining reform texts in an incomplete manner. For example, the powers of the head of corps, often the sole decision maker in matters of mobility of magistrates or judicial staff, have been challenged during parliamentary debates. We proposed a model of participatory management, the echoes reached us from the majority suggested the solution of a collegial decision-making by the board of directors, as recently ⁇ by Mr. by Clerck. This committee has not yet been established. We must remain vigilant on this issue of consultation.

Finally, in order to avoid reparative laws in all directions, we asked for a commitment from the Minister to consider at the same time at the entrance the draft judicial reform in second reading and the draft management autonomy. For this, we will have to wait for the Senate’s work, but maybe the Minister will listen to our request.

As for the form, it is necessary to emphasize precipitation.

Although this draft reform has been expected for years and Minister Turtelboom has been in charge since the beginning of her mandate, once the draft law returned to the State Council, the federal government has finally agreed to group the reforms of the judicial landscape and mobility into one text. Furthermore, the Government has incorporated a fundamental note from the State Council regarding the consent required or not in matters of mobility, namely that with a few exceptions, when the consent of the person is not required, it must at least be heard and motivated the decision on mobility, which is not necessarily a guarantee of democracy because, when there is a motivation of the decision, the appeal against that decision will become more complicated.

The integration of these two fundamental remarks required a coordination work on the bill that was unfortunately rushed and blown down by the federal majority. Thus, the government submitted several amendments to correct the text because, in particular, the cabinet of the minister had forgotten to indicate the obligation to hear the person before moving it or to justify this decision. This is a significant lapsus in regard to the consideration that the Minister brings to the magistrates.

The State Council itself regretted the little seriousness with which this text was drafted on a legal level and the many language errors pointed out.

The majority wanted to hasten the parliamentary debates. Only one morning was devoted to the hearing of the actors, before starting directly the parliamentary debates conducted at a very sustained pace in order to close, or even blunt, the debate in three days and vote in the evening the articles of the text. We believe that a reform of such scale and importance would have deserved a few extra hours of work.

This is what I have to say about the form.

As for the substance, the reform aims to improve the efficiency of justice. In particular, it provides for greater flexibility by facilitating the mobility of judges and judicial staff. Mobility is essential to enable specialization of magistrates in the subjects in which they are trained and called to judge. This also applies to the ability to attract high-level profiles, at the level of specialized subjects. While we support the philosophy of this reform, we regret the full powers granted to body heads in matters of mobility.

In the continuation of the reflection on the democratic organization of the judiciary and the general assemblies, we have proposed a model of participatory management. The objective of this model is to engage, through the general assembly, as many magistrates as possible who work with the head of the body. The involvement of the assisting magistrates of the Chief of Corps in a decision concerning the mobility of a magistrate has the advantage of guaranteeing their adherence to that decision and of avoiding as much as possible the risks of a disciplinary decision required by means of a temporary appointment or delegation order.

Specifically, when a need for temporary reinforcement in another service is felt, the general assembly of the magistrates concerned has the first hand in hand, either by giving an opinion on the joint decision of the two heads of corps, or by proposing a candidate to reinforce the other service. In the latter case, the profile sought for the designation or delegation is presented by a general assembly which tries to find, among its members, a voluntary magistrate ready to go to strengthen the service in difficulty. If the General Assembly does not present any candidate corresponding to the requested profile, the Chief of Corps may designate a magistrate who accepts the designation or delegation.

Our proposal was rejected in the committee and we are presenting it again today, like other proposals we have made. Regarding the issue of the appointment of magistrates, I would at least like to recall a passage from the opinion of the President of the Association of Magistrates’ Trade Unions for whom the issue of the appointment without consent (or with partial consent) poses a danger to democracy: “The independence of the judiciary is intrinsically a function of the immovability of magistrates, a constitutional principle that provides that travel is possible only through the consent of the judge.” Following her testimony, the President also advocated, Mrs. Marghem, the establishment of a mediator and other possibilities of appeal, in order not to leave full powers to the head of body.

Another point I would like to raise today is the desire that the philosophy of reform and the basic service be provided in each division. There would therefore be at least one court in each division: civil court, correctional court, family court. Today we will not discuss the family court, but it also constituted a significant step forward towards a greater proximity of justice to citizens and a greater specialisation of the judiciary in matters related to youth and family in general. I take this opportunity to congratulate us on the achievement of this project.

Subjects that deserve specialization can therefore be concentrated in a single division. They are listed in the Judicial Code. This is a positive step that will encourage and facilitate the stabilization of specialisations. However, we consider that the list of specialized subjects in civil matters is too wide and vague. Thus, for example, labour contractual disputes and work accidents are part of this comprehensive list. This means that these materials can be concentrated in a single division of a district. When one knows that a district will marry the provincial territory and that the distances to be traveled to a single division will be long, one can no longer speak of a justice close to the justiciable. This is another missed opportunity.

Furthermore, as my colleague De Clerck regrets, the majority chose 12 judicial districts instead of 16, as discussed in the Atomium group, which is equivalent to an average size of 900,000 inhabitants per district and very, if not too large differences per district. Luxembourg has approximately 271,000 inhabitants and Antwerp has 1,640,000. With such a difference, we do not see very well how this system will work. We believe that the federal government has not made the best choice for effective justice while remaining close to the prosecutors.

Finally, how can the rules for the autonomy of the courts be the same for such different districts?

Regarding the autonomy of the judiciary, the explanation explains that "the distribution of cases between the different places where the provincial court will have a division will from now on be the responsibility of the court", as this measure will have management implications. But the settlement of the distribution of affairs between the divisions in a district and their powers is subject to validation by the politician, on the proposal of the head of corps, but determined, nevertheless, by a royal decree.

This regulation is a very important management tool in terms of management and specialization. So why would you want to put it at all costs under the control of the government? Why not trust the judiciary?

How can we justify that politics has the last word in a judicial management matter? There is decentralization and participation everywhere. This is yet another missed opportunity to allow at least the judiciary world to fully assume and trust it in managing the business.

The Minister did not provide satisfactory answers to our questions at this level. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment stipulating that the General Assembly shall set the Rules of Procedure. According to our participatory management model, the general assembly divides affairs among individuals and determines which subjects will be specialized in its district.

It is also a stone in the shoes of the judges of peace. Currently, every peacemaker has one chief secretary for each canton. There is only one chief officer per district. Given the legislation on the use of languages and their particular situation, exceptions are made for Brussels and Eupen.

We are concerned that there is no longer a chief secretary for peace justice, when it is the right arm of the peace judge. The required functions of chief service officers will evolve to more management. However, they themselves state that 95 percent of their time is devoted to judicial work and not management.

Finally, we think that this transformation of courts and peace justice will likely result in the escape of a number of level A staff members, who will no longer be recognized in this new position and who will likely prefer to go to find other heavens more grateful to their position.

Here, dear colleagues, are a number of missed opportunities that we regret and which will justify our abstention for this project.

I brought the Rules of Procedure. If you have a lighter with you, you can have it set on fire by one of the colleagues of the majority. You know that I am not ashamed of a stunt and so I could do it myself. I could break it, but for that I have too much respect for the Rules. I would like to complain here about the way in which the work in the committee has been organized.

Mr. Schoofs, the Regulation also stipulates that ballons are not allowed to drop in the homecycle!

well well . I could also have set a helium balloon on fire, then the cock had flown in the fist. However, we are not such. As I said, we are not ashamed of a stunt.

Do not insist too much.

With regard to the present important bill, the basis of the judicial organization, our rights as parliamentarians were truly struck by the majority. I have never experienced this before, I say it honestly. This is not the letter of the Rules of Procedure. I do not think that I can draw out a provision of which one can say that the opposition has already been lying with it. It is about the spirit of the Rules.

It was decided that a lot of actors from the judicial world had to pass here in one morning. They were eminent lawyers, individuals who may have a thousand times the experience of all colleagues in the committee, including the minister. One of the colleagues almost proposed to introduce a touch clock. In fact, this was the case, as the chairman had to ensure that each speaker would spend a maximum of a quarter of an hour on his speech. Each panel member was given a maximum of a quarter of an hour. C’est du jamais vu, I say it honestly in the language of Molière. And that was the procedure for such an important bill; I can only express my indignation about it. Even a Monday release was too much demanded for commissioners. It was an unworthy parliament.

I had the impression that the majority on some sort of date rape was with Mrs. Justice. It really had something obscene. It is always said that there is a lot of preparation. However, I can quote you judicial actors who were very upset, as upset as I am now, about the way the text came into being. I will do that too.

I quote the State Council: “The draft shows significant shortcomings on the legislative, editorial and linguistic levels, and therefore deserves a thorough review. The State Council can only regret that such an important draft has been edited with no more care." In the footnote, the Council of State states, I quote, “The comments in this opinion regarding the mentioned shortcomings are merely exemplary. In the necessary revision of the submitted texts, the authors of the draft may, as regards the legislative technique, be guided by The Principles of the legislative technique - Handbook for the preparation of legislative and regulatory texts". So far, the State Council.

The Order of Flemish Balies was requested in extremis for written advice. That stated the following, I quote: “First of all, it is regrettable that in the short term the advice is requested from the OVB, expressly asking that the OVB would limit itself to any punctual text improvements”. The OVB says about this in its last sentence, I quote: “The OVB is of course not a text enhancer.”

Mr. Speaker, the reform points have in fact been dealt with with complete arbitration and I will therefore deal with the bill with complete arbitration.

I will play the devil’s advocate and address the seven main sins by which the majority of Miss Justice inflicts lasting and fundamental violence. I think a lot of the provisions of the draft law are wet fingerwork. I think I can better decide how I will discuss the draft law. I have seven items. I take a first note with an item from the pot and see what fate and Mrs. Justice influence me.

My first point concerns the larger districts. The number of districts has actually been reduced. The districts are growing larger, but the bonte cow, which Justice at the time was geographically on the ground, still exists. The fine spots become a little bigger here and there, but there are also a few small spots left. There is no uniformity or symmetry. There has been a lot of work to be done on how the 27 districts had to be reformed.

Are we going from 27 to 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 arrondissements? It looked a little like the N-VA, which is assembling a delegation to go to a throne ascension.

I was pleased with the idea of colleague De Clerck. Sixteen districts are the closest to the proposed parquet of districts per 900 000 inhabitants. There is a certain symmetry and uniformity. Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde is in this area.

For Eupen I would have understood it, given the differential language of the arrondissement. This is more difficult in the concept. If the districts coincide with the boundaries of the provinces, then the exception becomes much more the rule than the rule itself. Logic is sought. This is due to political affairism and the illusion of the day.

I would like to quote a for the last time colleague Van Orshoven about the size of the districts. He begins with: “The explanation still contained in the memorandum of explanation” – he refers to the argument that an extension of the courts of Luxembourg and Nam will result in the jurisdiction in danger of becoming very large in area – does not impress so much in the light of foreign examples, as well as in the realization that as it were, more time is lost in the files from Turnhout to Antwerp than the move from Aarlen to Nam or vice versa, or somewhere in the middle of the way, which must be weighed on an indispensable scale to organize an efficient court.”

Eminent Professor Van Orshoven refers to the larger districts to the garbage box.

I go on and draw a new lot; there are a total of seven items. What do I have here? We are talking about BHV.

With BHV the misery has begun and write that as B/H-V. After all, a division does not come, it becomes a doubling. That was the first reform and it is in no way similar to what is being voted for today. The decoupling of B/H-V is tailor-made to the francophones with the aim of further refraction of the Rand around Brussels. That treasure was played by the French speakers. They picked up the entire package of cards.

The evening I came home from the final vote in the Justice Committee, after the painful path of the discussion of this unforgettable draft, I read a sexist text on Facebook. I must, by the way, pay attention to what I say, because Minister Milquet may be nearby. I immediately came to mind with the idea of the judicial reform in Brussels/Halle-Vilvoorde.

“A woman can live without a man like a fish can live without a bicycle.” It is a very absurd spell, but it summarizes a little the absurdity of the inclusion of Brussels/Halle-Vilvoorde in the judicial reform that is presented today in Parliament. In fact, a bricolage was made...

The [...]

The last thing a fish discovers, colleague De Croo, is the water in which it swims. This is also the case, and it may be given to more lawyers. Especially in the discussion of the present draft law, this was useful. Brussels/Halle-Vilvoorde is actually a fish on a bike after the proposed judicial reform.

I would like to draw a lot again, the third point, the Unified Court. I raised three questions. The Court of Justice does not come. There is no unified court. The labour courts remain what they are, the trade courts remain what they are, and the courts of appeal are not tormented. It can, of course, be stated that the article in question has not been declared subject to revision. It would have been possible to invoke Article 195 of the Constitution. This is also the case for Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde.

For those who are not reassured, a trade court does not have an appeal body. For this, you must go to the Court of Appeal. A labour court has an appeal body. The trade unions have, of course, condemned and defamed this at the time. We therefore know that the trade unions have also had their words in the draft submitted, because the courts of appeal and the labour courts continue to exist. The labour courts are not integrated into the courts of appeal. I think that many colleagues would be behind this, yet those who belong to a trade union party, or to a party trade union, because one can reverse the matter. In any case, there is no torment in the courts of appeal.

They are being tortured by the peacekeepers. Peace courts are now neighboring courts. If a court should be able to maintain its autonomy, it would be the peace courts. They function very well. There are no complaints about the peace courts, but they are thrown into the unity structure. They are losing their main grippers, which means there will be degradations to adjust. They have ordinary officers. Unfortunately, the peace courts are incorporated into the unity structure.

I also do not understand the mobility between peace courts and police courts. I do not understand that a peace judge should go to a police court to cut the work there or vice versa. It is assumed that the lower courts are the lower courts and that magistrates can simply be shifted between them. It is very regrettable that the peacekeepers lose part of their autonomy, while one remains away from the labour courts.

I draw a fourth lot: the graffiti. Here you can really talk about a missed opportunity. The bill goes into the mist here. The officers do not become the third pillar of the court. With all respect for them, but they remain the pispaal. The development of the existing apparatus could have contributed to making Justice much more efficient, because there are indeed enough judges. I refer to the Court of Cassation, where there are referendums. Now, make the secretary, for the sake of God, a full-fledged referent of his judge, and make sure, once a judgment is pronounced, that the secretary becomes the boss of the work, so that the execution can be continued. Unfortunately, this does not happen. The officers remain, in fact, the refined officers they have, unfortunately, always been until now, and thus they do not become a third group of actors of the court, although they could nevertheless provide balance. Something that stands on three legs is stronger than something that stands on two legs. To manage that, there was probably no time in the framework of this design.

I would like to draw a fifth lot: the entry into force. Some lawyers call me with the question of whether the date of entry into force, April 1, 2014, is a joke. I say that this is not a joke, that it is really meant to be. When I am asked why, I answer that many corps leaders are then to be replaced. By that date, all commanders can be removed. In a larger district, one can then put a corps chief up there.

To be honest, I do not think that is a convincing explanation. By the way, maybe someone has forgotten it, but in the context of elections, courts also play a role. In the midst of the closure period, on 1 April 2014, the courts will have to reorganize themselves, with the greffies and everything therein, while also fulfilling their obligations with regard to the entire sequence of the elections to be held in May 2014. So I really don’t understand why the entry into force is scheduled for April 1, 2014. I could still think it’s an election stunt, or maybe someone for this design wants to put the plugs on his hat. I even doubt if that date is really realistic. We will see what this will bring on the ground.

I draw a sixth lot: the two parquets in Henegouwen. One has already returned to it. Two offices, two prosecutors. Note, maybe that would have been a good solution for the larger arrondissements that remain, such as for Antwerp.

But no, only Henegouwen gets this arrangement. Per ⁇ it was on that that the Order of Flemish Balie in the final paragraph of its letter to the commission meant. I will really frame the letter and hang it above my bed.

In that paragraph, the Order of Flemish Balies writes: “The specialization of standing and sitting magistrates seems more than ever distant. The Unity Court is set aside for political interests, which do not serve Justice.”This is the words of the Order of Flemish Balies, which is obviously raised here by the majority as the first the best carnival association. The order was not even heard and therefore does not wish to submit a written opinion to the committee.

In any case, I must admit that there has been excellent lobbying here, especially because no one, but no one can tell why – by whom I may tell – the case was bullied. The reason is that in Henegouwen itself there is opposition to the given. The French-speaking parties were completely confused with each other on the issue. I have heard Mrs. Marghem say that there should also be one court in Henegouwen with one prosecutor. There will be two prosecutors.

Because of this absolutely exceptional arrangement for Henegouwen, this reform is not so much something tragic but rather something comic. From now on, Henegouwen will be the only one to deal with the judicial reforms or the future on the judicial level with two prosecutors, which has something funny. I hear them in Antwerp or Hasselt already notice that Henegouwen is the district of Laurel and Hardy, of Peppi and Kokki, of Tjing and Tjong, of Statler and Waldorf or of Filip and Philippe. You choose it.

In any case, Henegouwen has gotten a lot here. No one knows why or by whom it was accused.

I draw the last lot: it is a nice point, amendment 103 to article 123. It is a leuk fait divers, which, however, is characteristic of the way the current majority sits together, or, rather, of the way they are connected. Witness to this was the hurry work and the improvisation.

What was the intention? The government planned – note – only in extremis to capture the offices of the notary offices. Behind the back of Mr De Clerck, however, Mr Landuyt had argued with Minister Turtelboom that the amendment would be withdrawn.

The Minister wants to say it. Now we will hear the truth.

( ... )

In that case, I will tell you myself. Unfortunately, Mr De Clerck is no longer present.

There was great panic in the committee, especially with Mr. De Clerck. He was right and wanted to submit the amendment again. The session had to be suspended.

The majority walked out, it seemed as if the Huns had broken out. There was a lot of bidding. Only the colleague of sp.a. Ms. Mouton, who replaced Mr. Landuyt who was not present, remained sitting in the committee room. After a few minutes, colleague De Clerck returned and was able to submit his amendment again. This was amendment no. and 166. You can read the report. Colleague De Clerck, I do not understand what sp.a has against the notary offices. I have nothing against the notaries.

That was a wonderful illustration of how this majority works and how amateurism is used from time to time.

I wrote a haiku for colleague De Clerck at this point. I suspect Herman Van Rompuy never wrote a haiku for him. At that time, colleague De Clerck lost his reputation of being rather vague and vague. He stormed through the committee room. It was annoying to see.

The haiku for colleague De Clerck goes as follows: “Justice reform, Stefaan in opposition, away dobbelighet.” Then one immediately sees that when one CD&V really traps on her cock – apologize for the terminology – she can sometimes come out of the corner. It was very exceptional that we were allowed to experience this. It was nice to decide.

However, not all of this project is affected by this draft. Mobility is a good thing, just like the fact that magistrates are heard.

However, the most important thing has yet to come. This was also stated by members of the majority. The real modernization has to be in the management and that design has yet to come.

It is hopeful to expect that there will be less stumbling there and that there will be a little more vision and pit than in what is being voted here today.

The major problems of the judiciary are far from resolved. This is read in the newspapers every day and colleagues from both the opposition and the majority must question or interpell the minister again each week. It is then about the prisons that are overcrowded, the interned who are trapped in them, the laxity and impunity. This must be addressed.

We must not forget that this majority, including this Minister of Justice, has been waiting for years for the entry into force and implementation of many important laws that are very pregnant and important for Justice. Also this Minister of Justice leads all those laws over the elections to the next legislature.

Justice is still sick in the same bed. The bacterium is in this federal Belgian government.

I know that the majority will later applaud, Open Vld even the hardest. It may take two polls before they get back on their feet and the applause is silent. Stephan De Clerck, not present, may accidentally drop his balls and dive under his couch at that moment, otherwise he will probably get his hands still moderately on each other. We will later take the test on the sum. Colleague Becq, you can already warn him.

Colleagues, in our banks you will not hear any applause. We are fully opposed.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to leave one more balloon. We will only applaud if the Flaming can organize its own court in an orderly manner and if we are therefore freed from that bustle of the Belgian Justice.

Mr. President, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, listening to those who have preceded me in this tribune, one could believe that the bill we are going to vote is revolutionary, that it will solve all the problems of justice. Those who imagine this dream. They think that this text will solve everything with a magic rod! We need to be serious and reasonable and bring this matter back to its right level.

This is important because we have never touched the judicial organization since our country existed. But what is proposed to us today is never but a material and functional organization, with a little mobility of the magistrates. There is a lack of the essential, that is, management, a project that the Minister promises to us for soon and which is at the heart of the reform. Indeed, it is through the management mechanisms that one can know whether the objectives of modernization, improvement and rapidity of judicial decisions are achieved.

by mr. Lahssaini may tell me that this is a somewhat critical observation on the part of the majority and that Mr. Landuyt would be the only one to applaud with four hands if he had them, without cuddling, on the project! First, it is to ignore the functioning of the Justice Committee and its composition, including lawyers. But lawyers like to cut their hair in four and weigh the pros and cons. Even with a good project, they put their finger as quickly as possible on the slightest imperfection, the slightest difficulty, or something that is sometimes less understandable. Without wanting to be idealistic, the aim pursued in our committee is to improve texts and their effectiveness.

For some, we didn’t spend enough time on this text and for others, we were too fast.

It is difficult for a non-lawyer to be part of this committee. I am one of those specimens.

Sometimes the debate takes the appearance of seduction or attack. It is not very well known where it is located and the search for sensitive points is sometimes difficult to perceive for non-initiates. However, a political position must be taken. Whether you are a lawyer or not, it is the question of the meaning, objectives, effectiveness and relevance of the project that must be analyzed. In this regard, I do not perceive a combined majority behind the minister.

The next vote will reassure you. You will understand that there is no difficulty.

Projects like these can be improved. This is so true that some people thought we didn’t want auditions. We have discussed this point. Some consider that they were so chained that they served nothing, that they were simulations of auditions. As far as I am concerned, I find that the hearings, even in a short amount of time, allowed parliamentarians to make improvements to the text – you also emphasized this in your speech.

Amendments have been submitted. On the mobility aspect, for example, it is necessary to take care to seek the opinion of the magistrate in all situations of mobility, in accordance with the constitutional prescription that stipulates that a magistrate is unamovable once appointed. Whenever there will be a mobility request from a body leader, depending on the importance of that request, prior consent, or at least the hearing of the magistrate, will be considered. This amendment is included in the text. What remains to be done is to provide after these hearings, a form of appeal. The discussion allowed to obtain from the Minister the commitment before the committee that this formula will be found during the discussion on the management, the disciplinary tribunal, mediation, the competences of the general assembly of the court or the court concerned. There were improvements to the text.

I was also one of those who did not understand certain elements of the text well. Why has the provincial territorial dimension prevailed when it leads to different situations? Today, some judicial districts will have a maximum of 250,000 or 300,000 justiciables and others will have up to 1,800,000. Where is the logic? But at some point, we must decide, we must stop a framework: it is the provincial boundary that has been chosen.

Now, we must accept to make this text an opportunity – even if it is a bet on success since we do not know the management – and the actors in the judiciary world must do the same.

The actors in the judiciary are, first of all, the magistrates, the headquarters and the prosecutor’s office, and they are the secretaries. From time to time, it is necessary to show that everything is not fixed, that it can evolve, for the better. What advantage does the justifiable have? How can justice become more credible and affordable? How can this reform give answers to this manifest dislike between the citizen and his justice? Today’s vote is an important step, but not an essential one. The main step will be management.

Today, we are also implementing an important element of the government statement, which concerns the organization of justice. In compliance with this government agreement and beyond the territorial dimension of the judicial districts, there was in parallel the absolute need to maintain the places of hearing due to this proximity and this accessibility of justice.

The text that is proposed for us provides for the maintenance of the current audiences, which does not mean that we will not be able to change if it is justified. The principle of accessibility and proximity to the justifiable for holding hearings is an achievement of this project.

This is a big bet and we hope for it. This is a text that adds to others, such as the bill on the creation of a family and youth court that we will discuss tonight, or the one on the creation of a disciplinary court. We set up leverages that are made available to the actors of the judicial world. They must take the full measure of these changes and, most importantly, devote time to them in order to make these tools and lever work.

We rely on the principle of good faith for the implementation of this document. We are also committed to the principle of good faith.

Maybe we will win our bet. I say “maybe,” because a few unknown still exist. I think about management.

Another little word about Hainaut, otherwise I would fail to fulfill the promise I made to my group leader.

Your group leader said to me, “Mr. Brotcorne will be short, he showed me his text.” I said to him, “If he told you this, he won’t.” You strike me every time.

My text is short.

I will end with the hatred. A lot of people have talked about it in this forum. We advocated its specificity, characterized by the importance of its population, by the quality of its elected – but it’s thanks to that of its inhabitants! due to its very large geographical area.

To try to meet these characteristics, we have planned two prosecutors of the King. This is a solution that is worth what it is. For my part, I have always asked – and I do not hide it – that the ultimate goal is to draw, for this province that is equal to a resort, two separate arrondissements. This was not possible to institute in the name of the sacro-holy principle "one district by province". In any case, I hope that what has been set up – two prosecutors of the King, but also two seats – will allow, with good intelligence and through good governance of the future body leaders of the judicial district of Hainaut, to lead to sui generis formulas. I’m not going to say what you don’t want to hear from me, but it’s a step in the direction I’m interested in. My team and I will support this project.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to clarify that this project is an immense construction project that you have learned to take hand-to-hand. Many of your predecessors had embarked on it without ever being able to ⁇ it. So I want to congratulate you.

As my sole representative of this assembly from the German-speaking Community and, more specifically, from Eupen, I welcome the exception made for the judicial district of Eupen. It is in this context that I have been ⁇ interested in the discussions that have been conducted over the last few weeks on this reform.

I am quite pleased to find that the concerns of the German-speaking Belgians have received the best response they could aspire to, namely the maintenance of the judicial district covering the territory of the cantons of Eupen and Saint-Vith.

As we know, German speakers are generally discreet when institutional matters are discussed in our country. This is due in particular to our size and our great modesty.

That said, the right to address, in court, in his mother tongue and to receive communications and information from the judicial world in his own language is obviously an imperative, an achievement dating from 1988 that it was, for us, very important to maintain.

I would like to congratulate the constructive collaboration that I have been able to have, as part of this dossier, with Mrs. Minister and all her cabinet. Thanks to their skills and their ability to listen and discuss, the language law has been respected, even for speakers of the least-used language in our country.

Mr. Minister, your bill replicates thus a bill that I had first formulated in 2008 and then reposted with some amendments in 2010. In particular, I suggested that the chambers of the Court of Commerce and the Chamber of Labour should be grouped within the Court of First Instance of Eupen, in order to concentrate the public judicial service of the German-speaking Community within a single institution. This unprecedented construction facilitated the response to the requirements in terms of language use (which I just mentioned), while responding at the same time to both the problem of the current exaggeration of the framework of the magistracy, without however multiplying the costs that would have arisen from the creation of three different jurisdictions.

It is therefore a creative, rational and coherent solution in relation to the small size of the German-speaking community, for which the creation of this unique service is organized in its own language. This is a very strong symbol that I would like to greet once again.

Furthermore, I am also pleased that, in the context of the discussions we had in the Justice Committee, the amendments I had intended to introduce, relating to the mandatory knowledge of the German language by court officers located in the German-speaking Community, received a very positive opinion and were able to be incorporated into the bill. I would also like to welcome the good collaboration of all my colleagues in the Justice Committee and the majority. We were able to bring together all these requests which I consider obviously justified. Of course, I will also vote on the reform with enthusiasm on these points.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, like many other members, we also regret the way we work in the committee. It was clearly a hurry. However, I must pay attention to what I say, otherwise the minister will misuse my words. I always say that it is not a good thing to drive through such a major and great change in this way, but the minister then only hears the words “important and great change”, but the words “trace through it” he does not hear.

Such major changes deserve a thorough debate in Parliament. This has not been possible. It is a blow to the Parliament that such a profound change has been pursued in this way.

It was very clear that the text was not finished. There were 169 amendments, the majority of which were submitted by the majority. The majority has, to its loss and shame, had to conclude that the text was caducus and therefore had to be urgently removed in order to be hit by the committee.

During this legislature, the reform has progressed with a slump. When there was finally an agreement within the government, it had to progress at an unprecedented speed, but the majority has in the meantime eaten, because the Senate decided this afternoon to continue working after the recession. The voting in the House may continue today, but the Senate will not vote today, tomorrow or aftermorrow. That will be before after the recession. I wonder why everything in the room had to go so quickly.

It is, as we have said, one of the most profound changes to the judiciary ever. The Parliament and the government parties are again threatening to make the same mistake as always, in particular that the legislation is incomplete due to rush work. It contains gaps and is insufficiently qualitative, which immediately leads to problems on the ground. That is what will happen here too.

Like some colleagues, I am also a member of the Parliamentary Committee responsible for the evaluation of law. This law may be on the agenda in the coming years for carrying out urgent repairs.

Colleagues, the choice that was made was to go from 27 to 12 districts. Let’s be clear, it is a good thing that there is a scale increase. We support them. It will be easier to replace the absent and there will be more opportunities to specialize. Specialization is really necessary, because in our current 27 districts it is often not possible to fight efficiently against highly specialized law firms. Scaling is also important to uniform work processes and work cultures, as they are ⁇ diverse today.

The question is just how large this scale should be. I would like to refer to the Atomium discussion a few years ago, in which our group participated. A track was then developed to go from 27 to 16 arrondissements. However, I do not want to get stuck on the number. Whether it was 16, 15 or 14 arrondissements, that result was at least achieved through a scientifically supported exercise, based on the population, the staff framework and the preconceived jurisdictional integration. The texts that were then proposed were not bad, but they were not stopped due to disagreement with the then government.

There are currently 12 districts. The border of the province is the rule, but there is no scientific basis for this change. This leads to huge differences in size and population. I will sum up a few figures. The province of Antwerp is gigantic. According to the Atomium negotiation, it was to be divided into two parts, namely Antwerp and Mechelen-Turnhout. Now the district of Antwerp comprises 1.7 million inhabitants. Gent has 1.2 million inhabitants. Bruges also has about 1.2 million inhabitants, Liège 1 million and Bergen 1.2 million. Mountains are divided in a very creative way. In addition, there are five other arrondissements, including Names, Leuven and Nijvel, which have less than 500 000 inhabitants. That is remarkable. The High Council for Justice has rightly observed that a similar scale is essential in order to develop a common management model for all courts.

In this design, the differences are ⁇ large. Therefore, the question arises whether a uniform management model will be feasible. Leuven and Nijvel remain very small, Namen and Luxembourg as well. Antwerp is more than four times larger in terms of population. Eupen is then again a special case, for which a separate arrangement has been developed.

I therefore fear that the geographical reform will lead to districts that are too large to operate efficiently, on the one hand, and districts that are too small to approach the ideal scale, on the other.

A choice is made not to go to the model of the Uniform Court, except for Eupen. It well describes what the advantages of a unit structure can be. These advantages are evidently seen for Eupen, but apparently not for the other courts. These include greater mobility within the courts, more efficient deployment of the judicial staff and faster response to pressing needs. The enlargement is a good thing, which we support, but it could also have been achieved by bringing together existing courts. This decision has not been made or is not consistent.

I am also concerned, as stated in the committee, about the functioning of the peace courts. As a result of this reform, there will no longer be a main graffiti per peacoured court, which means a weakening of the framework for peacoured courts. In practice, the main captain is the right hand of the judge. We learned from the hearings that chief prosecutors are currently responsible for approximately 5 % of management and 95 % of jurisdictional work. This means, first and foremost, assisting the judge of peace in drafting judgments, as well as in visiting places and in the many other work that judges of peace must do.

I am convinced that the collateral damage of this reform will surely be found in the peace courts; there the great damage will arise. The peace courts work to the great satisfaction of many lawyers and many actors in the field. Today, there is little or no backwardness in the peace courts. I am afraid that after this reform we will also have problems with the peace courts.

Access to justice is and remains very important. At first glance, accessibility is ⁇ ined, although the design makes it possible that certain subjects in certain sections may or may not be covered. In the long run, the current seats will continue to exist, but the big question is whether all the matters that are dealt with there will also be dealt with in the future. After all, the design provides for the possibility of concentrating a number of subjects in one department of the district, that is, in one department of a province. The design contains a list of specialized topics. As for criminal law, this is a fairly simple list. However, as stated in the committee, I am concerned with the powers and issues that are currently being dealt with in the labour courts throughout the districts.

This draft enables all disputes relating to employment contracts, such as the dismissal of employees and workers, to be concentrated in one seat, in one department in the province. The same applies to work accidents. It has always been said that a basic service must continue to exist in the departments, but if even things such as the dismissal of workers and servants are removed or can be removed from the departments, then one touches on the important principle of the basic service.

Colleagues, in the magistrature there was concern about mobility. There was a certain fear of transfers as an inflated discipline sanction. It must be said that the feeling of fear was sometimes very large and unjust, but sometimes that fear is not entirely unjust. The concern about the pressure that may be put on magistrates is not unrealistic. No pressure, internal or external, shall be exercised on the work of magistrates. The finding is that in some cases permission must be requested by the magistrates concerned to sit in another department or in another district. In other cases, this does not happen and the data subject is not heard or there should be no consent of the data subject. This is, of course, a very bizarre conclusion. Finally, there is an overview of all the articles in the bill where the person should be heard or not heard, where his consent is necessary and where not. This will be a very difficult schedule to work with.

Colleagues, we have proposed in the committee to work with participatory management, as also suggested by the Advisory Board for the Magistrates. It was a very constructive proposal that was launched by the Advisory Council for the Magistrates, but the minister and the majority did not listen to it.

That participatory model does not mean that the judges will decide on their own and that the chairman has no decision-making power. No, in this way decisions are taken as much as possible in consultation and those decisions will also be carried out much more, because then it can indeed be taken into account the experience of magistrates, with their specialisation, with their knowledge and possibly with their family situation. It will promote the workplace and facilitate work in the long run to organize mobility on a voluntary basis. After all, mobility is very important, especially if one wants to carry out specialization in the field.

Also remarkable is the opinion issued by Professor Van Orshoven and the High Council for Justice. It was agreed in the government agreement that there would also be administrative autonomy. This would then be the subject of the third part of the reform, promised for after the recession. However, it is also an integral part of the overall exercise.

Today we see two of the three parts of that exercise. The third part is not yet seen. As I said before in the committee, we are blindly driving on GPS through this model. Everyone knows that if you blindly rely on your GPS device, you can sometimes get stuck in even too small streets. I am afraid that this is the street we ended up in.

If one looks at what should come in the third part — Professor Van Orshoven had formulated his advice on this — one would apparently step down from the management autonomy. In contrast, there would be two management structures, namely one for the parquet and the parquet general, and one for the seat. This is not in accordance with the government agreement. Professor Van Orshoven speaks of two central ministries. This will not give rise to real management autonomy on the basis of a management agreement concluded between the Minister and each of the courts or prosecutors. This, however, would be the subject of the debate we will conduct after the recession.

Mrs. Minister, by cutting the proposals into pieces, by saucissoning the bills, the global view is gone. You have acted like a bone-cutter, I would almost dare to say. It is clear that autonomy, as it was originally determined, will not come.

Then I come to my conclusions. To be honest, one must admit that an important step is being taken. Indeed, we have been talking about reform for 20 or 30 years, well, today there is “a” reform ahead and that is your merit, Mrs. Minister, but the draft is far from perfect. The text is crisp and contains the germ of conflicts that will develop in the short and long term.

We will not vote in favour of this text, but we will not vote against it, Mrs. Minister. We will remember. We will also continue to try to work constructively in the committee to improve the texts of the other parts that arrive after the recess.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It had been announced ambitious, bringing clarity where there was sometimes darkness, coherence where there were sometimes mysteries regarding the cutting off of the territorial resorts of the jurisdictions.

We have the feeling, Madame the Minister, that you have, like a legos game, overturned the pieces and tried to reconstruct, but we are looking for the consistency of your very imperfect architectural style. Only the judicial district of Eupen may ⁇ have a certain consistency, due to the linguistic parity that Ms. Jadin has rightly recalled, which is logical in a State that must respect all of its citizens, regardless of their language, in particular with regard to access to justice.

But for the surplus, in anticipation of having one day an appeal court in Eupen – so you will have the total coherence of the courts on the territory of the German-speaking Community – where is the coherence of your reform? It is sufficient, for example, to say that the territorial jurisdictions of the parquets and the auditors of labour will no longer be concordant to understand already all the difficulty that will arise where parquets and auditors of labour used to work on the same territorial basis and therefore, to have a facility of correspondence, because everyone knows that a dossier begins at the prosecutor and often comes, subsequently, to the auditors of labour.

Why, then, create a difficulty of understanding for the functioning of justice, just to take this example? Why have you chosen for some jurisdictions as territorial jurisdiction the province, for others, the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal? There is no criterion given by the developments of the law that allows to justify this difference according to the type of jurisdiction. It was quite logical to keep the same territorial jurisdiction for the first-line courts, which is easy to understand for all legal practitioners. No, we now vary with a more complicated and more alambicated geography.

You tell us that this project will be finalised “thanks to a more efficient implementation of the means reducing processing times.” I do not know if you will still be the Minister of Justice when this reform will be evaluated. This is ⁇ the advantage of those who build reforms: they are never there at the time when you have to weigh the consequences.

In any case, I can already guarantee you that you will not get the desired result. Why Why ? Because you organized this judicial landscape reform without even building it on the basis of overwork, this Loch Ness monster that has been walking for so many years through the corridors of all the prosecutors and all the jurisdictions and which now raises controversy following a study of an audit bureau to which you have entrusted the care to re-evaluate this overload despite common sense. We redefine the judicial landscape by working blindly; we change to change, but without knowing the serious outcome of this reform.

We were assured that each territorial jurisdiction would have a sufficient number of magistrates to ensure the handling of cases. So why organize a system of mobility of magistrates, whether from the seat or the prosecutor's office, of an infinite complication? If there were, by territorial jurisdiction, a sufficient number of magistrates to handle the cases, why invent a system, of which I will give you a few examples – our colleague Mr. Van Hecke cited them – full of assumptions in terms of delegation, mobility with or without consent? We’ve all practiced the exercise: there’s something to fill five or six pages without any problem by taking back only the articles concerned. These possibilities are, by the way, filled with inconsistencies. Thus, a titled peacekeeper appointed in a canton is appointed subsidiarily in each canton of the judicial district where he may be appointed on the basis of the law on the use of languages in judicial matters. According to the needs of service, the President of the Peace Judges and the Judges of the Police Court shall designate, in compliance with the same law, one or more Peace Judges to simultaneously perform this function in one or more other cantons located in the judicial district. The designation order shall indicate the reasons for designation and, in principle, the modalities. There is no consent in this case. If, on the other hand, a peace judge becomes a police judge temporarily, his consent is required.

You have thus complicated the system, with the consequence that appeals will be brought before the Constitutional Court to question the principle of non-discrimination before the law. Certainly, you will not escape. The Court will surely send in the depths of the whole parts of your reform.

You did not want to hear, in a matter which concerns the judicial staff, the magistrates, the lawyers, the whole auxiliary staff of the courts and courts, any of their arguments on the plane of the organization of justice. You did not want to hear the essential arguments concerning the organisation of an effective remedy when, in particular, there are displacement of magistrates without consent that could be disguised sanctions. You said that there was an appeal before the disciplinary court, but you don’t even have the guarantee that both laws will come into force at the same time. Furthermore, this appeal before the disciplinary court does not cover the hypothesis that the displacement measure would be an excess of power without being a disguised penalty. Do you believe for a moment that in view of the constitutional principle enshrined in Article 152, you will be able to maintain such a system without thus opening a right of appeal before an independent court?

All this shows the improvised character of this text. There is the feeling that you absolutely must have a trophy before the parliamentary holidays to say that you had voted a reform in front of one of the two Houses in order to finally shake up the judicial system. You will thus nourish mistrust in the judiciary, which is never the right reflection when one wants to preserve the rule of law.

I could still list other criticisms that have been formulated by the bars. The bars obviously raise the question of reorganizing their orders. You do not give almost any indication in the law. Where is the consistency? You suggest that the bars will be able to keep their current structures on a territorial basis that will no longer correspond to the organization of the jurisdictions. What is the interest? This means that either you do not believe in your reform, or you do not dare to fully face its consequences.

What is the benefit of organizing such confusion in understanding the service of justice? Not only will this be the source of many conflicts before the courts, but it will be, for the justiciable, a total misunderstanding of which court is competent. It is not unjustified that a justiciable can understand the functioning of the judiciary, at least on a territorial basis, which is the first understanding of a justiciable.

I can promise you that there will no longer be a single justiciable who, without the advice of a lawyer, will be able to understand anything of your arcanes.

In addition, you complicate the system of business distribution.

There is a regulation of the division of affairs by royal decree. There is a special arrangement by the head of the body, in principle, which sometimes must consult, sometimes should not consult and there can still be divisions of affairs within each jurisdiction. There are three levels of distribution. Good luck to the lawyers to know in which jurisdiction and in which chamber they will ultimately find themselves with the litigation they have to manage.

In short, you are drowning the judiciary under an improvised reform, of which I can already say that we will have to review it in a few months substantially!

That is one reason why we will not vote for this judicial landscape reform.

Thank you, not for the confusion, but for giving me the floor.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will keep it very brief. I would like to refer to my more extensive presentation in the committee.

( ... ) ...

And two phrases. They have even been cited in the Flemish press.

I will not repeat what I said in the committee. As the colleague has already emphasized, I may be the only one who is for two hundred percent for this bill. I think it is a fantastic breakthrough in the history of our court.

If the reform is approved, the time of Napoleon's horse is really over. In other words, Napoleon’s ice, if not the water, is broken. Once we have reasoned on the ground in larger districts, no longer in distances that one can travel with a horse in a day but in normal distances, so almost on provincial level, I think that it will be a liberation for the good spirits, the good actors at Justice to be effectively and efficiently deployed.

However, I will take the opportunity to express some concerns about the other draft laws, in particular the draft related to management, which we have yet to discuss.

We must make a clear distinction between the independence of the judge, which we expect in the exercise of his functions, and the employability. So I am a little worried about the arguments of colleagues that there should be no management or any leadership in the magistracy. After all, it is what we need.

Improved service to the public means that one must also have an eye for management within the judiciary. The next step after the judicial leave will therefore be to convince our colleagues in the judiciary that management can not harm.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I have a double feeling at the end of the debates on the judicial reform.

On the one hand, one asks what could be added to a parliamentary debate after 30 years of discussion, after 30 years of reports and reports, after 30 years of parliamentary debates in which we have considered how to reach a scale.

On the other hand, I think that we are all happy and proud today that the first bill is here. In the autumn, the second major bill concerning management will also be presented. The two projects will be implemented simultaneously. I think we, as experts in this area, all know that both designs are interconnected and that scaling and mobility can only work if responsibility is achieved through management.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank, like Mr. De Clerck, everyone who has written texts for years, including for me, and has made sure that we can stand here today with the proposed judicial reform.

I would like to thank all the experts who have written texts, as well as the negotiators, everyone who has updated. Today I want to thank even those who have criticized, because criticism is never simply. It is not because criticism is rejected today, Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh, that it cannot be taken at any given moment in a debate or after the maturing of the spirits. I would like to thank the steering group and the informal think tank for all the work they have done.

The reform has three main objectives. First, it must bring about better governance and greater efficiency. As established years ago, the tasks and resources are often too fragmented and dispersed, and the workforce and resources are too much managed from Brussels through laws and royal decrees.

I think we need to give more responsibility and more autonomy in order to ensure better governance.

Secondly, the reform must provide a way to remove the lags and also to be able to speak right faster.

Third, it must lead to a better quality of justice, a better service and sufficient proximity to the citizen.

It is true what some colleagues have said. We have truly anchored that closeness to the citizen in the legislative texts, because it is crucial. Justice needs to become more mobile and efficient, but for the legal seeker one must still be close.

In order to ⁇ these goals, a fairly broad consensus has emerged from the discussions of the last decades on the methods to be used.

First, the expansion of the scale. In general, the territorial structure of the courts is still the same as that which was in place at the birth of Belgium. This scale enlargement provides an opportunity to transfer strategic resources and skills from the central level and should contribute to ending the dispersion of human resources and resources.

Second, mobility and specialization. Through the creation of wider judicial districts and the development of horizontal mobility opportunities, magistrates and judicial staff can be better allocated according to workload and specialization.

Of course, we have also ensured that some things happen only after the magistrates have been heard and that they have given their consent to certain decisions.

More management and mobility is also very important.

A first major draft law on mobility and scale-up is now ahead. We evolve from 27 judicial districts to 12, based on the existing provincial structure.

In the committee, I have often responded to the comments and criticisms about Henegouwen. It is the only place in our country where the district boundaries exactly coincide with the new district boundaries, which would not be a good thing for the ratio between the district and the first facility. I agreed to the criticism and comments on the mobility of the magistrates, who will be heard in such decisions. We will ⁇ take this point into account in the discussions on management and workload measurement.

For all clarity, I disagree with the criticism that everything is too much divided and we use the salamite technique. Those who argue this argument do not want reforms. He wants to connect everything to everything: first the workload measurement should be there, then we should approve the family courts and the disciplinary courts before we can reform. I believe in the way we work.

Following the proposed judicial reform comes an equally important bill, namely on the family and youth courts. We have been advocating for these files together for years. We can conclude them today, after a discussion in the Senate. Through disciplinary courts, family courts and the judicial reform, we adapt the procedures in Justice. This will lead to better and more transparent justice.

The members of the Justice Committee are awaiting another important discussion on the draft law on management in the autumn. I hope to submit it before the parliamentary recession. We have just received the advice of the State Council. We still have to process everything. We will submit a first file to Parliament as soon as possible. Then we can also complete our work on management.