Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances et visant à garantir le libre choix d'un avocat ou de toute autre personne ayant les qualifications requises par la loi applicable à la procédure pour défendre ses intérêts dans toute phase judiciaire, dans le cadre d'un contrat d'assurance de la protection juridique.
General information ¶
- Author
- LE Christian Brotcorne
- Submission date
- Sept. 1, 2014
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- FAO lawyer legal aid insurance
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP VB
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 ¶
March 23, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President Siegfried Bracke ⚙
Özlem Özen and Goedele Uyttersprot, rapporteurs, refer to their written report.
Christian Brotcorne LE ⚙
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that this text is returned to our assembly, after a first attempt at which end we had it returned to the Justice Committee, which somewhat amended it.
Contrary to what the title of the bill might suggest, it is more precisely to provide that, in all alternative modes of settlement of a conflict, apart from judicial procedures – mediation, arbitration or expertise – the free choice of a qualified professional can also be acquired from anyone who subscribes to legal protection. The scope is thus extended beyond the choice of the lawyer in a judicial or administrative phase.
I am pleased that the text was unanimous in our committee.
Özlem Özen PS | SP ⚙
Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, today we are supposed to vote on a proposal that aims to extend the free choice of a lawyer or any person with the qualifications required by law to all judicial phases within the framework of a legal protection insurance contract.
The insured now has the choice of his lawyer, but this choice does not concern alternative modes of conflict resolution. However, it has been repeated, the free choice of a lawyer is absolutely important in a democratic society because it falls within a fundamental right, the right of defence, which is enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I hope that this time will be the right one and that the pressure of insurance groups will not have the effect of changing the opinion of certain political groups. It was also following this incident that the committee decided to conduct hearings and, during those hearings, it became clear that, in order to comply with the case-law of the Court of Justice, a legislative clarification was necessary. In its judgment of 7 November 2013, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified that the principle of free choice, which is enshrined in Article 4 of the Directive on legal protection insurance, aims to protect, in a broad way, the interests of the insured, so that a restrictive interpretation cannot be admitted.
The free choice of the lawyer is therefore a principle which has a general scope and a mandatory value and the extension brought by this proposal goes in the direction of European case-law.
If financial reasons have been invoked by insurance groups, they can obviously not take the step on the consecration of a fundamental right that is the right of defence, as I recalled earlier.
In order to reach a compromise with the majority, the scope of this choice has been reduced for mediation. The choice can be made only for a person with the required qualifications and not for the lawyer. We regret that we could not go further, which would have allowed the judge to choose either a lawyer or a person qualified as a mediator. We believe that the free choice of a lawyer should be allowed to intervene, as soon as the interests of the insured require protection.
As I said, a legislative intervention was necessary to clarify the legal arsenal, in order to promote the legal certainty of the justiciable.
For all these reasons, my group will support our colleague, Mr. and broccoli.
Stefaan Van Hecke Groen ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we will support this text with great conviction for the reasons already cited by the previous speaker. It is a very positive text. These are the real quick wins. We often talk in our committee about quick wins and the minister needs thick potpourri for this, while the colleagues sometimes with very simple proposals can make beautiful steps forward in the legislation.
The Justice Committee is also pleased that there is openness. This is our culture and I am very happy with it. There is the culture to support each other’s sober, good texts across the boundaries of majority and opposition. I hope that we can continue to work in this way. I would like to congratulate Mr. Brotcorne on his proposal and I also thank the majority for giving the opposition a chance to get such texts approved. More of that, I would say.