Proposition 54K0906

Projet de loi modifiant le Code des droits d'enregistrement, d'hypothèque et de greffe en vue de réformer les droits de greffe.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Feb. 24, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

legal expenses legal aid access to the courts

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

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

April 22, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Ms. Wilmès, Ms. Van Cauter and Mr. by Piedboeuf.

I refer to my written report.

If you allow me, I would like to briefly speak for my group, unless one of the other rapporteurs is still asking for the word.

You have the word, Mrs. Van Cauter.

Justice is the foundation of our democratic model, also for our group. This means, on the one hand, that Justice must be able, when crimes occur, to detect them, prosecute them and ensure appropriate punishment. On the other hand, where applicants are involved in a dispute, they must be able to submit that dispute to the court and can and can expect a qualitative decision within a socially acceptable period.

I believe it is the firm will of this government to make justice accessible to every Belgian. Keeping justice accessible for all requires not only a simplification, but also a reform of role rights.

Even though it was a difficult exercise, my group will support the present draft. This draft, taking into account the cost of judicial practice and the principles of proportionality and legality, reforms and simplifies role rights, precisely to guarantee the necessary access to justice for every applicant, without prejudice to existing corrective mechanisms for socially or financially weaker applicants, to whom it is guaranteed that they can still appeal to the Court. Our group will support the draft.

Thank you, Mrs Van Cauter.

The rapporteurs referred to the written report. Ms Van Cauter recently took the floor on behalf of her group.

If you allow me, for personal reasons and in exceptional cases, I would like to give the floor first to Mr Van Hecke. Then we follow the usual order of speakers.

We had an interesting discussion in the committee. Exceptionally, the draft was dealt with in the Committee on Finance, although it actually mainly concerned justice. Therefore, it is a fiscal matter. There were many members of the Justice Committee present.

I think that the report is fairly comprehensive and detailed and that the pain points in it were well highlighted. I will try to be brief.

With the text, there are five further points.

First of all, a major strike point is, of course, the criticism of the Council of State that was originally formulated on the text. Initially, the text was intended as an amendment to the program law in December.

The government’s argument to justify the increase in secretary fees did not find much support in the Council of State. The argument was that when it comes to important matters, the prosecutors are wealthy. The State Council has made it clear that that link cannot be made. People with a rather modest capacity may also have a claim that can be high. This link cannot be created automatically.

The government made a small change. The system has been ⁇ ined, but another argument has been put forward, namely: the higher the claim, the more work and the more costs there are for Justice. However, this link cannot be strengthened. After all, there are cases that are of little value, but that can be very complex and require a lot of work for the judges. For example, think of a complex case of inheritability or a commercial lease agreement. That link can’t be made either.

Second, the main danger of the reform is for access to justice.

I think it is everyone’s concern that access to justice must be guaranteed. Of course, the government will say that access remains guaranteed, but I would like to refer to a number of measures taken in the past that, along with the proposed measures, ensure that the threshold continues to rise.

We had the higher court fee a few years ago, the costs to be paid by the losing party. In the previous legislature we had VAT on wages. The current Minister of Justice was then the Minister of Finance and has introduced it at the time. Mr Geens, therefore, you already have a certain reputation for the cost of proceedings. In 2012, the registration fees increased by 15%, and now there is another increase. In the long run, the account will rise significantly.

Who will be affected? That will not be the big companies and multinationals that employ lawyers and that can deduct as business costs and recover VAT. Neither are low-income persons able to seek a lawyer through second-tier assistance and are often exempt from a number of court fees.

Those affected belong to the middle category: applicants who earn too much to apply for second-tier aid, but who are not insured and are unable to recover VAT. It’s actually about the ordinary families, individuals who may have a trial once, twice or three times in their lives, not the multiplayer, but the ordinary people. They have to pay VAT and are often not insured unless they are involved in a car accident or something covered by family insurance.

The fear is that even if prosecutors are right and have a good chance of winning a case, they still doubt whether they will go to court. Why Why ? I think every colleague who is a lawyer will be able to practice this from practice: when prosecutors step to a lawyer, they immediately ask how much a case can cost them in the worst case. Then it is necessary to explain what are, among other things, the costs of proceedings, which must be advanced, the call costs, the registration costs and the court fees. If expertise is needed, the costs of expertise can also be borne by them. In addition, they must pay the costs of their lawyer in any case, including VAT, and all costs if they lose the case. In that case, the customers will consider whether it is worthwhile to initiate a case of EUR 1 000 or EUR 2 000 if they are liable to lose and have to pay more expenses than the initiation of the dispute. They will then decide, even if they are right, even if they have a great chance to claim their right, nevertheless not to strive.

It may be argued that we must still provide for alternative methods of dispute resolution. That is what we need to do and that is what the government wants to do. That’s important, but we shouldn’t underestimate today’s cost for an ordinary citizen to engage in a procedure.

With this bill, that threshold will be increased, not only by increasing the registration fees, but also – and this is my third fundamental note – by the fact that the registration fees are now charged per claimant and not per case.

Let us take a simple example. In a simple lease, a married couple will have to pay roles twice as a claiming party. In an inheritance with several brothers or sisters, each party will have to pay roles as claimant. If an appeal is registered, role fees must also be paid again. This increases the account.

There is an argument that is actually a drug harassment. We all know the purpose of the legislation. In the budget it says that you need to recover 20 million euros. This will result in more income from registration fees. One has begun to count and the taxes on the registration of a case have begun to rise to reach 20 million euros.

It is said that several claiming parties increase the complexity and that means more work for the court. That may, of course, be the case in some cases, but in a lot of cases there won’t be much more work if a couple is sparking a case in a rental dispute or a owner. The work is limited to two lines. In the case of the claiming parties, the secretary-general will have to record a second name. That is the only extra work that needs to be done. Juridically, that makes little difference.

I come to a fourth comment.

The tax is fixed at the beginning and is final. The State Council also submitted comments on this point. This is tax law, and the taxpayers have to decide what taxes to pay. One must determine what the value of the matter is. According to the estimate, the registration right is determined. Individuals may be badly faithful, but we assume that they will be a very small minority.

However, there are also cases where at first it is not possible to estimate what the final value of the case will be. Let us take an accident with physical injury. An accident can lead to a procedure, for example, as a result of a medical error. Will it lead to permanent disability, with an impact on earnings or with a loss of income? This is often not understood at the beginning of the procedure. The accident can result in a flat-rate compensation of EUR 10 000 for material and moral damage, but can also result in a million-dollar claim. This cannot be estimated from the outset.

Despite that observation of the State Council, the Government has nevertheless failed to address the proposal to amend that point in order to enable a revision during the course of the procedure or at the end, when the final amount of damages is determined.

The fifth point concerns the transitional law.

The majority will, of course, try to make the existing legislation apply as soon as possible, as the income will naturally come in much faster if necessary. Mr. Minister of Finance, in the other case, the amount of 20 million euros for 2015 is no longer correct. You understand me very well.

However, some things also have an impact on ongoing events. I mean ongoing court proceedings. Those who are already in the first instance proceedings today and will appeal because they lose, will face those higher court courts.

I give a very extreme case. Take a situation where several persons have joined together, to challenge one case, before the law on class action, for example. There are hundreds of people who want to carry out one procedure together. They paid one royalties. If there is a judgment and they want to appeal and they fall under the new regime, they will have to pay a hundred times the role fee in appeal. This is of course very heavy. In such cases, it could be relatively small amounts. Therefore, it is not correct and unfair that such tax legislation is introduced and declared applicable to ongoing legal proceedings.

That is why we have submitted an amendment to the committee, which proposes that the new system should only apply to new procedures initiated in the first instance, in order to avoid this problem. The amendment has also been submitted here in the plenary session. However, the majority did not have ears to this.

I will finish here.

I have made five fundamental comments on the project. The most important is the danger that today’s measures, compared with the measures of the past, will complicate access to justice. However, access to law is really fundamental. It is guaranteed in an international text and also as a general legal principle accepted by the Constitutional Court. Please do not forget that. What we should not do is put an incredible brake there.

Ultimately, the bill is intended to get 20 million euros extra in the greenhouse. However, the effects it can sort on the ground can be very heavy for certain categories of our population. For this we want to warn. Therefore, we do not agree with the bill and will not support it.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, my group will support the role rights reform.

We are of the opinion that this reform is a modernization and that it is carried out with respect for access to justice. The roller rights are thus proportionate to the costs of the operation of the jurisprudence and will now be determined according to the value of the claim. This is, in our opinion, an objective criterion, which is also used in other countries, such as Denmark, Germany, Italy and so on.

Furthermore, we must take into account the growing number of advances. The claimant must be personalised in a certain way and it must be considered whether it is necessary to have a dispute resolved before the court. In addition, even after the reform, the cost of the customs duties in Belgium will still be reasonable in comparison with the countries around us. For example, the roulette right for a claim brought before the civil court of first instance in Germany amounts to 438 euros, in the Netherlands 876 euros. In Belgium it will be 100 euros.

Finally, it should be emphasized that this reform should not always involve an increase in the entrance fee. For instance, in order to initiate a claim before the family court, a royal fee will now only have to be paid once, namely 100 euros, while in the past, for different procedures, royalties would have to be paid again and again.

Also for cases before the peace judge, i.e. cases of less than 2 500 euros, the roll right remains 40 euros. In cases before other courts, the value of which is less than EUR 2 500, the roll rights also remain unchanged.

I can therefore decide that we will support this reform because it does not impair the access to justice and that, even with an increase in role rights, it will still be cheaper in Belgium than in the countries around us.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is clear that we will not support this draft. We have submitted an amendment that is fundamental.

We do not support this draft for four reasons and are supported by the Council of State and Test Procurement.

I would like to explain the reasons very quickly, because the discussion had already taken place in the committee.

The first and most important reason is, of course, that it is an increase.

One can say, according to the argument of the majority, that the costs remain even lower than in the countries around us, but in any case the Council of State speaks of a substantial increase. Each increase, of course, also increases the threshold for Justice, which you cannot deny.

The second reason is access in general.

In this regard, the State Council says that this was tested on the right to access to justice and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. The assessment for the State Council has always been ⁇ negative. I quote the Council of State: “The right of access to justice could be compromised by the fact that a person with a weaker capacity would still have to pay a higher fee.” Certainly this latter is for us fundamental, because it means that someone with a smaller capacity could consider not to go to court in the future, because it would cost him too much.

On the principle of equality and non-discrimination, the State Council is also very clear. The Council of State states that the workload involving the handling of a case and the degree of difficulty of the case cannot depend on the financial valuation of the claim. He thus concludes that the draft law does not pass the test of the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

These two fundamental comments from the State Council are essential when talking about accessibility.

I come to my third point.

Test Purchase speaks of the grace strike for access to justice. It then focuses primarily on the problem surrounding the law on group claims, to which a small adjustment has taken place afterwards, for which thank you, Minister Geens.

However, there is still a problem. We are very pleased with the adjustment, because in the first reading Minister Van Overtveldt had stated the following: “As regards the legal claim for collective recovery, the law clearly stipulates that every claimant must pay rights. The law does not provide for any derogation or specific rule for a collective action.”We find it very positive that the Ministers of Finance and Justice have yet to answer the legal service’s note: “There is only one role right owed by the representative of the underlying claiming parties. At the beginning of the class action, not all parties are known.”

I would like to clarify our amendment, which we have submitted again.

With the amendment, we want to translate the positive response that the ministers have given in concrete terms into the draft law so that the role rights are due per case and not per claimant. In addition to group claims or class actions, there are also cases in which this adjustment could cause a problem. The people who work in the court and the many lawyers among you will be able to give many more examples than I can. Indeed, today there are a number of procedures in which several claimants with the same damage have brought a joint claim, but which are currently not covered by the joint group claim. It would be completely unfair that they would have to pay each separately.

Another example is the case where the claimants made the choice of residence with their lawyer. Even then the costs are much less high. It would be completely unfair to pay the roller rights separately each time. Another example was just cited by a colleague: for a couple who is domesticated at the same address, the costs are also minimal and it would be completely unfair to have to pay the double role right every time.

Colleagues, we fundamentally disagree with this draft, especially because it will raise the threshold for access to the court anyway and because a certain form of arbitration will be introduced. Since both ministers have stated that they wish to correct a number of matters relating to that group claim, we are confident that the majority will support our amendment. This only corrects what both ministers have said.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am a lawyer. I was a lawyer. I have known and practiced the right of transplant. I will not repeat the comments of the previous speakers.

I would simply like to make three observations that will relate to the procedure: the parliamentary procedure, the judicial procedure and the budgetary procedure.

As for the legislative procedure, the well-founded draft we are discussing today was submitted by the Minister of Finance. This was discussed in the Committee on Finance. It is discussed in particular in the presence of the Minister of Finance; the Minister of Justice is also happy to be there. We want to talk about justice and we want to talk about finance. The gap between social logic and financial logic could not be greater. We have chosen our camp.

The legal process, but also the judicial process, because that’s what it ultimately is. The proposed system, what is it? He will obviously close the door to our court houses, whether we like it or not, to a number of people who will be affected by an increase in transplant fees. The applicant will soon have to pay fees that are proportionate to the claim he makes, although these costs could be very high, for example as a result of a procedure for compensation for personal injury.

The proposed system is also a complicated system, terribly complicated, inasmuch as it requires the person acting in court to estimate the amount of register fees he will have to pay. I remind you that I can act in court without being assisted by a counsel and that, in this case, I must do it myself.

The proposed system is unfair. It moves from a flat-rate system established by file to a proportionate and individualized system that will lead, in particular where there are several parties to the cause, to multiply the rights perceived, such as in the case of a co-ownership.

I perceive, it is the case to say, the effect of aubein for the state treasures, but will justice be better rendered? In essence, as we have just said, the proposed system has only one merit: that of unifying the transplant fees when the dispute is brought before the family court. That was the purpose of the law.

My third observation concerns the budgetary procedure.

Mr. Minister of Justice, if at least the procured revenues could ensure a better service of justice! If this would help to close the gaps in your budget, to recruit staff, to ensure better computerization of files, to renovate the premises and to ensure the sustainability of the legal aid service! I hear some trembling about this. However, we know well that the resources provided will feed the common treasury and will serve to cover the general and indifferentiated needs of the Belgian State and its citizens.

Poor justice, in every sense of the word!

These are the criticisms that I have come to formulate on the ground of parliamentary, judicial and budgetary procedures. Of course, these criticisms will not allow us to accept the proposed reform. The form and the substance are not suitable for us.

I understand the arguments of some of you. Let me introduce you to the MR group on the side of those who defend this bill. We believe that it has the merit of simplifying and modernising registering rights while ⁇ ining everyone’s access to justice.

The simplification is quite easy to understand. For all roles, a single fee will be applied per jurisdiction and instance. The processing of the files will be facilitated.

Subsequently, the increase in office fees, which will be adjusted to make them proportionate to the action and the alleged cost of the judiciary, is based on the principle of proportionality. Ultimately, there are not so many practices that are already well accepted, ⁇ in terms of procedural compensation.

Furthermore, we can only unfortunately see that more and more prosecutors turn to the courts and thus engulf them. One cannot denounce a mechanic that settles up and becomes American, complain about a crowd of things sometimes for little, without trying to deal with it with the eventual invitation to resort to milder formulas, to less expensive alternative modes.

Furthermore, for our group, the fundamental right to access justice is always protected through the aid provided to the justiciable who is always aimed at the most deprived.

We also highlight the advance of paying only a royalties fee for family cases brought before the family court. Moreover, current exemptions, often dictated by social motives, remain virtually unchanged. Only labour and tax disputes of more than 250,000 euros will now be subject to registration fees.

In short, on the basis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the draft law complies with the principles of legitimacy and proportionality, does not compromise the principle of the right of access to justice and is consistent with those of equality and non-discrimination. Above all, after analyzing the tariffs, we obviously find that our tariffs remain far lower than those practiced in neighboring countries.

These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, for which the MR group will support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for my delay, but the Law Street was blocked. We should make the neutral zone a little more accessible to MEPs.

We have discussed in the committee and I have been briefed on the amendments and proposals submitted. Also for CD&V, access to the right is an essential point. I know that the opposition has argued that access will be hindered by an increase in roles and they spoke of a violation of Article 6 of the ECHR.

However, I would like to reiterate that it is clear that access to justice will be freed for all and that the economically and socially weaker members of society will, of course, still be able to rely properly on the legal assistance system. The fact that these persons may also be fully or partially exempt from paying royalties and other court fees if they can prove that their incomes are insufficient is a very important point in this debate.

Of course, there are always individuals who are at risk of falling out of the safety net, but we must place that in the discussion about the role right and the explicit link that is made with the value of the claim. It is not only a link to the use of the proceedings, but also to the financial capacity of the applicant.

Mr. Minister of Justice, here it is appropriate to emphasise that there is also an aspiration for European harmonisation in terms of tariff policy. The Belgian tariffs were relatively low. If we align and link these rates to the value of the claim, we will pursue a European harmonisation policy.

We should not abstract from practice. In proceedings that are now underway and where one can be placed in part right and in part wrong, there is also a distribution of role rights.

Another delicate point was that per claiming party must be paid. Some have called for the deletion of this provision. As a rule, in Belgium we only work with individual interests to bring a case before a court, not to mention a few exceptions, and in general this is consistent with the procedure included in the Judicial Code.

The exception for collective claims — and I know that the discussion on this has taken up a lot of time in the committee — must therefore be seen as an exception to the current reform of the royalties.

Regarding the role right based on the value of the claim, some argue that there is no direct link between the value of the claim and the financial capacity of the claiming party. However, the criterion of the value of the claim is not new in the legal system. This does not suddenly endanger a fundamentally different course. For example, this criterion is already used to see whether or not the peace judge can be caught in a dispute. We have also cited in abundance that this is also important for the amount of the judicial fee. In the initial claim, one should try to assume a correct value because this has precisely implications for the judicial fee. The plaintiffs and their lawyers will benefit from making an estimate as accurate as possible.

I know that there has also been discussion about the adjustment of the value of the claim and a possible administrative settlement. This system was not explicitly chosen, although there are good arguments for it. If one wants to limit the administrative burden, knowing that there is a limited capacity of the officers and magistrates, it makes no sense to introduce a number of additional backup mechanisms in the system that can nevertheless generate no additional output.

As for the pro-fiscal declaration, I can be clear. If no pro-fiscover declaration is attached, the act is not validly deposited and the deadlines are not pushed. If there is a pro-fiscover declaration, but no valid payment of the roll right, there is a valid deposit, but no registration on the roll. In this regard, I think there is a closing and coherent system.

The a-posterior control of the value of the claim could be qualified as a legitimate criticism. However, I have already said in the committee that the system as it now presents, although it involves a change, but not a definitive change, and that it will not become the system of the future.

In my opinion, we need to evolve to a system where a flat fee is paid depending on the level at which the procedure is initiated, which would reduce a lot of administrative burden and calculations. This is truly a future-oriented system and is being worked on by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I speak because I am a member of the Finance Committee and it is within this committee that the bill has been submitted for this reason, which is both quite simple and quite strange that the customs duties are included in tax legislation, but that what really matters us here is the way in which the government concepts the organization of justice.

However, since it is a tax, a fee or a tax, it is I who will speak for the PS Group. That is why I will return not only to certain aspects related to the organization of justice, but also to this rather strange way in which the head of government approaches this tax, this fee that are office fees.

The core of your bill is therefore to link the fixation of the clearance fees to the value of the claim. We explained to you in the Finance Committee, without obtaining convincing answers, that it was quite strange to consider that, in the face of demands of a different nature on a financial level, one would be able to ask the entitled to fulfill a different right, as if ultimately there was a relationship between the financial capacity of the entitled who, in the head of the government, become more and more taxpayers, and the value of the litigation or the importance of the litigation.

We have told you that one could very well be modest or belong to the middle class and, at some point in life, be confronted with a dispute whose value, the importance of which could amount to hundreds of thousands or even millions of euros.

We talked about medical mistakes, mistakes in construction... In short, no one is safe from a dispute that can quickly amount to hundreds of thousands of euros. This does not mean that your financial capacity is more important than that of a person who, in one way or another, would naturally be concerned only by major disputes. No, one can be of modest condition, of the middle class and, in his life, be faced with a legal problem whose value can be very important.

Obviously, you do not take this into account because you believe – as stated in the explanations you have given us – that, in general, there may be a link between the financial capacity of the claimant and the value of the dispute. We have demonstrated that this is not the case. That’s why I think that the bill is banal. The State Council has issued a murderous opinion on the case. He believes that by establishing this correlation, you do not respect the principle of equal access to justice and equality, and that this could potentially lead to appeals before the Constitutional Court on the basis of the violation of Articles 10 and following of the Constitution. We therefore draw your attention to the fact that your bill contains a legal fragility affirmed and confirmed by the State Council.

Before I go back to more fundamental considerations about access to justice, I would like to extend a moment on the second point concerning the quite strange way things are approached. Indeed, you were also not convincing when asked what might happen if, during the trial, a difference in assessment of the value of the dispute arose. In other words, we asked you what would happen if, after the lawyer of a defendant has entered the file, assessed the value of the dispute himself and obtained a fixation of the register fees on that basis, a divergence in the assessment of the dispute should appear, for example, following an expert report.

You answered this question vaguely by telling us that things would be settled circularly. Definitely, fixing things by this kiss becomes a habit of this government. Maybe someday you will call on special powers. You never know! Still, it is not admissible to submit to us a bill that contains so many spaces of uncertainty as to how the difficulties induced by the bill itself can be solved.

Third point: I come to the subjective dimension of the taxable basis or of the base of the clearance fees. It is quite strange that in tax matters the amount of the tax base and the taxable base are dependent on the subjective assessment of the taxpayer. This approach is relatively exceptional. Declarations of inheritance rights and even registration rights have been mentioned; if only in the case of registration rights, there are at least the venal value, the comparison points on the value of a property. There are elements of objectivation with the intervention of the recipient of the record.

In the case of succession rights, the same is the case. The recipient of the record can immediately say that he does not agree with the assessment. He has expertise and can rely on databases. We are in a different context.

Here it is different. The taxpayer must subjectively decide which tax he is liable for. Nevertheless, it seems strange to me to have so many uncertainties, so many fragilities if I can say, in one of the constituent elements of any tax, namely the taxable base. I think you are creating a legal framework that does not meet the logic that governs taxation in our country, that is, a taxable base established on the basis of known and objective elements and not dependent on the sole unilateral will of the taxpayer. All this seems to me very improvised.

The most important thing is access to justice. Justice is one of the three powers. It is also a public service. An important public service, which allows someone who feels hurt to be able to go to courts to get justice in all areas: civil, criminal, administrative and so on. It is therefore important, if one wants to be an advanced society – who we are – to be able to guarantee access to justice for all, not to imagine that there may at some point be a financial obstacle to access to justice.

Now, with the bill you are submitting to us, and we have shown it to you with a few very concrete examples, you will make it more difficult for a large part of the population to access justice. You told us that there was pro deo, legal assistance. But it covers only a fraction of the population. There are people who work and have low incomes and for whom a sum of 100, 200 or 300 euros is money. This could encourage them not to file a case in court because, precisely, they would consider that it could put them in trouble with a random outcome.

Now, unfortunately, with what you present here, you will clearly put the middle class in trouble, while the latter has already suffered an increase in procedural compensations – I thank Mr. Massin noted this – and the introduction of VAT in the services provided by lawyers, Belgium having previously served as an exception at the European level.

In other words, in this context, while it might have been necessary to make a move to make justice more financially accessible, you are adding a layer of it. And why do you do it? Your explanations are absolutely not convincing, as you tell us that we must be able to ensure that people who use the service of justice can be contributed. In the end, it is a fee. And as a second argument, you say that this will hinder, avoid dilatory procedures, suggesting that people will spend their lives going to trial.

Such an approach is not convincing; there are other ways to discourage dilatory procedures. We have already talked about it, so I will not come back. But more fundamentally, it means that we are in a logic where those who have the means could continue to make dilatory trials for everything and anything, and those who don’t, would give up procedures to which they are legitimately entitled. Clearly, you are introducing structurally an injustice in access to justice. This is the core of your bill.

This is where we would like a little more clarity in your head. Honestly assert to this tribune that, ultimately, this operation is of a budgetary nature, that it aims to increase the revenue of the state. This is an argument that could be understood, if the recipe resulting from the increase in transplant fees was assigned to justice. You could then eventually admit your transplant fees increase, which is also quite questionable. I explained why. Well, that is not even the case.

This additional recipe will be included in the general budget of the Ways and Means and therefore will not directly benefit the justice. I am going even further! If the problem is the refinancing of justice, then your battle should have been done more during the budget conclave. This is where we need to demand means for justice and this then goes through a more general reflection on public finances, which itself can rely on a more just taxation, by a contribution of other tax plates, rather than asking the justifiable, which you no longer only take as taxpayers, to finance the budget shortcomings of your department. There is something here that, politically, is a form of lack of courage, with hiding behind false arguments. We have already explained this in the Finance Committee.

I would also like to tell you that you are asking taxpayers-justiciables to become experts in litigation assessment. People, unless they have the means, are not experts in assessing the value of a dispute! In the same way, will you ask tomorrow the transplants to develop themselves an expertise to, at the time they register the application and when they receive the assessment carried out by the eligible, challenge it? In short, you invented a gas plant on the assumption that it is possible, under any circumstances, to assess disputes. I would even say that you are going to encourage lawyers and prosecutors to underestimate disputes. What happens if, eventually, during or at the end of the trial, one still comes to wonder what the value of the dispute is? Not all disputes can be assessed financially. Some disputes are valued financially, but others are not. When it comes to child custody, how is the value of a dispute assessed?

From this point of view, it seems to me that your bill is not going well. Per ⁇ it is still time to amend it. I think that there should be a reason here. What most characterizes your bill is, unfortunately, slowly sliding toward the idea of a justice that would not be a public service but a justice that would be a short service, for which it would be necessary to show that we have the means to have access. You make us move from a public service to a system of fees that, unfortunately, is unfair, that will not help to improve the functioning of the department you are in charge of and that, overall, makes your bill can not receive our approval.

Mr. Speaker, my speech will be brief since my colleague Stefaan Van Hecke spoke long and wide.

I am pleased to meet you both, gentlemen, Ministers of Justice and Finance. We had begun to discuss in a committee this text that increases the transplant fees, to put it clearly, only in the presence of the Minister of Finance. We have discussed this, Mr. Minister of Justice. Indeed, although this project aims at a budgetary objective, which is why it was put on the agenda of the Committee on Finance, it contains above all provisions whose impact on justice is evident, in particular in terms of access to justice.

Mr. Minister of Justice, this is a ⁇ complex matter. You have presented elements of reform that are currently being debated in the Justice Committee. But among the fundamental issues that you should be concerned with, I draw your attention to the issue of citizens’ financial access to justice, its complexity, the judicial vocabulary, the adaptation of courts and courts to new questions that may arise – in particular through the implementation of the family court. The previous government had undertaken a reform on pro deo, which helps impeccable people defend themselves in court. This was a first step to make access to justice more difficult, as evidenced by the introduction of a moderator ticket.

With your reform of transplant fees, which mainly consists in an increase of these, you will further aggravate their financial difficulties.

Your government refuses to provide itself with sufficient resources in the framework of essential public missions. The Minister of Justice must find means of self-financing of justice, with all the limits imposed by the self-financing of a Regal mission. Does that mean, in a more general way than this question of office fees, that justice will no longer be interested only in what is remunerative and not in the public service tasks in the broad sense which are its own? We can ask the question.

Similarly, the technicality associated with the assessment of the financial importance of the business, will have an impact on the right to pay and will introduce a new complexity that may itself be the subject of appeal in court. In this way, justice will feed itself. I used in commission the phrase "gas factory", which I just heard in the mouth of a colleague. This convergence of ideas indicates, Mr. Ducarme, the complexity of the arrangement put in place. Rather than simply providing for a refinancing of the judiciary allowing it to pay its bills late, to have enough magistrates to avoid years of delay in judgments and to proceed to a real computerization, you think it is good to invent a new system of self-financing, which we denounce because of its consequences on the access to justice for all.

My colleague Stefaan Van Hecke and I are concerned in committee about the impact of this bill on the possibilities of collective action or class action, in court. When you read your text, things are not clear. Furthermore, when the question was asked in its first reading, the content of the Minister of Finance’s answer was to say that, in the case of a collective action in court, the transplant fees would be due by each of the persons intervening in the case. This is totally contradictory to the spirit of collective action in justice, and to the capacity, highlighted as positive at the time, given to citizens victims of the same facts to register together in a judicial action within the same file to assert their rights.

During the discussion, Mr. The Minister of Finance has quantified his words. You yourself, in the second reading, stated that a single transplant right would be due in the case of collective action in court, class action. But when we asked you to confirm this through an explicit amendment so that the law can be interpreted in a ⁇ clear way and so that this doubt can be lifted, we were ⁇ surprised and disappointed that the majority does not agree to clarify things within the framework of the law.

In addition to being problematic in terms of access to justice, your law contains shadow areas in terms of its interpretation, not only in relation to the assessment of the financial weight of the cases judged, therefore of the right of transplant to be paid, but also in relation to the principle of collective action in court. We would have desired – and it is still time – that it be explicitly stated in the arrangement that only one right is due. If this amendment were introduced and voted, it would allow, at least in this dimension, to fully reassure citizens. It is not therefore that we would support this text which, as I said in my introduction, has only a problematic budgetary vocation in its spirit.

We do not think that justice should self-finance itself, but it is especially problematic in terms of access to justice for all. That is why we will vote against the project in debate today.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, I think this bill is another attack, like the whole uncomplicated right-wing policy of your government. This is another step in the evolution of justice, towards class justice.

On the basis of the measure, you tell us that it only targets large disputes. This is false, since for a dispute of 2,500 euros with a peace judge, the transplant fees will be increased from 40 to 80 euros. For a simple household, it is not a small sum. In addition, it is now each party that will have to pay the transplant fees. Imagine a litigation for an inheritance, starting from 2,500 euros, in which four children would be concerned: we would pass from 40 euros of transplant fees to 320 euros.

I cannot obviously avoid pointing out that the State Council makes it clear that this system “can endanger access to a judge”. It is the State Council that says: it is nothing, gentlemen ministers. Test-Achats says that this project “brings a blow to the access to justice”, yet a cranium further in the sharp way of bringing a judgment on this project. The magazine info@Law says that the simple citizen is left on the touch, that justice is no longer a right but a commodity.

I could continue the quotations of criticism issued by people who work on these issues. I think this is a clear signal. This project is not only criticized by opposition parties but is challenged by a large pan of civil society.

You tell us, Mr. Minister of Justice, that it is about avoiding overconsumption of justice. But the Network for Combating Poverty just says that the problem is the opposite. The problem is not the overconsumption of justice. The problem today is the underconsumption of justice in certain layers of society.

by Mr. The Minister of Justice also says that justice must self-finance itself and that this is a way to do so. We are clearly in the logic of the private. Justice is no longer regarded as a public service offered to every citizen; one goes out of the framework of the spirit of public service and enters into the logic of the private.

It happens that, by chance of the schedule, this bill is being considered today, while there are strikes in public services. This shows that this government, not only in its budgetary measures but also in measures like these, systematically destroys public services. The evolution is quite serious.

It should be noted that this system based on the amount of the dispute does not take into account the income of the claimant, because there is no link between the two. What is clear is that for a person who has comfortable incomes and who can offer the services of a famous Louise Avenue tax lawyer, who asks for up to 600 euros per hour to secure a defense, or a Uccle lawyer, who might be mayor at the same time and for whom we are talking about fees of the order of 1,000 euros, it makes no problem to pay a little more office fees.

It must be noted that this increase in transplant fees is not an isolated measure. This is an increasingly complicated situation and increasingly limits access to justice. The previous government had already increased the transplant fees by 15%. It is also recalled that the same government applied a 21% VAT on lawyer fees. But the current government is not there, as it also provides for a moderator ticket in legal assistance, an increase in the rights of placement, a decrease in the number of judges of peace, who are precisely those judges who deal with the cases of ordinary citizens. In short, there is a bunch of measures. It is the whole evolution of justice that poses the problem of becoming class justice.

Let us take your proposal, Mr. Minister of Justice, not to bring tax fraudsters, like diamonds, to justice anymore. We have the impression that your policy, Mr. Geens, is tailor-made for your former clients of the time, where you were a lawyer yourself and at the service of wealthy lawyers, such as the diamonds that are still, today, defended by your former law firm.

If we take the case of diamond fraudsters, what do they have at their disposal in terms of justice? They will soon benefit from a “carat” tax that will ⁇ allow them – even though we have not yet learned the details of the bill – to escape the checks. There are also criminal transactions, which help them escape justice and prison. I still have to mention your plan, Mr. Geens, to no longer bring tax fraudsters to justice. Everything is chained. Soon, a diamond fraudster will no longer be brought to justice.

The contrast is obviously striking between, on the one hand, the curbets that are made before the most wealthy and wealthiest justiciables and, on the other hand, the traps that are sown before the ordinary justiciable, the simple citizen who has not much resources and who will have less and less access to justice.

Mr. Ministers, soon this simple citizen who has low incomes will no longer say “I go to the palace of justice”, but “I have no means to go to the palace of injustice.”

The exchange of arguments has already taken place more and more. It remains that, as a lawyer and former lawyer concerned with the law of the defendants, I would like to highlight what is totally disproportionate and unjustified in the bill that is being submitted to us.

It seriously infringes the right of the person to access justice, which guarantees him, in addition, a prompt treatment of his cases. I know that you have developed a reflection on this. That being said, I will make a first fundamental comment. To demand a substantial increase in royalties – sometimes in the form of an increase of 200%, or even more –, while, in this country, as the Audit of the Court of Auditors showed, it is foolish as to the functioning of the justice service in Belgium, it is not guaranteed to the applicant that his litigation will be handled within a reasonable time, it is a totally unacceptable imbalance!

One can think about what the cost of the justice service is. I know that one of your arguments is to say that in neighboring countries the transplant fees are higher than ours. But in these neighbouring countries, the budget devoted by the state to the service of justice is significantly greater than that which successive governments and the present majority in particular are still keen to devote to the general functioning of justice. However, we are one of the European countries that devote the lowest percentage of public spending to the functioning of justice (0.7% of public spending on justice in Belgium, 2% in the Netherlands, 1.8% in Great Britain, 1.5% in Germany).

One can always think about the cost of justice and require an additional contribution from the prosecutors in certain circumstances. I will come back. But then, we must guarantee an optimal service of justice and we must start with that and not by contributing to the justifiable to whom the functioning of justice is not even guaranteed! Therefore, it is a serious offence that you are bringing to the functioning and access to justice by this bill!

You have considered that the establishment of a right of role does not necessarily prejudice that right of access to the judge. Nevertheless, the State Council noted it – I quote –: “It is necessary to examine whether this is the case in the concrete implementation of the projected regime, which, by the way, must be assessed in the context of the entire regulation that still imposes additional financial burdens on the parties acting in court.” This mere reflection of the Council of State should have led you to reflect on the cost of accessing justice linked not only to the costs of office fees, the procedural fees, the costs of summoning by lawyer when the application is not possible. There is a set of reflections that you have not carried out on the cost of accessing justice. You have isolated an aspect for an immediate budget return.

The real motivation of your bill is not to make justice abuse of the recourse to justice, and to limit its effects, the real motivation is budgetary performance. Indeed, if you had wanted to limit the abuse of appeal to justice, you could have increased the procedural compensation for the prosecutors who initiate timely or vessatory proceedings or those who have – I mean here to the defendants – fixed an unproportionate deadline to honor their debts or legal obligations. I acknowledge that legal persons who do not want to pay their debts have very well understood that the procedural deadlines are such that at some point, the applicants lose courage and abandon their claim. This justifies the need for faster justice and more summary procedures. I know that the issue of more summary procedures of payment orders is being discussed.

That said, the increase in the amount of transplant fees that can be multiplied by five is undoubtedly unacceptable. This will be especially important in the degree of appeal and cassation, which is questionable in the light of the double degree of jurisdiction. This increase is part of the government’s policy developed in the Justice Plan which aims to settle, as far as possible, first-instance cases by limiting the possibilities of appeal and provision of cassation in civil matters. Thus, we find, in the project, an ultra-stereotyped vision of the prosecutors who would abuse the judicial apparatus, who initiate procedures with lightness and should be educated, responsible by discouraging them from initiating such procedures. I have just given you a solution, namely the substantial increase in the procedural compensation for temerary and vexatory proceedings. But fundamentally, it is a totally stereotyped and unrealistic view, when one wants to look at the nature of the disputes that our jurisdictions have to know.

The fixation of transplant fees based on the value of an application at the time of enrollment in a role is also surprising in that it is very difficult to evaluate. It is also for this reason that lawyers often submit claims subject to an increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings. However, the Minister of Finance clarified that the amount of the customs clearance fees would be fixed on the basis of the value of the claim as declared at the beginning of the proceedings, even though certain facts or elements may not be known at the time of filing of the application or may be likely to change significantly or cannot be measured.

The project therefore does not allow any correction of the assessment of the request in the event that new costs appear.

As to the determination of the amount of the claim by the justiciable himself, which is a contradiction for the nature of a tax, it is the value of the claim that determines the nature of the right of secretary. The judgment is left to the judge who initiated the procedure. This will tempt some to underestimate the value of their claim, except to reserve, according to the conventional procedure, the possibility of an increase during the proceedings. In other words, you will create the conditions for an unequal treatment between justiciables, since it is each justiciable who will determine the value of his claim. It seems to be somewhat complicated, even from a legal point of view.

It is also hazardous to establish a link between the value of a claim and the financial capacity of the justiciable. There are litigation, for example those related to physical or other damage, as a result of medical errors, where the justiciable may be of very low financial capacity, but where the value of his claim may be very high. As the State Council has pointed out, the right of access to justice could be compromised if a person with a lower financial capacity must nevertheless pay a higher fee. And in the absence of the possibility of derogation or correction, the difference in the amount of transplant fees cannot be based on the average situation or presumed to be the most common. In other words, your new formula for transplant rights does not take into account the social reality of the person who introduced the action.

It is equally hazardous to establish a link between the value of a claim and the labor burden that the dispute would represent because, as the State Council has always specified, the labor burden arising from the examination of a cause and the degree of difficulty thereof do not depend on the financial assessment of the claim, so that provision of the bill is not compatible with the principle of equality and non-discrimination.

How do you justify, then, gentlemen ministers, that the State Council expressly asks you to revise the system of layer-based role rights and that you have ⁇ ined your bill in the state without complying with the reasoned request of the State Council?

Finally, you also provide that the collection of customs duties per applicant and not per case also implies that several parties to the same cause justifying the same interest will each have to pay those duties, which constitutes a significant increase in the cost of access to justice.

Take an example: co-owners in a couple, of a building, if they assign their tenant, each will have to pay the transplant fees, while until now, they could distribute them among themselves. This is not, I think, reasonable and justified, except for the expected budgetary yield of this measure.

Finally, I insist that this reform of transplant fees will ⁇ affect those of the middle class, ordinary citizens, those who cannot benefit from legal aid because they are just above the eligibility ceilings in terms of the amounts of their income, that it will ⁇ discourage a number of citizens from engaging in judicial proceedings, even though their rights are undeniable.

Furthermore, you also did not provide for the allocation of the returns from these new rights to support the redistribution of the judicial services. You yourself admitted it in the Finance Committee, Mr. Minister of Justice, on March 26, last, saying that no agreement was reached within the government regarding the destination of a possible surplus related to the reform of the customs clearance fees for the benefit of the budget of Justice.

We will therefore support all amendments aimed at creating a budget fund to allocate this revenue so that the Justice Department is budgetally supported at least as a result of this bill.

In short, Mr. Minister, you are starting the major reforms you have announced, ⁇ by the most controversial and least justifiable project. Given the Justice Plan that you presented to us in the committee and of which I have noted with interest several significant advances and deserving debate, Mr. Minister, it would have been expected from you to start with a bill telling us how the justice service would be made more effective in more reasonable timeframes, so that the confidence of the citizen and the justiciable in the functioning of the justice of our country would be strengthened. You start with a project that will arouse distrust and misunderstanding.

I confirm that we cannot support it.

I will give the word to the government.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have discussed the present draft extensively — the Minister of Finance several times and I once — in the committee.

I try not to fall too much into repetition; because our time in this life is limited.

First and foremost, I want to say something about legitimacy and proportionality.

The European Court of Human Rights naturally recognises that access to justice is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions, insofar as they are legitimate and proportionate. The financing of the operating costs associated with the conduct of a proceedings and the discouragement of the initiation of nonsense proceedings have already been accepted by the European Court of Justice in the past as legitimate objectives justifying the removal of role rights.

Proportionality means that the fundamental right of access to justice for the socio-economically weaker applicants should be safeguarded by establishing a corrective mechanism. That corrective mechanism exists in our country in the system of legal aid, which provides a soil for the socio-economically weaker category. The current bill will not affect this. Furthermore, the rates used today in each facility will continue to be ⁇ ined for the smaller claims. In principle, the current exemptions are also not affected, with the exception of tax and social disputes exceeding EUR 250 000.

Finally, I must point out that these are pre-established amounts, which constitute only a rather modest part of the total costs of the court.

I would like to emphasize even more the precautions provided for in the event that the applicant would have underestimated, for the purposes of the case, the value of his claim. He must first receive the decision of the judge, which will force him to carry out a correct assessment of the value of the claim. Lawyers must also fulfill their ethical duties. They are also required to respect the principles of dignity, probity and delicacy. If there should be abuse, this will remain limited to the first instance, the value being better known in degree of appeal. The fixing of a procedural compensation is also based on the value of the claim. The higher it is, the higher the procedural compensation will be. There is therefore no interest in underestimating the value of the claim, since this would have a negative impact on the amount of the procedural compensation.

I believe that most of the various amendments submitted by our dear colleagues have already been introduced within the committee where they have received a response that I hope is adequate. I am very grateful to Mr. Laaouej for his amendment regarding the fund that would be able to finance the costs of legal assistance, but the government will be wise enough to make sure that justice receives the resources it needs.

You can count on me, Mr. Laaouej, Mr. Maingain: I will take care of this financing of justice.

Mr. Speaker, with the responses of the Minister of Justice and the statements of the members of the majority, most cases have already been dealt with very thoroughly.

I would like to clarify another point regarding the costs of justice compared to the countries around us: after the increase, that type of role rights or access rights still remains very low.

I will give a few concrete examples.

A claim brought before the civil court in Germany costs 438 euros. In the Netherlands, it costs 876 euros. In Belgium, the roll right will be 100 euros after the reform. For a claim of 50 000 euros, the roll right in Germany amounts to 1 638 euros, in the Netherlands 876 euros and in Belgium, after the reform, 200 euros.

I think that indicates sufficiently that we are carrying out a limited increase, and in the European context we are still at a very modest level compared to our neighbors.

Finally, the exemptions, on the very large amounts in labour disputes and tax disputes, remain intact and therefore also the access to court fees.

I would like to tell Mr. I do not doubt his good will. I doubt that of his colleagues in the government. I take note that you will defend your budget with a request for additional funds. I’m not sure you will be followed. This is what worries me.

This is why I believe that our amendment remains relevant and up-to-date despite your goodwill. I would even say that this amendment should rather be taken as an encouragement and a signal, which you might eventually endorse and share with members of the government. It is not too late, it has already been seen that the whole parliament joins an opposition amendment that meets common sense. This is your most important, most intimate wish.

Another element, in fact, the comparison with neighboring countries does not resist the analysis, as long as the scope is broadened. It is not to be limited to the comparison of transplant rights. We need to see how the justice system functions in each country as a whole. From this point of view, at this stage, this work has not been done by the government to convince us that the increase in transplant fees will not result in higher judicial costs than in other countries. We also need to look at what the justiciables have in return.

I also do not see in the response of the ministers taking into account the opinion of the State Council. Somewhere, this announces future appeals on violation of the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The State Council says this explicitly. You do not respond to it.

There is still a huge blur on the problem of collective actions. We were not convinced either in the committee or in the plenary session.

With this being, and for the rest, I take note of the attitude of the government that, in a generalized context of reduction of the available income of households and workers, of non-indexation of rent, makes sure that unfortunately people, in general, will have more and more difficulty in being able to connect the two ends and therefore to assume a possible dispute.

Mr. President, Mr. Minister of Justice, listening to you, I wonder if you have not bought a cat in a bag, as they say in French. You are a very good bilingual, so you understand this expression.

Cela se this aussi and Dutch, me this ma collègue. A cat in a bag.

I wonder if this is not ultimately the specialty of CD&V in this government. Yesterday, we discussed the index jump for a few hours with the Minister of Employment who told us that you were not quite in favour of the index jump but that you will apply it because this is included in the government agreement and a tax shift will be implemented later.

You do the same. You decide to increase office fees because you have been forced to find additional means for justice within your jurisdiction. They can be used to improve the functioning of the judiciary. Today, you don’t have those means and you’ll still have to trade, pay for, and swallow other dwarfs. That is really our concern.

Specifically, I was asking you in the courtroom, and I am not the only one to do so, about the transfer fees to be paid in the context of a collective lawsuit. The text is not precise on this matter. Different interpretations have been made. Van Overtveldt and by yourself on the subject. Beyond the issue of universal access to justice, it seems to us that this would be a way to undermine this important possibility at the level of Belgian law, which is a novelty.

I would like to hear you here in the plenary session, in the absence of a vote on an amendment that would make things more explicit within the framework of the legal arrangement, on the fact that in the case of collective action, a single register fee is to be paid and that this text will not have the effect of sabotaging the positive prospects of the collective action arrangement in justice, so-called class action.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, and especially you, Mr. Minister, yesterday and the days before, we had a very long discussion about the index leap. It has always occurred that your party also wants to emphasize the least deprived and those who are in trouble in this society, but that some sacrifices must be made. Despite the fact that not only a consumer organization such as Test-Buy, but even the State Council very clearly says that this is discriminatory and unfair, and that one will make things more expensive again for those who are in trouble in this society when they are sold, you continue to do so.

I have not received any response to the amendment that we have submitted. I assume that you will approve of this, since you both have also said that it is right and that it should be more about a matter, ⁇ if it is a common matter, and much less about those who submit it, and that this is a lot unfair. I assume, since no response has been given, that you will approve this amendment of the SPD.

April 21, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, given the importance of the present bill, it seems appropriate for us not simply to refer to the written report, but rather to give a concise summary of what was laid out during the meetings of the Social Affairs Committee on 17 and 18 March 2015.

There are three reporters. I will take account of the procedure and the introductory discussion of the Minister. Then it is Mr. Gilkinet’s turn.

With regard to the procedure, we discussed the organization of hearings four hours in advance.

Mr. Kristof Calvo, Mrs. Kitir, Mrs. Onkelinx, Mr. Hedebouw, Mrs. Fonck, Mr. Daerden and Mr. Massin complained about the late submission of the bill. They ask for the organization of hearings on the bill, which should be thoroughly elaborated in the committee.

They have no understanding of the government’s intended hastiness in dealing with the bill, which is not necessary and, in addition, counterproductive. Since the bill leads to a serious impairment of the purchasing power of the population, democratic control is absolutely necessary.

Ms. Demir, Mr. Lachaert and Mr. Vercamer consider that the measures in the bill have already been sufficiently discussed in various matters: in the hearing on 4 February 2015 on the effects of government policy on economic growth and job creation, in the oral questions in the committee and during plenary meetings, in the discussion of policy statements and policy notes.

The proposal to organise hearings was rejected by nine against seven votes.

Mr. Calvo and Mr. Gilkinet, Mrs. Fonck and Mr. Hedebouw disputed the urgency and the impressions of consent generated by the social partners.

Mr Kris Peeters, Minister responsible, refers to the introductory statement for the answers to the questions of the MEPs on the emergency procedure. Due to the urgency, the government did not ask for advice from the NAR. The consultation on wage development, including an index jump, was endorsed by eight out of ten partners.

Then we discussed the indexation of rental prices. Ms. Kitir asks the Minister if he has any legal advice on the matter. Mr Calvo refers to the debate on the indexation of wages and rent prices. In the absence of a comparison, the Cabinet decided to seek legal advice. Mr. Calvo asks where that advice is.

The Minister replies that there is no other opinion on these matters than that of the Council of State. The Minister then quotes the opinion: “Without specifically regulating prices and incomes in certain areas within the competence of the Communities or the Regions, the federal government may impose the link to the health index defined by it on all incomes and prices linked to a price index.” Both the federal state and the regions are competent.

It follows from the opinion that the federal state remains competent when the matter relates to family income. One cannot bypass the assumption that the bill only covers wages, bets and social benefits.

The Minister emphasizes that the federal state and the regions have jurisdiction over the rents. If the matter cannot be resolved, the Constitutional Court will cut the knot.

Then Minister Kris Peeters gives an introductory comment. The Minister would like to clarify six points of the bill. First, the Minister clarifies that the urgent procedure was requested for the request for advice to the State Council and for the parliamentary hearing. This was necessary due to the late submission, on 22 December 2014, of the report of the Central Business Council on the development of wage costs due to the late availability of international data.

The opening of sectoral negotiations should be facilitated. The index jump comes, as the wage cost disadvantage has risen to 2.9% since 1996. The budget situation does not allow this to be addressed by merely reducing the burden. The index jump should be determined in the context of the social agreement and will mean a purchasing power effect of only 1%. Its impact is further mitigated by fiscal measures and the external wealth envelope.

The target of the index jump is job creation, 33 000 jobs according to calculations of the National Bank and 28 000 according to calculations of the Planning Bureau. The power to make the index jump is governed by Article 6 of the Special Act on Institutional Reform of 6 January 2014. The federal government is responsible for the income policy and for the bets and social benefits of other government levels. The powers of the districts are not affected. In order to respect the powers of the Regions, the size of the index jump should be limited to 2 % both in size and in time. The State Council does not object to the emergency procedure. The index jump thus also applies to the stakes and benefits of the states.

Regarding the index jump and link, it is remarkable that the health index is currently not legally regulated. Some prices, such as those of tobacco and some energy products, are not included. The references to the price index designated and calculated for this purpose point to the informally already established concept of the health index. This is now legally regulated.

In order to ensure that the index jump entered evenly, a technique was used that ⁇ ined all existing index mechanisms. Only the number they refer to changes. As a result, the index jump is achieved in a balanced manner, without affecting the existing index mechanisms.

The Minister then explains that most of the provisions of the social agreement are regulated by royal decree. The fiscal legal provisions on, among other things, the meal cheques, cao 90 and the limit amount will be incorporated into another bill. A separate draft law on wages will follow later.

The level of training efforts will be ⁇ ined in accordance with the agreement of the social partners. The Social Agreement provides for the suspension of the mechanism in 2015 and 2016. This means that no additional efforts will be made in 2015 and 2106, but that the level of training efforts in 2013 and 2014 will remain.

A number of provisions will still be settled at KB or COA. These include the equalization of the dismissal compensation allowance for career condition, the time credit and for retirement and the reduction of the contributions for the annual holiday.

On the basis of the agreement of the social partners, the employment allowance and the dismissal compensation allowance will be drawn up. Saturday work is also arranged. In the construction sector today, 64 hours can be worked on Sundays. As a result of the social agreement, this is increased to 96 hours on an annual basis. According to the Wage Gap Act, the sector-specific analysis reports had to be completed by the end of 2014, but that work has not yet been fully completed. Therefore, an extension is provided until the end of April.

Ms. Maggie De Block, Minister of Social Affairs, who is present at the committee meeting, clarifies that a number of agreements in the Social Agreement of January 2015 will be settled. Articles 8 to 10 of the draft law implement some measures relating to welfare adjustment. This refers to the social contribution after retirement when the beneficiary also receives interest due to an occupational accident or occupational disease. The social contribution will be reduced from 13,07 % to 8,31 %. Measures are also being taken to block the wealth portfolio.

The law also contains agreements made by the social partners in connection with the unification of the statute of workers and servants. These include a reduction of the employer’s contribution for the annual leave of employees, a different calculation of the employment allowance received by workers in undertakings under restructuring and the equalization of workers who have become employees for the calculation of the dismissal allowance.

The carnival day is abolished, both for the remuneration and for the regime concerning illness and disability.

This is part of the reporting on the work of the Social Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will try to be synthetic, but I will specify that we took a lot of time in the committee because it was necessary to discuss this text on the substance. Ms. Demir just presented part of the procedural debates that took place, as well as the introductory explanation of the Minister of Employment and the Minister of Social Affairs.

I will now address the general discussion. Initially, a debate was held with the Minister of Social Affairs and with Ms. Kitir, Ms. Fonck, Ms. Onkelinx and myself to try to clarify the fate of family allowances as part of this decision on the index jump. Different views were expressed as parliamentarians believed that the federal majority was concerned with a transferred power and decided on measures that would have an impact on families and children. The Minister of Social Affairs reaffirmed the competence of the federal government and the level of federal power in this matter as well as the independence of the principle of non-indexation of family allowances with the mechanisms of the Special Funding Act and the transfer of the envelopes "family allowances" to federal entities. These, according to the Minister of Social Affairs, remain free to decide whether or not to implement compensatory measures for this index jump on family allowances. This was an important part of this debate.

Subsequently, each member of the committee had the opportunity to intervene, starting with Ms Onkelinx, who expressed concern about the fate of the envelope for structural reductions of charges and the consequences of the measure relating to the index jump on the financing of social security. Ms. Kitir expressed concern about the decision to tax the welfare envelope. Several other members commented on the calculation of family allowances and on the lack of consideration of family allowances in the determination of the amount available for compensatory measures in favour of the lowest incomes. Some, such as Ms. Fonck, have denounced the federal government’s variable geometry reasoning to ⁇ its goals. Ms Temmerman, for her part, stated that it was explicitly provided in the framework of the Sixth State Reform that the transfer of family allowances to the Communities could not affect the amount of the welfare envelope.

This is followed by the intervention of Mr. Daerden on behalf of the Socialist Group. He highlighted, as part of the general policy discussion, that the discussion of the bill was simultaneous with the publication of figures showing the very significant profits of BEL20 companies. For its group, it is unfair and aberrant to put efforts to return to a budgetary balance on the workers and social beneficiaries alone.

by Mr. Daerden, as other members did later, highlighted the misleading character of the title of the bill, concerning "employment promotion". He considers the reasoning of the federal majority to be wrong with regard to the reduction of the wage gap. Several studies, including that of the Central Council of Economics, emphasize that this gap is not so significant and resolves naturally, regardless of an index jump. by Mr. Daerden believes that the government favors companies and equity at the expense of workers. With regard to the compensation decided by the federal majority, Mr. Daerden considers that they are false, even using the term "false", since the increase in the deductibility of the flat-rate fees will in no way compensate for the lack of profit generated by the index jump and the resulting loss of purchasing power.

by Mr. Daerden also refers to the urgency invoked by the government, which prevented consultation with the social partners, considering that this was a political decision aimed primarily at avoiding social dialogue.

He then expressed concern about the economic and employment consequences by expressing his fear that the index jump would cause deflation, the negative impact of which would weigh Belgium’s debt ratio in relation to its GDP. He also believes that this index jump cannot apply to public companies.

Finally Mr. Daerden is surprised that the government decides to extend the deadline within which measures will be taken to overcome the gender pay gap. He considers that this is a symptom of the government’s will not to fight this inequality. According to him, this is a political signal indicating that gender equality is not a government priority.

Mr. Minister of Employment, Ms. Kitir points out that members of your party and you have repeatedly stated that the resorption of the wage disability would not be achieved by reducing the wage of workers, which, according to Ms. Kitir and other members, is the case in this case. Ms Kitir also questions about the employment consequences of this index jump decision, highlighting the various studies that show that the impact on job creation is not as significant as what is expected or declared by members of the government. It also points out that the compensatory measure of increasing the business fee package does not compensate for the effect of the index jump. She is concerned that the combination of the various measures decided by the government, in particular this index jump, creates a negative wage gap for Belgian workers from neighboring countries, stressing that this will be detrimental not only for the purchasing power of households but also for the functioning of our economy in general.

Like other members, Ms. Kitir highlights the fact that other compensatory measures are possible, in particular by limiting increases in rent, postal services, train, tram and bus tickets, minerals in higher education. She is surprised that the government has not taken advantage of its competence in this matter to mitigate the effects of the index jump on citizens’ purchasing power. She believes that this index jump is not indispensable and that there are alternatives that the government refuses to consider, alternatives suggested by various international bodies. This includes the OECD.

Ms Kitir insists that the competitiveness of companies does not depend solely on the cost of wages and is surprised that, although this principle is included in the explanation of the bill, no provisions are taken to act on these other determinants of competitiveness. Finally, Ms Kitir regrets the government’s decision to postpone the investment effort in the field of workers’ training in relation to the wage mass, an effort set at 1.9% of the wage mass in theory. The government decided to report it.

Then, it is your servant who speaks; I will summarize my intervention even more strongly, since I will have the pleasure to intervene even earlier. Like other members, I challenge the well-founded title of the bill. My group has also filed and defended an amendment aimed at changing the title of the text so that History effectively retains, Mr. Ducarme, that your majority – this government – has decided on an index jump impacting the income of workers and allocators.

I am concerned about the snowball effect that this could create, not only on the income of workers but also on the economy as a whole and the impact of the measure on the confidence of our citizens and consumers. Among the victims of the index jump, social subscribers are still harder hit because compensation measures do not target them, including the increase in fixed-deductible professional costs. All this has an impact on the social climate in Belgium. We may be surprised that the government decides to pay for the crisis to the most vulnerable rather than implement this tax shift which we will ⁇ have the opportunity to discuss.

Then Ms. Fonck regrets, like other members, what she considers to be a boycott of the social partners and the National Labour Council which, as a reminder, has not been questioned about the specific measure of the index jump. It is, like others, questioning the effect of the measure on job creation. She stresses that various interlocutors, such as the Union of the Middle Class (UCM), the Neutral Syndicate for Independents (SNI), and even some major executives, consider that the contribution to the functioning of the economy of this index jump will be extremely limited. It also disputes the argument that the index jump will only take place after a recovery, since once produced, its consequences will be felt throughout the career of workers.

Ms Fonck insists on other variables to work on: training, innovation, research and development, which are major issues. She insists, like other colleagues, on alternatives to the index jump such as tax shift and a tax reform that would benefit SMEs creating jobs, as well as on the fight against tax fraud. She ends by regretting, like other members before and after her, that measures on equal pay between women and men have been postponed over time.

by Mr. Hedebouw expressed skepticism about the urgency requested by the government, which at the time aimed at a vote on the measure before the end of March. by Mr. Hedebouw then evokes a scenario forecasting an increase in VAT which itself brings inflation and a faster index jump.

by Mr. Hedebouw also disputes, based on the report of the Central Council of Economy, the extent of the wage gap between Belgium and neighboring countries, finding that wages are rising elsewhere, especially in Germany. It also highlights advances in competitiveness that are not evaluated and return to workers. Like other speakers, he challenged the return effect of the job creation measure, finding that the successive hearings held in the Social Affairs Committee saw the number of jobs declining. He notes that, in addition to the cost of employment, financial costs are ⁇ important, believing that wages are part of the solution and not the problem.

by Mr. Vercamer, for the CD&V, admits that the subject is sensitive and that measurements are difficult. He, however, supports the government’s measure, stating that the index jump is not a blank check, that employers will be asked to commit and take responsibilities. It also highlights the fact that compensatory measures are put on the table.

Ms Demir expresses a more marked support for the measure, stating that, in her opinion, the goal is not to hinder workers, but to restore the economy, estimating that the cost of employment has fallen in Belgium. Ms. Demir refers to previous index jump measures from 1984-1986, estimating that they had led to a drastic reduction in unemployment in a few years. It indicates that the previous government has made a form of index jump without admitting it and that some members of the opposition are forgetting it. She admits that the measures decided are not popular, but believes that they will create jobs.

by Mr. Clarinval, for the MR, considers that the index jump is necessary in order to resolve the wage disability. He admits that the impact of the index jump on job creation is difficult to measure, but refers to the National Bank study, which speaks of the creation of 33,000 jobs. by Mr. Clarinval then lists the accompanying or compensatory measures that have also been decided by the government, all of which enable Mr. Clarinval. Clarinval and his group to support the bill.

by Mr. Lachaert, for the Open Vld, believes that the index jump is indispensable in order to keep the wage cost at a competitive level. He recalls, like Ms. Demir, that the previous government made a deviated index jump, een verdoken indexsprong, by adapting the housewife’s basket. He believes that the current government has the merit of operating in a transparent manner on the subject.

Then Mr. Massin, for the PS group, affirms the objectives of his group in terms of job creation, but disputes the method used to estimate that the argument that Belgian wage disability would be a barrier to competitiveness and job creation in our country is not correct. He considers that this is an ideological position and proposes to add other dimensions to the debate, such as not calculating the wage cost in an isolated way but conducting a study on the wage cost per unit produced to take productivity into account as part of this debate on the wage cost.

He sets out a series of examples that, according to him, show that productivity has increased sharply and therefore that the wage cost per unit produced has not disappeared, has not evolved negatively compared to other countries. He insists on other paths to be used to improve business productivity such as investment in research and development in new information technologies. Here too, he refers to studies from the Federal Plan Office and the National Bank.

by Mr. Massin is concerned about the social peace effects of the index jump measure and highlights various references, including an article in the National Bank’s June 2010 Economic Review. I will not mention it in its entirety, but an excerpt is included in the written report. Finally Mr. Massin takes note of the comments of some members of the majority on the commitments made in the field of job creation and asks what the reality of these commitments is.

Then, for sp.a, Ms. Temmerman contradicts Ms. Demir’s remarks, insisting that, according to her, previous governments have allowed workers to retain their purchasing power, and denouncing the fact that majority parties are doing, with this measure of index jump, the opposite of what they announced during the 2014 election campaign. In particular, he pointed out MM. Lachaert and Peeters, who would have claimed that they would not touch the purchasing power of the workers.

In conclusion, it regrets that the accompanying measures announced are ⁇ weak and that there is no commitment by employers to create additional jobs.

by Mr. Calvo, for the Ecolo-Groen group, emphasizes the fact that, among the majority parties, only one clearly claimed to be in favor of the index jump and that the others “eaten” their word in relation to their pre-election commitments. He regrets that the social partners, either directly or through the National Labour Council, were not questioned by the government as part of the debate on the index jump. He is concerned about the consequences for social peace. He considers that the fact that he did not request his opinion from the National Labour Council constitutes an error and does not contribute to ensuring the social peace desired in his statements by the government. He believes there are alternatives to this index jump, ⁇ at the tax level. He stresses that the jump in the index will have an effect on the entire length of the workers’ careers and that, in doing so, it is incorrect to estimate the loss of purchasing power at 0.5% as it will persist throughout the workers’ careers. According to him, this index jump will lead to a vicious circle given its impact on social security. He is asking for clear figures on the matter. It is concerned about the budgetary impact of the index jump by recalling the chronology of the elements communicated, in particular in the context of the budget discussion, in the SPF Finance tables obtained through a request to the Court of Auditors. He stressed that the index jump is not budgetarily neutral, contrary to what the government claims.

He asks for precise figures from the Minister of Employment and hopes that the Minister will transmit them to him. by Mr. Calvo believes that a form of conservatism and immobilism prevents consideration of alternative measures to the index jump to meet the problem of the high wage cost in Belgium and points to a unique form of thinking of competitiveness among the current majority, believing that alternatives exist, in particular with a tax shift.

Onkelinx, on the other hand, refers to several statements by members of the MR as part of the election campaign, stating that there would be no index jump. Onkelinx recalls that the non-increase of wages decided by the former government in a different context is not identical to a reduction of wages as practiced through the index jump. It disputes the fact that the index jump is indispensable for the improvement of competitiveness, believing that it is not the opinion of trade unions or representatives of employers and relevant that different employers have considered this measure counterproductive. She believes that the index jump will not be perfectly corrected socially, indicating that the link to well-being is an independent measure of compensation for that index jump. It questions whether a tax shift is not presented simultaneously with this index jump measure.

In terms of training, she regrets like others, while investments are crucial for the development of the economy, that not only the goal of devoting 1.9% of the wage mass to training has not been achieved, but also that it is no longer ...

Mr. Gilkinet, allow me to interrupt you.

Colleagues, allow me to make a service statement: the meeting of the Infrastructure Committee with the summit of Belgacom takes place in the Europazaal, not in the Congress Hall. For the members who attend this meeting, I would like to inform you that you will be called when the vote takes place as soon as possible after the debate.

Mr. Gilkinet, you can continue.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Onkelinx regretted that the goal of dedicating 1.9% of the wage cost to training was not achieved and will not be achieved, since through an article of the bill under consideration, the government decides to postpone in time the achievement of this but crucial goal for the functioning of the economy.

She concludes by saying that the government demands significant efforts from workers but does not implement the sanction mechanisms provided by law in the event that a company fails to meet its training commitments, believing that there is an imbalance between the efforts required from workers and those required from employers.

Ms Kitir, for the sp.a, questioned the negative wage evolution in Belgium compared to the Netherlands and France, estimating that the problem is mainly related to the wage evolution in Germany and to very harsh measures taken there. It disputes the fact that the 1993 index jump was implemented in a similar context. Following a debate with Ms. Demir on the validity of the measure, Ms. Demir recalling that the index jump has an effect that persists over time.

And then Mr. Delizée begins a rather long, exciting and documented intervention on the origin of the automatic indexation of wages.

The (...)

It is covered in full in the report. It explains the origin of the automatic indexing of wages and its different developments, in particular with the health index and the consumption index. It refers to the stabilizing role that the automatic indexation of wages has played in Belgium.

He also disputes measures taken in other countries that are reference countries under the competitiveness law, targeting in particular Germany, its mini jobs and jobs at 1 euro per hour. He ⁇ develops the measures taken in Germany, in which he is supported by Ms. Onkelinx who indicates that the comparison with the three neighboring countries has its limits and calls for a change in legislation.

by Mr. Delizée then continues his presentation and concludes that, since the bill will involve a social impact throughout the life of the worker until his pension including, his party and himself will not be able to subscribe to it.

The Minister of Employment provides elements of response to these different interventions, considering that the index jump is an exceptional measure in a particular context. He recalls the intense debates within the previous government on the issue of wage cost, on the measures related to the index previously taken as well as on the specific measures to be taken to support employment. It affirms the outgoing finding of the current federal government, which is that the measures taken earlier are not sufficient to resolve the wage and competitive disability. He believes that the compensatory measures decided by the government are the result of the resources generated by the application of this index jump. He further indicates that the political choice to make this index jump does not prevent the debate on the tax shift, or tax shift, even if it will take place later and believes that the decided index jump is a “smart” index jump – I leave him the responsibility for these statements –, highlighting the different corrective measures.

Onkelinx then replicates that the welfare envelope cannot be considered as a compensation for the index jump, since it is structurally provided by the law, in which she is joined by various members, including Ms. Temmerman and myself.

There follows a debate on whether the bill would be yes or not an application of the agreement concluded between social partners, at least in what was qualified at that time in the "Group of Eight" committee, with divergent opinions among the members of the committee.

Before allowing Ms. de Coster-Bauchau to speak, I try to highlight new points in this report. Obviously, after such a long discussion, there are rehearsals and it is worth noting the remarkable work of the services that have written this important report.

Following the responses of the Minister, several members, among whom I will cite Mr. Massin, Mrs. Temmerman, Mr. Calvo and myself, say stay on their hunger, not having been convinced by his arguments about the need for the index jump.

Here is the first reading.

A new discussion took place in the second reading, which mainly focused on a new clarification of the question of the federal state’s competence in terms of index jump for family allowances. The Minister of Social Affairs, who is not present today, has once again tried to enlighten us on this point. Ms. Kitir, Mr. Daerden and I have repeated our criticisms of this measure, referring to new studies that had not been cited in the first reading – the various members of the committee could not finally agree on a unanimous reading, the least that can be said, regarding the usefulness and well-foundedness of this index jump.

Then we went to the article by article analysis. So I leave the place to Mrs. De Coster-Bauchau.

Please rest assured, I will be shorter than Mr. by Gilkinet. We must not have the same notion of what is short!

Your Social Affairs Committee then engaged in article by article analysis. This review has been the subject of various amendment proposals. I will first cite the amendments that aimed to remove all articles, or part of them, from the bill.

Thus, the representatives of the PTB-GO! They proposed the deletion of Articles 2 to 20. Members of the PS and cdH groups requested, on their part, the removal of only Title 2 and its articles, which address measures to block the smooth health index. The Social Affairs Committee rejected these proposals, respectively by 16 votes and one abstention in respect of the amendment submitted by PTB-GO! 11 votes against 6 on the amendments submitted by the PS and CDH.

Article 2 has been the subject of various proposals for amendments from the PS, sp.a and PTB-GO! aimed at cancelling, suspending or mitigating the effects of the index jump provided for in the bill. These proposals were rejected by a majority of the members of the committee. An amendment to CD&V, MR, Open Vld and N-VA aimed at changing the date of entry into force of the text is, on the other hand, approved. The CDH amendment aimed at clarifying that family allowances cannot be considered as social benefits is rejected.

In the discussion of Articles 3 and 4, the PS and sp.a submit amendment proposals aimed at expanding the sources of income concerned by the blocking of the smooth health index, inter alia through the addition of articles. These proposals were rejected by the Commission.

The PS proposes to remove article 5 which would be, for him, in contradiction with the law of 21 March 1991 concerning reform of certain public economic enterprises. Since the original article was approved by a large majority of the members of the committee, the proposed amendment has become obsolete.

The PS and the sp.a submit an amendment to also remove Article 6, which relates to the sanctions attached to a refusal to apply the previous articles. This proposal is rejected, as well as a proposed PS amendment aimed at replacing the article in favor of a simple clarification of Article 171 of the Social Criminal Code.

Regarding the issue of training efforts, the CDH and the PS propose to remove Article 7, while Ecolo-Groen proposes to reform the text in order to reinforce the effort made by entrepreneurs in this area. The Commission rejected these amendments.

Articles 8 to 10 on the link to well-being give rise to consensus and are adopted by 16 votes against 1.

For the harmonisation of the statutes between workers and employees, the PS submits various proposals of amendments concerning the elimination of inequalities, as well as the removal of Articles 15 and 16 relating to the contribution for annual holidays. These proposals were rejected by the committee and the initial articles approved.

There were no observations regarding the days of lack. The article is approved. Saturday’s work was also approved. The fight against the gender pay gap, whose principle is unanimously supported by the members of the committee, has, on the other hand, been discussed. Thus, the Socialists proposed to remove Article 19, not accepting that the analysis deadlines be extended as the social partners agreed to want. This amendment was rejected by the Commission.

Ecolo-Groen proposes three amendments, which consist of adding to this bill articles aimed at improving the working conditions of older workers and keeping them longer at work, reforming the regime of economic unemployment and providing for the reimbursement of public aid by beneficiary companies that proceed with dismissals. These three amendments were rejected by the Commission.

With regard to the entry into force, the parties of the majority, by the vote of Mr. Vercamer, proposes to postpone the date in order to avoid retroactivity of certain measures planned and, thus, to ensure legal certainty. This reading is approved by the committee, which adopts the proposed amendment with a majority against opposition.

Ms. Onkelinx proposes a new title to this law. It is rejected by the majority of members.

The draft law as a whole, as amended, is adopted by 11 votes against 6 by the members of your Social Affairs Committee.

Orthodoxy (voortzetting)