Proposition 54K0670

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 1er août 1985 portant des mesures fiscales et autres, concernant l'aide aux victimes d'actes intentionnels de violence.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Olivier Chastel, Denis Ducarme, Gilles Foret, Philippe Goffin, Richard Miller

Submission date

Nov. 27, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

violence crime against individuals damages victim criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ 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 ¶

May 19, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the proposal submitted by the MR was primarily aimed at providing primary assistance and emergency assistance without funds to a number of victims of ⁇ violent acts: acts resulting in death, an apparently incurable disease, permanent incapacity for personal work, loss of absolute use of an organ or serious mutilation.

This compensation was integral and granted before the public action was decided. The Commission on Victims of intentional acts of violence and the Court of Auditors indicated that this bill undermined some major principles of the Act on Assistance to Victims of intentional acts of violence, in particular, firstly, the principle of subsidiarity that requests assistance from the Commission only if you can address anyone else (the convicted, insurance, mutual) and, secondly, aid determined in equity.

For the Court of Auditors, this proposal was not financially sustainable. We have therefore sought to find a solution to stay in the criteria imposed by the philosophy of the law, while ensuring a greater aid both in the amount and positions of this aid and in its beneficiaries.

I am ⁇ pleased that we have finally achieved the unanimous adoption of this text in the Justice Committee, which constitutes a considerable step forward in taking into account victims of intentional acts of violence. Thus, the victim of a terrorist act will no longer have to initiate a criminal procedure and see it end in order to obtain the assistance that can be granted to him. Obviously, the terrorist act must be recognized as such in a royal decree in order to benefit from this particular procedure. The victim will be able to submit its file directly to the Commission of Victims of intentional acts of violence. The law will apply to the victims of the attacks of March 22, 2016. It is important to mention it here.

The ceilings for both emergency and primary aid are significantly increased. Emergency aid increases from EUR 15 000 to EUR 30 000 and main aid increases from EUR 62 000 to EUR 125 000. The basic aid has not been increased since 1997.

The scope of the law has also been expanded. From now on, allies, i.e. family members and, in addition to successives, persons who testify to a lasting family relationship with the victim, whether the victim died or was injured, will be able to benefit from the aid. This is a major advance because, so far, only the family of a deceased person, a minor or a person who has been missing for a year could receive this aid. Tomorrow, it will be the relatives of any injured person who can benefit from it.

Changes are also made in terms of positions that can give rise to aid. On the one hand, moral damage shall be fixed independently of the determination of temporary or permanent disability. No more expertise will therefore be needed to determine the moral damage. Furthermore, the procedural compensation may be borne.

Finally, in order to simplify the Commission’s task and speed up the compensation process, applications will be made using a simple form that can be entered electronically.

I have no doubt that this text will be voted unanimously at the end of this session.

Mr. Speaker, I will give my speech from my bank.

The proposal was only briefly discussed in the committee and the amendments were barely explained. This undermines the importance of the proposal. The proposal is very good, in the sense that we finally transfer some money somewhere, and that is in the victim fund. This money can be used as quickly as possible for the victims. This requires additional simplification of procedures, and this bill provides for this. At the same time, the bill provides for an expansion of the staff to provide for it, from fourteen to eighteen persons, which is a significant increase.

This is good, because in this way victims are not made victims for a second time. That was a bit the case. In the past, there was a very loose administrative procedure, which often also brought with it a lot of frustration, and sometimes even costs for the victims, because there was always a need for additional advice.

This is a good bill. Especially in the light of the attacks of 22 March, it is the right time to provide compensation for the victims of the attacks of 22 March and their families in an appropriate manner and as flexibly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I have submitted two further amendments that I would like to explain in the general discussion.

First and foremost, I regret that the original version of Mr. Goffin’s proposal was amended by the majority. I found his version much better than the faint decoction that was modified. Nevertheless, the intention of the bill remains definitely and definitely valuable.

The amendments submitted concern the mandates granted in this framework.

Unfortunately, it is a bad Belgian custom, an undemocratic custom in this country, to neutralize the majority of the population by granting a 50/50 distribution in each composition of bodies under the guise of parity, as is the case with the allocation of the seats. With this amendment we aim to remedy that and align the mandates with the demographic and democratic representation of both language groups in this country — a 60/40 distribution — so that the demographic and democratic reality is no longer ignored.

Mrs Pas, you explained two amendments, which are, of course, the repetition of the same element in the third and sixth paragraphs of § 2 of a new article 2.