Proposition 53K2937

Projet de loi modifiant le statut des huissiers de justice.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

July 9, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

professional ethics professional society organisation of professions occupational status bailiff incompatibility access to a profession

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 24, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr. by Philippe Goffin. He informed me that he was referring to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present draft is a meritorious attempt to objectivize and modernize the profession of judicial officer.

A comparative examination and an adjusted discipline regime are provided and that is good, but nevertheless the design contains some serious pain points. In reality, a candidate court executor has an opportunity to fully exercise the profession on average only at the age of forty-four. Few other professions have to sit in the waiting room for so long.

Furthermore, this bill does not contribute to a rejuvenation of the profession. In fact, the possibility exists that titulators-tribunal executors may be replaced for 180 working days without any motivation. This will not encourage anyone to retire.

It is therefore not surprising that various interest groups of candidate court enforcement officers have expressed their dissatisfaction, including that they were not involved in the drafting of this draft and that they were not asked for advice. Some have rightly spoken of a bric-à-brac legislation. The majority also refused to hold hearings.

Finally, the National Chamber, the overarching professional association of court enforcement officers, was not divided by this draft, let alone a Dutch-speaking and a French-speaking department. Thus, the Board of Directors of this National Chamber will continue to meet in French and Dutch. The French speakers will also have their voice in the appointment of court enforcers in Halle-Vilvoorde.

Once again, therefore, it appears that the Flemish government parties do not wish to take into account the institutional evolution in this country and that there can be no Flemish reflex.

Therefore, the N-VA decided to abstain from voting on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, various problematic issues showed the need to reform in depth the status of judicial officers.

In recent years, a number of nominations have been successfully challenged before the State Council. These suspensions and cancellations have been an excessively harsh blow for the persons affected by these appeals. People employed by the studies in which he was applied for a nomination have sometimes faced social dramas.

It is therefore necessary to objectivize and modernize the process of appointing the judge of justice. Today, prosecutors are mostly no longer appointed and vacant positions are legion. The number of available vacancies would currently amount to 10 %. This leads to long careers of prosecutor candidates and difficulties for the proper performance of the duties reserved for ministerial officers.

For this reason, it is urgent that prosecutors candidates are protected by law, but also that the full status of prosecutors is revised. Other elements of the statute would also deserve to be reformed. In some cases, for example, the continuity of the public service is questioned. Thus, when a lawyer dies, is suspended or dismissed from his duties, nothing was so far organized. The text remedies this.

It is also essential to review the deontology and rules of professional ethics of court officers, as well as the related sanctions. This is already done and we can only rejoice. Nevertheless, even though the National Chamber of Justice Officers has been consulted on the various aspects of this statute, some officers do not find themselves in certain parts of the reform.

In particular, we have pledged in committee, Mrs. Minister, on the need to introduce a limitation of the liability of judicial officers. In fact, the amounts currently at stake are sometimes much larger than what insurance companies want to guarantee. There is a risk for some officers to find themselves in an unsustainable situation.

Mr. Minister, you indicated to us, during the many discussions in the committee, that there is currently on the government table a draft limiting the responsibility of notaries. You have pledged to re-discuss, during the analysis of this project, the limitation of liability of the officers, so that the two projects agree, since there was a problem with the amounts of said liability. We are delighted with this.

We will discuss in this committee the limitation of liability and the precise definition of the amount of this limit.

We would have liked to see clarified a notion that is not often used in legal documents. This is a special notion. It appears in Article 519, § 1, paragraph 2, which specifies that the findings of the court enforcement officers are authentic and then, we continue the article, "in relation to the facts and material data that the court enforcement officer can establish by sensory perception". We had asked in commission to clarify this notion of sensory perception, because it remains excessively blurred. Personally, I do not know if it is found in another legal text, but I do not believe. Therefore, my group fears that the lack of clarity in this notion is likely to generate more difficulties than solutions.

Mr. Minister, if the text brings noticeable advances, we would have liked it to be slightly revised. Whatever this means, my group will vote in favour of this text and will be attentive to its implementation and to the possible difficulties that will, if necessary, have to be addressed.

Thank you for listening.

Madame Senecaut, I thank you and congratulate you on your first speech in this Assembly.

(The applause )

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, this project aims at reviewing the status of the officer by objectivizing the procedures of appointment, establishing appointment commissions, revaluing the status of candidate officer of justice, framing the exit of the profession with an emphasis on the continuity of public service and finally, adapting disciplinary law.

This should be done and thus respect the government agreement.

Although I approve of the majority of the novelty introduced by this project, I still have some reluctance with regard to some provisions, in particular the limitation of the replacement. The project provides for the specific reasons for which a replacement is possible, namely force majeure, holidays, as well as the organization of the study or recycling. This supplement, except in cases of force majeure, is limited to a maximum of 180 calendar days per year.

For my part, I would rather have trusted this profession and allowed a completely free substitution, whatever the motive. I have already signed a bill in this regard.

I don’t see why a court officer could not, for example, devote himself to the reception and counseling of his client or to the management of his study while people quite legally qualified substitute him on the ground.

Then, I think it would have been fairer to provide for transitional arrangements so that the current trainees still have the opportunity to pass the approval to become a candidate for trial and that they do not have to bend to the examination provided by the project. I consider, like my colleague Philippe Goffin, that the fact of changing on the road the conditions for access to the status of candidate officer for persons who are already in practice is harmful to them. The rules of the game are not changed on the road. I always wonder why you did not follow the State Council on this issue. I have taken note of your intention to establish as soon as possible the examination that will give right to the famous status of candidate of the court, so that those who arrive at the end of the internship can access it as soon as possible.

Finally, in my questions, there is also the fact that the draft provides that the court judge makes authentic findings at the request of magistrates but also of individuals with regard to the facts and material data that he can find through sensory perception. by Mr. The leader of the group of the PS just noted that I had actually stopped on this point, especially in the Justice Committee, because I asked myself the question – and I continue to do it – of how one can authenticate sensory perceptions of an individual, even if he is a lawyer, since these are eminently subjective data. It is clear that the fact of conferring a character of authenticity to eminently subjective perceptions will force those who want to challenge the reality of these perceptions to use a very heavy procedure of false registration, which is nevertheless not very interesting in terms of access to justice. Keep in mind, however, that the magistrates who thus require judicial officers have the possibility to separate themselves from the findings thus made in the context of their decisions.

I would like to know what you think about this because, when I asked the question in the Justice Committee, you did not answer.

However, the passage through the Chamber brought some positive changes to the text. I have thus taken note of your agreement with regard to the introduction of a limitation of the liability of court officers for faults committed in the exercise of their ministry in the next law containing various provisions. This is a request made by the sector and there is no reason to refuse it since notaries will also have the right to do so.

I could not conclude without a little word for my colleague Kattrin Jadin, who managed to rally a majority to his German-speaking cause. Judicial officers who wish to act in the judicial district of Eupen will have to provide proof of their knowledge of the German language.

This is logical, but it should be envisaged in the law.

A few questions and reluctance! Overall, however, I think this issue is very well understood. This is an added value for the sector, and it will have my group’s approval.

This bill contains some good elements. I will refer to the two previous speakers and the criticism that has already been raised here on the floor.

First and foremost, as colleague Degroote has said, there is no division in a Dutch-speaking and French-speaking wing, let alone it becomes two separate institutes. It is said that for this the field was consulted, that is, the National Chamber. Nevertheless, there are voices coming from the ground, from court enforcers, also from the French-speaking side, who do not really agree that there is no division.

The more substantive criticism I wish to raise today, and which I have already interpreted in the committee, is that this bill was written on the grounds of the large court enforcement offices. Why Why ? A court officer – colleague Marghem had already talked about it – can only be replaced by a substitute for one hundred and eighty days. My question is, why can’t it be unlimited? I hear from certain courts, and ⁇ those with smaller offices, that the profession is much more informed and even more informed so that they indeed have to do a lot more work at the offices.

As Col. Marghem said, why not maintain contact with the client? The large offices all have associates and can therefore very easily palm up an office and divide the tasks among themselves. A smaller court officer who wants to work independently and independently is therefore facing the block: they can only allow a limited replacement because they are practically forced to be at work for at least a hundred and eighty days a year. Thus, they cannot arrange their job at their own discretion, while it is still a free profession. Why do they not have the freedom to appoint a permanent deputy deputy? I find that the criticism sometimes heard in the walks is quite weak, as if it were court-makers who would rather sit on the Côte d’Azur. Honestly, if there are already court officers who don’t like to do their job and prefer to sit on the Côte d’Azur, then the larger offices have now gotten a lot more hand in that regard, because they can palm the smaller ones. In that regard, I find it, unfortunately, not a good thing.

What may have improved is the way the judges are appointed. Corporatism was really high in this sector like nowhere else. Other sectors have already taken this into account. At this point, the bill seems to me to be a progress, but I look forward to seeing if it will actually be sufficiently objectivized.

I find it, by the way, regrettable that there have been a whole number of appointments of court enforcement officers, directed both from politics and from corporations — to use the word corporations today in the bad sense of the word.

I regret that you have not waited for the implementation of this draft law in order to implement the good measures you are now taking, to then proceed to the appointments and then to give yet to what they are entitled to the many candidate court enforcement officers, who are now put in the box for settlements within their own professional group. There are candidate court executors who have been candidates for twenty years and who are accused of minorities within their professional group because they have once struck someone on their toes or who are also afraid of their patrons. That this can still be done is no longer of this time.

I’m sorry that you’ve still chased those rude appointments. Of this bill, which I would have wanted to see as a test case, unfortunately you did not make a first application and that is a missed opportunity.

For these three reasons, our group will not vote fully in favour of this draft, but will abstain.

With this draft, the government is working on a profound reform. The current statute is 20 years old and needs urgent change.

We are convinced that a comparative examination is much better than the way so far the judicial officers are appointed, in particular on the basis of the opinions of the National Chamber of Judicial Officers itself.

I think the appointments can now be objectively done. We are inspired by what is already happening to the notaries. This goes well and I think it is the best practice. I believe that we are making a significant step forward in the field of objectivation by organising a comparative examination for the candidate court executors, in full transparency and taking into account the continuity of the offices.

The exam contains an important deontology leak. Ultimately, a court executor for certain tasks really works in a monopoly position. The government gives the court executors a privileged status, as officially designated by the government. I believe that the court enforcement officers should therefore adhere to a high professional ethic and a strict deontology.

With this draft, we are once again carrying out a major reform, which has a broad support in the sector itself, which is important.

I hope that what has often occurred in recent years, which is the destruction of appointments by the State Council because the appointment procedure was not objective enough, will now finally be a thing of the past.