Proposition 53K3280

Projet de loi portant insertion du livre X "Contrats d'agence commerciale, contrats de coopération commerciale et concessions de vente" dans le Code de droit économique, et portant insertion des définitions propres au livre X, dans le livre Ier du Code de droit économique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Jan. 9, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

exclusive distribution agreement financing sales occupation commercial contract commercial law type of business legal code

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Alexandra Colen (VB) voted to adopt.

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 ¶

Feb. 20, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, with regard to this proposal for a resolution on the ongoing Winter Olympic Games in Russia, the discussion took place in the Committee on Foreign Relations a few days before the opening of the Sochi Olympic Games. It has been an interesting signal that this Foreign Relations Committee votes this resolution and the requests it contains two days before the Sochi Olympic Games.

The same arguments were used: the fact that another resolution resembles it – not that of an ecologist but we joined it – and the fact that a resolution had also been voted in the Senate. The majority used this argument to reject our resolution.

I recall that this resolution went further, since it demanded the boycott of the opening ceremony in the name of the liberticide laws that are being put in place and the invitation to delete statements showing sympathy for LGBT, legislation put in place by the Russian government and Vladimir Putin as a superpower.

According to other arguments, it would have been ridiculous to say that Belgium would not attend the opening of the Winter Olympics, since it was not customary that we were invited there and that therefore, we never went there. However, I will clarify that our Minister of Foreign Affairs had announced, at the 2012 Football Euro, which was held in Ukraine, that he would not go there due to the situation in Ukraine already in 2012 and the precise situation of Yulia Tymoshenko.

If these are political acts made by Minister Reynders two years ago, they are also political acts made on the occasion of the Sochi Olympic Games by David Cameron and Barack Obama. Indeed, they made known, whether they were invited or not, that they would not go there and that, in addition, they expressed all their support to various sports personalities who had made public their belonging to the homosexual community.

I refer to the written report.

I therefore hoped that this resolution would be voted by my colleagues a few days before the Olympic Games in Sochi. I obviously thought that my socialist colleagues, who had split themselves from a fairly interesting press release, would join the act with the speech by supporting our resolution. I quote an excerpt from their press release, which is available on the internet: “As such, the Socialist MPs are asking themselves about the well-foundedness of a Belgian diplomatic presence at the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Sochi.”

Amnesty, a few days before the opening of the Olympic Games, was concerned that harassment against civil society activists has intensified. It has intensified during the Olympic Games in Sochi, which are still underway.

Furthermore, I think we were right in expressing all these concerns. A former Italian MP, a LGBT rights advocate, was arrested while attending the Olympic Games with, in the tribunes, a banner with the inscription "Gay is OK" in Russian. She was detained a few days before being released. The entire procedure to establish contacts with her was established in Italy, involving in particular the services of the Italian Foreign Minister.

Finally, the deterioration of the situation in Ukraine shows that Putin does not observe an Olympic truce. There is therefore no reason for us to keep silent on the occasion of an event in his glory.

Again, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I invite you to vote against the rejection of this resolution. I thank you.

Mr. Minister, with regard to Book X of the Code of Economic Law, you know that banks and insurance institutions are concerned about the fact that the pre-contractual obligations subject to commercial cooperation agreements do not apply to banks and insurance companies. The sector is concerned about this. In this regard, I refer to Article X.26 and our amendment no. 11 is

The industry thinks that here the principle of equality is compromised. In the committee, in response to our amendment, you referred to the specific legislation in these sectors, in particular a law of March 2006 and March 1995. Can you confirm that this is a sufficient guarantee for the banking and insurance sector? You also referred to an advice you received from a well-known law firm in Paris. I look forward to the answer.

Mr. Minister, you have responded in the committee to the amendment of Mr. Uyttersprot. This concerned Article 3, Title 2, the pre-contractual information within the framework of commercial cooperation agreements. We submit the amendment again, because we agree with the arguments of Mr Uyttersprot in the explanation. We also find that a distinction is made that cannot actually be made by the beugle, ⁇ not even by the constitutional beugle.

You came up with a French-language text stating that it was indeed a logical, clear, clear and objective condition, but there are sufficient opinions within which, of course, it is exactly the opposite. Those opinions state that it is not a clear and objective condition or a clear and objective accountability of the distinction.

If there are doubts, one as a member of Parliament should not doubt. I will therefore submit my amendment again, with the same arguments. The State Council follows this argument, by the way, in part. There are also sufficient opinions within other law firms, Mr. Minister, which clearly shows that this could indeed be a violation of Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. It would therefore be a distinction that is not in accordance with those Articles 10 and 11.

In other words, we submit this amendment again. I am confident that many colleagues will think a moment. In case of doubt, I think it is necessary to look for the clearest and most legal solution. If the amendment is voted down – which would upset me and, frankly, surprise me – we will have to maintain our abstinence from the committee on this bill. I would regret this.

There is nothing more subjective than the principle of equality. The principle of equality means that different cases may be treated differently provided that such a distinction is justified and not arbitrary. The Arbitration Commission subsequently argued legally as comprehensively as possible and said that we are dealing with a specific sector, namely banking agencies. They have not brought much trouble in the past, also and especially because there is a very specific legislation. We want to keep that specificity because it works well and is useful. This also applies to people with other qualifications and so on. Therefore, applying the general principles would not be a good thing.

It is obvious that everyone can have an opinion whether that is a good reason or not. Of course, this is not an objective science. Nevertheless, I consider that the argument by which such a specificity is ⁇ ined for that sector, including the fact that this has already led to few serious problems or complaints within that sector, is nevertheless a non-insignificant argument in order to preserve that distinction between those two sectors.

Who can say it is 100% certain? No, you can never do that. Equality is largely subjective. However, I find the arguments we have received very convincing, they also come from the field of work. Therefore, I am inclined to support that.

Again, everyone has their own idea of the principle of equality. I think that the arguments put forward in tempore non suspecto – it’s not a defense that’s built up because there was a complaint and one has deliberately made that choice from the start – have their merits. Therefore, I propose that this reasoning be followed and that the bill, as approved by the committee, be approved as such.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, on one thing we agree, and that is that assessing the principle of equality is indeed a difficult matter. Although it is difficult to judge, I would still try. You are a socialist, you should judge it in favor of the weaker parties and the weaker parties in these agreements concerning the banking agency and insurance agency are indeed the independent banking agents and insurance brokers.

This is about correct pre-contractual information. This is about the financial plan, preceding those banking agency agreements and the insurance brokerage agreements.

In other words, I would not let there be too much doubt that this amendment is indeed in the benefit of those people. I would like to call on the meeting to support this amendment and to press the green button.