Proposition 54K0702

Proposition de loi modifiant la loi du 20 décembre 2002 relatif au recouvrement amiable des dettes du consommateur, en vue de lutter contre les abus.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Paul-Olivier Delannois, Karine Lalieux, Fabienne Winckel, Özlem Özen

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Rejected

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

lawyer consumer protection bailiff indebtedness

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB PP

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 ¶

Nov. 12, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, "We ask the parliament, majority and opposition, to legislate in order to put order in the sector of the recovery of claims": these words, I had to express them myself many times in the committee, but they were also held last Sunday by a representative of the National Chamber of Justice Officers on the plateau of the show "The Decoders".

His message was clear, clear and without any ambiguity. This message was ⁇ in the press this morning. We are therefore faced with a unanimous request from all actors in the sector, whether it is debt mediators, the consumer protection association, recovery companies and, now, judicial officers.

This unanimous request aims to clarify, once and for all, the amicable recovery of debts and to end the impunity of a minority of undelicate courtiers, who literally sweat on the back of citizens. This is an undoubted fact. Even the representative of the National Chamber of Justice Officers has publicly acknowledged that there are obvious abuses and that the current law is not enough to put an end to them.

So yes, any debt must be paid and amicable recovery must be preferred. I think there is a postulate on which we can all agree. Yes, the court enforcement officer is obliged to protect the interests of both parties, both the creditor and the debtor! Yes, the judge is independent in terms of amicable recovery and does not have to take a position on either side! He is a mediator. Yes, it is not acceptable to see an initial debt multiplied by three, four, or even ten in some cases! Yes, the underlying contracts must be framed to end the abusive clauses and the undeniable disproportion between an initial debt and the penalty clauses! And again yes, the no cure, no pay principle, which binds the judicial executor to an obligation of result, violates the independence of the executor and is therefore indeed an illegal system that should be removed without delay!

Mr. Speaker, as I will not have the opportunity to go up to the tribune, I would like to say how much my group and I support the ongoing reflection here. As you said, there really is a need to clarify things. Since it is not possible to intervene, Mrs. Winckel, I would like to cut your word so that I can say it officially.

Mr Nollet, I thank you for that. Madam Jadin, there have been some new facts. A representative of the National Chamber of Lawyers came out saying that he was demanding a change in the law.

Thank you Mr President.

Dear colleagues, let’s listen to the sector, including the National Chamber of Lawyers, which is explicitly calling for a change in the law. Let us respond to this unanimous call to work together in the common interest to find a concrete and more just solution to a problem known and recognized by all. This is a unanimous call. This is rarely enough to be emphasized here in a plenary session. That is why, dear colleagues, I ask you to review your vote and agree to work on this bill again, instead of simply rejecting it, as you did fifteen days ago.

I propose you to return the bill amending the law of 20 December 2002 on the amicable recovery of consumer debts in order to combat abuses in the Economy Commission and I ask you to make this decision so that we can rework this text together.

Dear colleagues of the majority, we have the opportunity to work with good intelligence on a text that can concretely – I am deeply convinced – move things. Do not miss this opportunity! Citizens would not understand this, and especially after the public appeal launched by the lawyers.

I will not go back to our vote in the committee, although I will repeat some points.

We have had the opportunity to explain to the authors of this proposal that we share their view. Therefore, we had submitted others whose aim was to improve the functioning of justice, ⁇ in terms of the status of lawyers.

It is well known that some of them are abusing. His colleagues acknowledge this and want to be punished. Thus, the hearings we have organised have enabled us to identify the shortcomings of the legislation in force. There is consensus as to whether it is appropriate to reform what may be in order to find a just balance between consumer protection and the creditor’s legitimate right to be fulfilled for obvious security reasons.

As we have had the opportunity to say in the committee, this text seems to us to be guided by a philosophy that aims to increase disproportionately the burden on SMEs wishing to repay their debts. This is attested in particular by the provision that the creditors must systematically send the supporting documents in annex to their recall. The recommended use of email reminders by email and SMS is also due to a lack of legal framework.

The lawmakers have recently reformed their disciplinary body. Their independence has increased. In addition, the penalties are now heavier, as they may be removed from office. Certainly, this should not prevent us from reforming the provisions of the 2002 Act, but it does not seem to us that this text adequately addresses these gaps for the reasons I have explicitly stated.

When voting on this text in the committee, no other formation, Mr. Nollet, found it appropriate to support your text.

Yes, I think we will come back with our proposals on this subject, ⁇ in the short term. And why not incorporate the proposals you have just made in order to reach a text that will allow, hopefully, to obtain a broader consensus.

Mr. President, Ms. Jadin recently cited my group, which abstained in the committee. Indeed, there were quite technical dimensions in the file that required a little more in-depth work. In the meantime, we re-examined the case.

I wanted to intervene just recently to affirm how important it seemed to us that, on this problem, the request to refer this text to the committee seems to me to be the best of positions. You have heard, like me, the recent elements that make the positions of external actors evolve and that allow us to say today that we want these texts to be reworked in commission rather than scrapped as you propose.

Mr. Speaker, I think Mrs. Jadin is quite honest and reasonable when she claims that this is an important topic for her. I take it for cash.

However, if this issue is indeed important, the situation of overindebted citizens who are still much more overwhelmed with the lawyers is deeply challenging. So why should we refuse to take this as a priority?

The best thing to do to consider it a priority is to send it back directly to the committee and that everyone, all political formations mixed up, work around the proposal to improve it. Don’t come and say it’s important if you refuse the priority examination.

Mrs. Onkelinx, I said that the text you had submitted – Mrs. Winckel knows it since these are exactly the same arguments that we used in the commission – was not suitable for us for various reasons. We have therefore rejected it.

In the background, we will deepen our reflection and we will probably come up with suggestions ourselves.

There should be an amendment to change the name, maybe the text would pass!

We have been working on this text for more than a year. There were hearings, serious work was done. What is happening is sad and sad. I do not understand why this text cannot be returned to the committee. At the moment, some court officers use practices that go away from legality, which is not tolerable. We must not have political policies in this matter, it is time to act and we must not wait!