Projet de loi portant exécution du Règlement (UE) N° 305/2011 du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 9 mars 2011 établissant des conditions harmonisées de commercialisation pour les produits de construction et abrogeant la Directive 89/106/CEE du Conseil, et abrogeant diverses dispositions.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- PS | SP the Di Rupo government
- Submission date
- July 26, 2013
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- EC conformity marking EC Regulation building materials trade regulations technical specification sale
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 ¶
Nov. 14, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President André Flahaut ⚙
Isabelle Emmery, the rapporteur, refers to her written report.
Cathy Coudyser N-VA ⚙
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 finally implements a 2011 European regulation on the marketing of construction products at the end of 2013. But well .
As a rule, there is little policy margin for Member States, but this federal government has once again succeeded in providing a remarkably creative fulfillment to this conversion. I would like to give a few examples. It is the official appointed by the Minister who is empowered to monitor the implementation of these provisions and to establish the violations thereof. This seems to me to be a bit in tune with the basic principles of a rule of law.
The entrance and search of construction companies are also, in the first instance, not bound by the prior approval of the investigation judge. For the N-VA, however, the investigative judge remains the most competent person to assess this opportunity. These officials may also seize documents, samples and computer files, which in practice can have far-reaching implications for the activities of an enterprise.
A final example. The current draft law provides for a period of 15 days between the seizure and its confirmation by the prosecutor’s office. Those 15 days seem to our group a too long period of legal uncertainty in which the company is located. The State Council also took this into account in its comments.
I would also like to point out Article 7, which regulates the amicable settlement. Here too, it is not possible for us that officials appointed by the Minister responsible for Economy can establish an infringement and that it is therefore those officials who can offer the offenders a sum of which payment makes the criminal claim expire. It smells like class justice. The State Council also notes this.
The Minister has given a detailed explanation about this in the committee, but nevertheless the N-VA can not find itself in it at all. We will therefore remember on this point.