Proposition de loi modifiant les lois coordonnées sur le Conseil d'Etat en vue d'accorder aux associations le droit d'introduire une action d'intérêt collectif.
General information ¶
- Authors
-
Ecolo
Muriel
Gerkens,
Georges
Gilkinet,
Zakia
Khattabi,
Jean-Marc
Nollet,
Gilles
Vanden Burre
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke - Submission date
- Oct. 21, 2014
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Rejected
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- administrative court legal action judicial proceedings association
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- CD&V Open Vld N-VA MR PP
- Voted to reject
- Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB
- Abstained from voting
- ∉ VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
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 28, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Stefaan Van Hecke Groen ⚙
Mr. Speaker, I thank the rapporteur for her excellent report, but I am disappointed by her voting behavior.
Sometimes in politics you need to be patient. This is ⁇ the case in this case as well. Patience was not rewarded, but rejected.
In fact, this is a text that has gone on since I first took the oath in this Chamber, twelve years ago. We submitted this text twelve years ago because it was approved by the Senate in 2007, just before the dissolution of the Chambers. As a result, the text could no longer be processed in the Chamber and he was declared kaduuk.
It is a bill that regulates the access of associations to the Council of State. This was once approved in the Senate, but has never achieved a majority in the House.
Since 2007, this text has taken a path of suffering. Since then, it has been submitted and agenda in every legislature. The competent ministers promised to review the proposal. Consultations were also requested and hearings were organised. All the tricks from the delay box were taken over so as not to have to go to a vote.
I would like to point out a very important opinion of the State Council, given at the general meeting. The latter is quite exceptional. A very comprehensive positive opinion of over 50 pages was issued.
The opinion provided an overview of the state of affairs, including from a European perspective, on the problem of access of associations to the State Council and in particular environmental associations. We have even adapted our text to the suggestion of the State Council. However, this also could not benefit.
The latest evolution in the file was that in December in the Justice Committee we developed a similar arrangement to give associations access to courts and courts.
That text was drawn up through a bill, i.e. through the cooperation of the majority, with criteria and conditions for associations to gain access to the courts and courts.
We have taken that text literally and submitted it to the Committee on Home Affairs to use the same criteria for access to the Council of State in order to have a system as coherent as possible with the same conditions, but also that should not benefit.
The argument used, in particular that it is unnecessary, is not correct. In practice, there is some flexibility in some chambers of the State Council, but there are also very large differences between those chambers. Legislative intervention is therefore very important in order to ⁇ uniformity in the rules on access for associations to the State Council.
We are disappointed that the vote in the committee failed, but there is always a second chance. Soon you can give a good vote and approve this. One can always keep hoping, who knows that someday someone will change their mind. We hope for your support.