Proposition 53K3356

Projet de loi portant modification et coordination de diverses lois en matière de Justice (I).

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR Philippe Goffin
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Manuella Senecaut
Vooruit Renaat Landuyt

Submission date

Feb. 12, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bailiff judicial reform magistrate judicial proceedings

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LDD

Party dissidents ¶

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

April 3, 2014 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I would like to refer to my written report.

Colleagues, today there is a bill – you hear it right, a bill, not a bill – concerning the amendment and coordination of various laws on Justice. It was approved in the committee last week Wednesday and it was dealt with on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The title of this bill is an euphemism. It is not just a coordination, in certain moments it is simply a repair. That is something completely different. You should try to introduce yourself. On Tuesday we approved the law containing various provisions in the committee and the next day, Wednesday, we went to fix them already with this coordination law. This has happened in the committee. It was hallucinating at times. In addition, there are often new provisions.

I will not surpass the discussion in the committee. I have three comments that I would like to share with the hemisphere – whoever is still interested in it. They concern the procedure, the entry into force and the announcement.

First, the method of work. I have already pointed out that this is a bill, not a draft. This is a well-known technique to avoid the advice of the State Council. Thanks to the CD&V group – I see that the group leader is just entering – the advice of the Council of State has nevertheless been requested for this bill. This also proved useful. There was a 46-page review with a lot of comments.

On that bill, 45 amendments have been submitted without advice. There have been a number of new issues that have not been submitted to the State Council. As a result of that opinion, there were also another fifty other amendments to adapt some to the comments of the State Council. The cynical thing here is that the amendments, which concerned technical improvements according to the opinion of the State Council, were submitted even before the opinion of the State Council was officially placed on the banks. In terms of work, that means something. We received the advice from the banks while we had the amendments before. Try to rime it together. That says something about how the Parliament and the Chamber are treated, and in particular about respect for the opposition. That was the working method.

Now, I want to talk about the entry into force. I hope you know what you will approve later. Many of the provisions will enter into force on 1 April 2014 under the same law. This is not an April joke. You will soon pass a law that has actually entered into force three days ago. I will tell you. This is done retroactively. The cabinet does not see any grit in this and the rest of the committee silenced very quietly, yet the majority parties. As a legislator, I feel very uncomfortable. This is still gently expressed. It was stated that the judiciary would resolve this. Of course, we are not here in an Anglo-Saxon or common law system but I think we are going to torment our rule of law and our system. Colleagues, for whom it can still follow: three days ago there were already rules in force that had not yet been approved, had not yet been published and therefore had not yet been known. That is the reality. That allows this majority to pass.

Finally, I would like to say something about the Minister’s announcement behavior. You know that the informatization of Justice was one of your priorities at the beginning of this legislature. You have also announced this. You have also distributed PCs here and there, but for the rest, this is fixed. You say you are on schedule, but that is not true, because recently you have even announced that the e-griffies would come out this summer.

Colleagues, who know a little about the judiciary world, know that lawyers exchange conclusions and submit them to the court. It is now intended to be able to exchange documents via e-mail, digitally. Now a lawyer or his associate must go to the office, because it closes at 16:00. One also wants a stamp on those documents, so that one can subsequently prove that they have also been deposited in time. That is the current course of affairs, but that is no longer of this time. We can hardly imagine this, but it is the reality.

Suddenly, then came good news about the e-griffies, which would come out this summer. Not so, because we found an amendment in one of the coordination provisions. One tries to drown this in that large pile of paper in the hope that no one would see it. Luckily, we have seen it. Also, the e-grip may not be available this summer, because September 2015 may still be. It will be postponed until the latest September 2015.

This is no longer serious. These are free announcements. You misrepresent the industry. You are also very strong in announcing all sorts of measures. I am even convinced that you meant this in the beginning. However, more and more often your announcements are pronounced as façade and windowdressing. You are good at communication, but it is becoming increasingly popular. You do not seem to bother with this, but the field remains a little worn behind. They will not have an e-grip this summer.

This is somewhat symptomatic for the policy of this government. Everything is swallowed with trimmer. You announce, you massage the public opinion, but I note that the Flaming no longer enters there. The Flaming is no longer so stupid, or it may never even have been. I hope for the latter. The flame does not enter anymore. If we look at “The photo of Flanders”, then it teaches us that that same Flaming remains awake from Justice, despite all your trumpet and your announcements.

Justice needs more than just communication. Justice needs a lot more than just a bit of marginalization. The failing justice policy will not be solved with a firmly-discussed name legislation or the criminalization of sexism. No, Justice requires simple and good legislation and simple, fast and unambiguous procedures, thus eliminating procedural errors. It can, if it gets a little simpler. Nothing has been done in this legislature.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will not repeat what Mr. De Weiß has said, but she is striking the nail on the head. He talked about the work of the State Council. I would also like to highlight the role that the State Council has played here.

I will quote what the State Council said about this bill: “The bill submitted for opinion aims, inter alia, to remedy a number of shortcomings and gaps caused by the fact that a number of laws involving reforms of the judicial organization have been adopted separately and without proper coordination. It has already been pointed out in Opinions 53 000/AV/3 and 53 001/AV/3 of 22 April 2013 that the uncertainty concerning the relationship between the various laws relating to the re-registration of the judicial landscape and the uncertainty and lack of understanding as to the date of entry into force of those laws threaten to create an irrevocable legislative fault that could seriously jeopardise legal certainty.’

I continue to quote the Council of State: “In this context, it should be noted that legislative proposals currently being submitted to Parliament by the same MEPs but not submitted to the Council of State, Legislative Division, aimed at amending provisions on the organization of the judiciary are pending. Furthermore, the proposal aims to amend provisions which are also amended by a law containing various provisions on justice, which, however, has not yet been adopted.

The State Council said so. Meanwhile, that law is being drafted. “While this does not facilitate the examination of the present bill, the method used does not indicate a proper legislative technique.”

In a footnote, the State Council said: “Al ⁇ it is formally a bill, it appears in reality to be texts from the government. It can be regrettable that this will circumvent the fulfillment of a number of formal requirements.”

This puts the Parliament in its shirt. It is the State Council that makes the proposal. The opposition members only have to knock the ball. I remain humble and humble, I quote the Council of State.

This Parliament, these members of the majority, are thus merely the government’s counterparts, the voting machines that squeeze a little and squeeze what the government strikes them through the throat and then let it come to the banks here.

We will not vote against. For we do not want to make it worse, although the desire of voting against such a legislative work is compelling for us, it could in any case be even worse.

It is a pity that this repair must be carried out. Coordination, I don’t think those who have been involved with it know what coordination is. Those who call this “coordination” in the first candidacy should never come back and have been removed.

We are not going to make things worse, but you can understand that we as Members of Parliament still have a little sense of respect. We will not approve this. We will remember.