Proposition 54K1008

Projet de loi relative à la pénétration, à l'occupation ou au séjour illégitimes dans le bien d'autrui.

General information ¶

Authors

N-VA Sophie De Wit, Sarah Smeyers, Kristien Van Vaerenbergh
Open Vld Egbert Lachaert, Carina Van Cauter, Vincent Van Quickenborne

Submission date

April 2, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

real property breach of domicile criminal law

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB

Voted to reject

LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Paul-Olivier Delannois (PS | SP) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

Oct. 5, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I refer to my very readable written reports, which have been excellently prepared by the services.

We thank the services and ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. There is more written about it, not only in our house, but also outside, not to mention Gent. However, there is also a lot of speech confusion. That is where I want to start.

Is it possible to crack empty or even inhabited buildings? When is a building empty? This is of course a very interesting question. A property may be empty because it is being renovated or because the residents are on vacation, hospitalized or going shopping. In these cases, is it a vacancy or not? The confusion of speech is even greater, because under the concept in the population something is understood differently than in the legal world. Just for this reason, colleagues, there is a lot of misunderstanding when there is apparently no or insufficient action against the cracking of a property, and then I’m talking about the lecture given to it in popular terms.

Local authorities often say they can do nothing. Think of a case in which Roma were granted access to a home owned by a owner who was abroad. Afterwards, a week-long procedure was needed to recover the property. They have saved. One has a house. It will be your home or property. Whether you want it or not, whether you mean it legally or not, you don’t get that explained to the people on the street.

Per ⁇ there are exceptions. I also realize that. You should not be crazy about it. Some call it stealth policy. The exceptions also appear to be prevalent in certain regions, cities or parts of the country. Some governments and cities have solutions or can act quickly. Think about what happened recently in Brussels with a hotel and what happened elsewhere. The contrast in action could not be greater. However, we know cases in which occupants or crackers are difficult to get out of a house, and that is not explained.

The mayor of the city has tried. He did this in March 2017. It is not at all my intention, colleagues, to bring Gentese politics to our homes, but the actuality almost does not allow me to not do it. As an Antwerpese, I have been able to look and listen to it from some distance, occasionally with some surprise. I see that colleague Van Hecke is noting. Green is very consistent in his criticism and comments. One may differ in view and opinion, but the flipflop at sp.a on that topic, and the flipflop of the mayor of Ghent in particular, has been very remarkable at times.

What did he say in March 2017? He then said that cracking must be for economic reasons. These are his words. He meant, of course, the cracking of the empty houses, I know that too. However, allow me to disagree with this too. It is not because my gsm is not used for a moment, that someone else who for economic reasons can not buy gsm, who can only take. Emptiness must be addressed and housing need as well. However, I think this is another debate. This is a competence of other local authorities.

Regarding the inhabited properties, however, he said something very remarkable in a piece in March 2017. Again, I try not to polarize. I am an Antwerp, I am not sensitive to the election campaign ginder. I try to keep it content. I read the quote from the mayor of Gent, colleagues, because I find it important for the substantive discussion, which follows. He says: "In the current state of legislation, inhabited houses can indeed be cracked, and the procedure for expelling occupants from an inhabited house is still much too tricky. When the police find crackers in an inhabited property, the theft has already been committed. Therefore, acting on the basis of the heterodetermination procedure is no longer possible. So it is up to the owner to ask the peace judge or the president of the court of first instance to let the cracker off. A mayor can and can only intervene when public safety is threatened and our police services can only have a house evacuated by a judge’s order. Thus, theft is not a legal basis on which the police can immediately expel the crackers. Moreover, the principle of breaking home peace protects the crackers just from an invasion by the police, which can only enter the home if they have a house search order from the investigative judge."

The mayor has a very substantial argument. If we look at that argument very strictly – here and there one is dealing with it more creatively and differently and one finds a solution – it has a point. He puts it up himself. The intrusion into an inhabited property or residential scandal is today – sorry, it is, of course, technically – an immediate crime. That is to say, once one is inside, the crime is over. The Heteract applies when one sees it happen, when one sees entering. Then there is the harsh act and then one must indeed be very quick to be able to act as a police. After that, there is indeed a more difficult, longer procedure. Again, in other places, however, there is a solution for this. However, in many places, including in Gentse, this was not the case. This has caused a lot of misunderstanding among the people who faced it.

The mayor not only explains the content, he does more. He makes a call. He asks that the federal legislator please resolve the matter for him, take a legislative initiative so that he can act against the cracking of inhabited properties.

Dear colleagues, this is exactly what we have done now. It was stated in the government agreement, which we carry out. But, we also turn what was requested. “You ask, we turn” is perfectly applicable here. By “turning” I mean that we have drafted a bill with a majority. Initially, it was about the cracking of empty buildings and then, of course, we added the aspect of the inhabited buildings. This was also very essential for our group, as more and more cases emerged.

Dear colleagues, what is going to be voted on?

First, there is an accelerated civil procedure on the table. We have made them faster and more efficient. Let’s be honest, that was necessary.

Second, we have extended the crime of housing, that immediate crime – about which the mayor said that once the first act is over, he can do nothing about it – we have extended that immediate crime. We do not only criminalize the intrusion, but also the occupation and continued residence. Returning to the content quotation I just gave: the harsh act continues. If there are occupants and they stay there, the crime is still going on. The police can establish that, that is the act, and can indeed put an end to it. The substantial argument to argue that one can or should do nothing is, in fact, without object in that way.

We have also criminalized the cracking of uninhabited and empty properties. We have not tackled that as strictly as the cracking of inhabited properties, as some claim. No, we have made it a complaint crime. Why is it so? If the owner does not care, the police will not act. If the owner submits a complaint, then that matter changes and the entire procedure begins to run.

This is a balanced proposal. It was also not obvious to maintain a balance, because it is a difficult balance. On the one hand, there is the right to ownership. Some argue that, on the other hand, there is also a right to live. How far is it going in it?

However, we have built guarantees. I have already said that in connection with the empty properties it is a complaint crime. The police will only act if the owner submits a complaint. A judicial review is provided. It must also. The ECHR demands that. Some know the fundamental rights much better than I do, and maybe they can explain it a little better later. In any case, we must respect fundamental rights and we must indeed provide for a review. The OCMW will also be notified so that a solution can be found.

And yes, what about the right to live and the housing need, which must also be done, an argument that has been cited very often?

We know that there are, among other things, cracker guides. It is obvious that something needs to be done about housing distress and vacancy, but that is another debate. Moreover, this belongs to the competence of other governments, not of the Chamber. Especially at the local level, a policy can be formulated in this regard, but not by allowing the cracking, because in this way the right of ownership is exhausted.

With the first two measures – the acceleration of civil proceedings and the expansion of the residential lawsuit – we do what the mayor requested in his opinion paper from March 2017. We also did what certain victims – owners or residents of properties – asked of us. There were problems and the legislature now provides a framework. From now on, there is no umbrella that can be opened. There are no more excuses for not using these resources.

However, we now note that it is still not good. We do our best, they ask us something, we turn and it’s not good yet. The federal legislature is asked to make a law. Locally, they voted against a motion to do just that. I do not understand that. I no longer follow.

On the one hand, they complain that the law still does not exist. It took a while before we stood here. There have been many delayed manoeuvres in the commission. We have heard in the committee, among other things, from the sp.a-fraction that this law is too strict. What have I heard in the last few days? too soft ! I find nothing. I can do nothing with it. What is it now? Are we too soft or too strict? Per ⁇ we are just balanced? It could ever be, right?

I also hear that as a mayor one wants more powers to act, armed administration for crackers. I find that a little strange. What Terro can't do for some, can apparently do for crackers. I want to participate. I have seen an amendment from the Greens. I found this consistent and in line with their point of view. An amendment was requested from a particular city, but I haven’t seen it yet. I am curious what will happen with it.

I also hear that the police still can do nothing. For this I turn back to my content article, in which the mayor explains that the police could not do anything because there was no case of harassment. Have we solved that now? Today, there is a crime, and so the police can do something.

I may be mistaken, but I still think that mayors within their police zone determine the priorities of their police services. Make it a priority! So simple it can be. No complaints should be made, because one has a number of resources in his own hands.

Lachaert, it is not up to me to defend you. You are big enough and big enough for that. But when I then read in a comment that Mr. Lachaert should not be concerned with the ship college of Gent, but with his work here, in the Chamber, then for me the flipflop is complete. In fact, everything is thrown into a lot. Isn’t this just what we are doing here, our work in the Room? You are doing your work here in the Chamber, with your initiative that we have further worked out together. That is what we are doing. There is a problem on the ground. A owner asks for help. A mayor asks for help. He asks us for a legislative initiative and we do that: we provide help, who provide a framework, we offer a legislative solution. We did our work. Then it is now up to that area, to the people who have asked for help, to do something with it, of course, now. That is the intention. Go ahead, no more excuses. For us it is clear: you stay away from someone else’s stuff.

Dear colleagues, it was not an easy file. These are not easy discussions. It is also something that has been alive for a very long time. I am convinced that certain opinions will continue to differ. It can, it can, I really have no problem with that. I sincerely hope that those dolls and those political games – from Antwerp I can say that – can stop this. Is it perfect or can it be improved? I don’t know, because the work is never done. What I especially hope, colleagues, is that with this initiative and this legislation, and especially with the part that was essential for our group, namely providing additional protection to owners of already inhabited properties, we will ⁇ our goal. That is really my view: a better protection, a better guarantee and a solution that could not be found everywhere today. The framework is there now, let us use it, because, colleagues, it will be your home.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, as an introduction, I would like to read the excerpt from La Libre Belgique published last September 26: “This bill is not really necessary, confides to us Olivier Hamal, president of the National Syndical of Owners and Co-Owners. According to him, the current legislation allows to introduce effective actions to the civil to end squat situations and recover property. So, no, the National Union of Owners and Co-Owners was not a petitioner.”

Everything is said by someone who sat here, a few years ago, on the banks of the Reformist Movement. He is not a communist; he is also not a champion of the collectivization of goods. Everything is said or almost because the bill is useless. It is a law of circumstance to respond to a diverse fact caricatured and mounted in spine. Otherwise, it would not cause so much indignation and disgust, and I weigh my words!

Why Why ? This bill goes even further. It attacks the men and women of our society who are, today, in the most extreme precariousness, those who refuse, for their safety, for the safety of their children, to spend the night in the street. But the majority has, once again, preferred to play on fears and fantasies rather than hear what all field actors have unanimously described: the vast majority of occupations take place in buildings that have been left empty by owners for many years, often even for purely speculative reasons.

Dear colleagues, in Brussels, the reality is this: for one homeless person, there are ten empty homes. In Belgium, more than one in three tenants are at risk of poverty. No one, in this assembly or on the ground, defends the exceptional cases of those who enter places and houses occupied by others, cases for which procedures in extreme urgency already exist. This has been repeated in the committee.

Let’s be clear: the majority of MR/N-VA did not come here to protect anyone’s home. This proposition is purely ideological, since it raises private property into absolute value. We are back in the 19th century, when there was no housing. In the meantime, the Constitution has changed. Penalising the occupation of a building is also sanctioning the pursuit of a fundamental right, the right to housing, as well as the right to live in dignity. Occupating an abandoned building does not meet the standards of human dignity. This is a precarious situation, a minor harm to avoid street violence and eventually rebound. Instead of undergoing total exclusion, occupants thus maintain a minimum of social, cultural and economic ties with society.

While the occupation of an empty good is of the utmost necessity, considering that punishment will have a deterrent effect testifies to the ugliest of ignorance. The judges and the police say nothing else. Allow me, once again, to quote them out: “Criminalizing squat behavior does not bring any added value to solving the problem faced by owners. On the contrary, the risks of abuse and collateral damage seem high.”

The absurdity and violence of the bill does not stop there. For these field magistrates, the task now assigned to the King’s Attorney General is of gender confusion. A prosecutor is responsible for prosecuting crimes, not resolving civil disputes. The unprecedented power entrusted to it – and whose relevance is even questioned by the College of Prosecutors General – fundamentally undermines the presumption of innocence and gives neither the time nor the means to the occupants to prepare their defence, in particular by resorting to the Legal Assistance Office.

Let’s be clear: tenants who don’t have a written track of their lease and who, for example, pay their rent in cash are the collateral victims of the bill, which constitutes a double punishment for those whose misery is already being exploited by sleep merchants. Because of their lack of scruples, they will not deprive themselves of the benefit of an irreparable decision, taken without contradictory debate, and on a mere appearance of right.

Another collateral victim, the right to strike and the occupation of a company by the workers.

In the second reading, my colleague, Karine Lalieux, submitted an amendment that excludes this movement of legitimate contestation from the scope of the law. This amendment, however, was rejected by the majority, further proof that through this text, the majority is not afraid to stumble on the fundamental freedoms and those of workers.

I said it; this proposal is regrettable also because it is part of the counter-current of regional housing policies that fight vacant housing.

Not later than last July, the mayor of Etterbeek, also head of MR group in the Brussels Parliament, used a regional order to recruit a private building and accommodate paperless people there. Will the law that the majority is about to vote today prevent, tomorrow, the mayors from managing reality and field emergencies? This is a legitimate question I ask myself.

The law will also break a positive dynamic that can exist between owners and occupants without title, since often, thanks to associations that play an intermediary role, many cases could be regularized, in particular because the owners understood that there was a real interest for them: to avoid administrative taxes and degradation due to abandonment, while preserving the safety of the building. These are so many realities that demonstrate that a balance of interest must be made case by case between the right of owners, on the one hand, and the right to housing, on the other hand, which does not do this bill that protects unoccupied buildings for many years.

This law will be a source of injustice and human violence, until it is annulled by the Constitutional Court. For this reason, my group and I will vote against this text.

We have come to the end of a long legislative process. Indeed, if the filing of the first proposals on the subject dates from April 2015, it is only two and a half years later that we are finally called to vote on this proposal – initially envisaged in the government agreement that provided that the regulation concerning squats would be revised in order to accelerate the expulsion – and it was the parliamentary assembly that took up this file. It seems to me that we can all and all acknowledge that the process has experienced a rich debate and met the different stages specific to the adoption of an important text like this. The text has aroused reflection, has matured following the numerous debates within the majority, but also within the Justice Committee, a debate that has also been adapted to incorporate a number of sensitivities.

The opinion of the State Council was also requested. He was also heard. Auditions took place no later than last July to listen to the return of the field. Our group was ⁇ attentive during these hearings and incorporated some comments that were the subject of amendments supported by the opposition.

Initial proposals aimed only at criminal incrimination. However, it appeared necessary, and this from the outset, to strengthen the civil proceedings in order to ⁇ a balance between these both civil and criminal proceedings. It is the constant concern that has guided the reflection of our group and the majority. Tomorrow, on the one hand, the civil proceedings will be strengthened through accelerated deadlines and, on the other hand, the possibility of resorting to criminal proceedings will be introduced in parallel.

For us, it was essential to ensure respect for the rights of everyone: of the owner, this is obvious but also of the squatter in its relationship to justice. That is why we have proposed an amendment providing, in the head of the squatter, the possibility of being heard by the Prosecutor of the King and the Peace Judge, according to the procedure.

The possibility of conciliation has also been introduced. In fact, the hearings showed that a dialogue could, in some cases, establish between owners and squatters, leading to the conclusion of precarious occupation conventions, which is already the case in some Brussels municipalities, including my own.

When he has to know of a case, the judge may therefore try to bring the parties together in order to forge a compromise.

Auditions also showed that there are very different profiles of squatters as well as different types of squats. It is true that, for some, it is sometimes the only way not to find yourself on the street. Even if occupation without title or right cannot be justified, in the current situation of housing crisis, the occupation of empty buildings can sometimes encounter an urgent social need. That’s why it seemed important for us to differentiate the maximum time that can be granted to the squatter according to the quality of the owner of the property. This is why we distinguish between private owner or public authority.

Where the judge of peace considers that the squatters must evacuate the property, he may, under certain circumstances, grant them a longer period than the statutory period or that laid down by the order of the Prosecutor of the King, in the interest of the owner to recover the enjoyment of his property as soon as possible.

During the hearings, it also appeared that people who resorted to squat to simply have a roof, most often chose a property in which they had prospects to stay longer, that is, a property unoccupied for a long time that, unfortunately, often belongs to a public authority. We therefore found it logical to introduce a longer period for property belonging to public authorities, inasmuch as they have greater responsibility for accessing and managing housing, regardless of the level of power.

Therefore, it belongs first and foremost to the levels of power to find housing solutions. But it is not to the private owner to bear the responsibility of the public authorities. For a private owner, the one-month period is ⁇ ined.

Furthermore, any occupation of a private property does not necessarily result, as I have heard, from speculation. An unoccupation can be justified by many legitimate reasons: an inheritance, an inability to renovate due to a lack of resources, not to mention properties actually inhabited but empty for a while due to hospitalization or a long trip.

In the event of abuse by a private owner, the public authorities are also not deprived of the resources. To just take an example, on a local level, municipalities also have a tax leverage that can deter speculators. It is not the chairman of the Justice Commission, Philippe Goffin – who is using it in Crisnée – who will contradict me.

In conclusion, what we must essentially remember at this stage is that tomorrow, this proposal will strengthen our right. This will not be the only solution to fight the problem of squats or to solve the difficulties of housing. But what must be remembered at this stage is that we will have enriched our legislation with legal tools to address in an appropriate and circumstantiated way, on a case-by-case basis, different types of situations that may arise.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will conclude. At all stages of the procedure, our will, that of my group, has been to ensure the balance between two fundamental rights: the right to private property, on the one hand, and the right to housing, on the other. Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees the right to property, but states that every natural person has the right to respect for his or her property. I do not think it is a coincidence. “The first of human rights is individual freedom, freedom of property, freedom of thought, freedom of work.” Hamal who said this was Jean Jaurès.

As for the right to housing, if it applies to the squatter, it also applies to the owner. by Brouhaha

Mr Laouej, therefore, this debate deserves nuance and not screams! This is what we have done patiently and collectively. by Brouhaha

Yes, of the nuance, Madame Lalieux! And that’s why, as he was committed, our group will support this text.

Thank you for your somewhat distracted attention.

The breaking of a house today is not specifically prohibited by law. The owner can only request the expulsion of the crackers through a civil procedure, but in the meantime the unlawful resident is protected by the right to the inviolability of the property.

This is what we want to address with this bill. Recently in Gent came some examples in the actuality of inhabited properties that were occupied by crackers, for example during a hospital stay, a holiday or a job abroad.

In the case of inhabited properties, the police services must be able to intervene immediately in order to effectively enforce the home peace and inviolability of the home. Unfortunately, the current legal framework cannot guarantee this.

Pursuant to Article 439 of the Criminal Code, only the person who enters a residential building is punishable. The person who has entered, occupied and resides in the property concerned does not fall under this punishment. As colleagues have just cited, under the existing law, one must be caught as if on sexual offence before the police can intervene.

The current bill has gone a long way. My initial proposal dates from 2015 and the discussions were already started in May 2016. In other words, we took our time to deliver a good and balanced workpiece.

There have been hearings with all sorts of experts, representatives of peace judges, the tenant platform, and so on. We have updated our initial proposal. It is absolutely no problem to admit that in this speech.

It is not possible for persons to hide in bad faith behind the right to dwelling and behind the inviolability of the dwelling which they themselves have violated.

We make the clear political choice not to distinguish between good and bad crackers, as do Green’s colleagues and the Sp.a.A. in this matter.

For us, cracking is not the solution to the shortage of social housing. The cracking of uninhabited properties is not limited only to properties that are empty for speculative reasons. It also refers to properties that are empty for renovation or rent.

Therefore, we made the clear choice to extend our arrangement to all properties, inhabited or uninhabited. We want to cover the grey zone in the current legislation, which I have just vowed out, regardless of whether the property is inhabited or not.

We have tried to find a balanced solution for the protection of property rights, but with respect for the principle of the right to live. Until now, only civil proceedings were possible. However, it was inadequate. At the criminal level, there was only a regulation on residence information of already inhabited properties. There was a clear gap in uninhabited properties. We have now filled them.

At the same time, we have sought to make civil proceedings feasible by providing for a specific deportation procedure, separate from rent disputes. It also provides for clear time limits to guarantee the rights of each party.

The civil approach will in many cases be faster, but for certain pressing situations in which sanctions are also appropriate, the criminal approach is now behind the door. Prosecution is only possible after a complaint due to the person who holds a title or a right to the property in question. There is also some responsibility for the owner of the property.

Colleagues, following cases in Gent, the mayor of Gent stated that he wanted to act, but that he could not legally. There was no law to remove crackers. Parliament and the current majority did not assume their responsibility to provide a solution to the problem.

His colleagues, he kept that until the law was passed. Then the mayor of Gent changed the gun from shoulder. Now the mayor of Ghent argues that the passed law is not a solution for him.

Colleagues, the law that we vote here today is not intended to extend the powers of mayors. The law we vote on today is there to arm judicial authorities, on the one hand, and owners, on the other, so that they can act against crackers.

We believe that the way of justice is and continues to be the best way to intervene in private disputes and to judge the claims of owners or users on private homes.

By the way, I can point out here that because of the sp.a, the party and faction of the mayor of Ghent, we have not seen any concrete proposals to extend the powers of the mayor in the new municipal law. Therefore, if he calls for new powers in that area, I invite the SPA to take initiatives to do so.

This, of course, does not mean that a mayor has no responsibility. He or she has a clear responsibility in the area of housing problem. There is a clear responsibility of the mayor to provide capacity on social housing and accommodation for the homeless.

Article 23 of the Constitution, which presupposes the right to residence as a principle, must be concretized, which is primarily a competence of the local level.

The present bill is a link in a broader chain approach, with measures to be taken in the fight against vacancy and in the struggle for accommodation opportunities for homeless people through, among other things, the OCMW.

Ladies and gentlemen, it must be said. For 11 years, I have experienced a cracking policy around crackers in my city. If this majority, if this Parliament succeeds in making a law to tackle cracks, then the mayor of Gent says that law is not strict enough.

I wonder what the mayor’s group is doing in this Parliament. What does the SP really want when it comes to cracking? This is still not clear to me. We have had a lot of debates in the committee, we have had a second reading, but what the sp.a wants to start with this problem is not clear to me.

Mrs. Temmerman, I look forward to hearing your insights immediately.

( ... )

This is not the issue, Mr. Calvo. I am not a list tracker in Gent.

For la petite histoire, a question to the colleagues of the sp.a and also the PS. If this is a serious problem, especially in Ghent, why have you not taken responsibility for the past 20 to 25 years? Why have you blocked all the proposals of our predecessors here? This is a very specific question to the SP. I hope you will have an answer to this later.

The last fact in this matter is that the mayor of Ghent wants the prosecutor to make a ruling within twelve hours. Apart from the legal issue, I think this goes beyond what is practically feasible.

I have to try to understand the opposition.

On the one hand, the opposition complains – in the committee this was extensively painted – that we provide the prosecutors with an additional workload with the present proposal, but on the other hand, such cases should be resolved within twelve hours. In the committee it was said that this is not a priority for the prosecutors and that was acclaimed. The mayor of Ghent, however, believes that it should be a top priority, as he believes that crackers should be gone within twelve hours. My colleagues, I can’t follow you anymore.

In case of a crash in an uninhabited building, several determinations must be made. I think twelve hours for such verification is not enough. I don’t want to act too much in the field of justice, but 12 hours is, in my opinion, a much too narrow deadline for prosecutors. For this reason, of course with respect for the concerns of, among other things, associations of the poor, we have provided for a maximum period of eight days. However, this does not mean that the prosecutor, in obvious cases, must wait eight days to formulate and issue an order for expulsion.

I have the impression that the city administration of Ghent is now facing action, but the blame for the years of policy in Ghent wants to shift to the current majority in Parliament.

We have prepared a proposal with reasonable deadlines. It takes into account, on the one hand, the constitutional right to housing and, on the other hand, the right of ownership.

Mr Yüksel, before you cut that part, Mr Thiébaut wishes to interrupt you.

I think these discussions become a kind of mini Ganto municipal council. Let’s try not to talk too much about Gates. There are many Gentiles here—is it not, Mr. President? The mayor of Gand has been evoked and criticized several times. Without sitting here, he cannot defend himself. I think you should change terrain and stay at the federal level.

I expected substantial arguments from the PS, but I did not get them. Gent is the most beautiful city of Flanders and the third city of Flanders.

Dear colleague, Gand is a very beautiful city, where I like to go a lot, and which is very well managed.

Mr. Calvo, I do not want to overdo the debate in the municipal council, but the whispering and ping pong of the mayor also have a lot to do with the attitude of your party in the municipal council of Ghent and the majority.

The [...]

Either you ask for the word for an interruption, or Mr Yüksel speaks.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. With this bill, we try to provide an answer to a real problem, in which, on the one hand, we enforce the right of ownership and strictly and systematically deal with housing disputes and crashes, and on the other hand also respect the right to housing. I hope that a large majority will vote in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I would like to start by thanking all those who have contributed constructively to the debate in the committee and for the fact that we are here today in the plenary session for the vote of this bill, on which a lot of ink has flowed for several years and on which a lot of words have been devoted. That starts with the cabinet of the minister, the minister himself and the colleagues of the majority, but also those in the opposition who have constructively given their arguments, each from their own ideological point of view.

You are right, Mr. Thiébaut, if you say that we should not overcome the municipal council of Ghent here, but the reason for the whole discussion was a call from the mayor of Ghent. In other cities, this problem also occurs, and there are also discussions about cracking long empty buildings. However, the situation in Ghent in recent years has been special and has given rise to a new legislative initiative, in particular the occupation of sometimes genuinely inhabited properties to very recently released empty properties or not so long empty properties. This is something that does not appear to happen in the rest of the country.

Furthermore, we are faced with the fact that, unlike in other areas, the police of Ghent strictly interpret the law, in that sense that once crackers entered a building and it could not be established on fact that it was breached – the locks were changed and the crackers installed – the police soon after said they could not intervene because it would be a breach of home peace. This is where the role of the police stops.

What we are now doing is responding to the call of the mayor of Ghent, who himself said that he could do nothing and that the federal government should give him a law that criminalises cracking. The first initiatives were then taken by the current first ships of the city of Ghent, Mathias De Clercq. He had already submitted a bill in the previous legislature. Our group has submitted it again. Meanwhile, colleague Veli Yüksel also had a proposal, as did members of other parties.

So there was a growing level of support to really get started and make it clear that there can be no discussion about inhabited properties. If one withdraws an inhabited property, and whether or not it is established on the fact, then it is evident that the police must immediately intervene and be able to pick up and take the crackers. There is actually no discussion about that. At the time, there were few parties in the Justice Committee who questioned this. Of course, I have heard of no one on the Flemish side questioning that.

An ideally charged debate concerns uninhabited properties. I have full respect for those who do not share our views, but I would like to be consistent. I will not say that the SPA in the committee has not remained consistent, but for me it has failed outside the committee for justice. My anger comes from there.

There was a perfectly valid ideological debate in the Justice Committee. When it comes to cracks, there are several fundamental rights. You will understand that for me as a liberal the right to property is an important principle, but there are other fundamental rights as well. We know that our constitution also includes the right to housing. The ECHR also recommends that. Another fundamental right is the right to access to justice. This cannot be avoided, as it is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.

We have gradually sought a just balance between the various fundamental rights that matter in a sound debate in the Committee on Justice. The principle of property right is now being respected by making all forms of cracking criminal. However, entering an inhabited home and settling in the living room is something different than entering a long-emptied industrial building, necessarily, because one has no roof over the head. These are other situations. Of course, we will not be as strict. If we mean something with this law, then of course it is aimed at homes that have recently been released and not on homes where owners themselves go wrong and blindly allow things to avoid vacancy taxes.

Just to make this nuance possible, the law also applies a nuance in the punishment. The penal penalty is from the beginning lower in the case of an empty building, but if the prosecutor, after a complaint from the person who has the right or title to use the property, orders to leave and it is placed next to him, then the police should also be able to act. We respect a period in which one can go to court, so that we also comply with the ECHR. I think we have found a fair balance between the different fundamental rights.

I am also convinced, in spite of what the mayor of Ghent says, that if one goes on our law will be destroyed by the Constitutional Court. Where are we standing? Then we have made a law to provide a solution, which will eventually be destroyed. It makes no sense. If one makes a law that is in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, which does not provide for access to justice for uninhabited properties – in this case there is less urgency – then I think that one will not be able to answer before the Constitutional Court.

I would like to mention the situation in the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, the law has been amended three times regarding the punishment of crackers. Even there, procedures have been conducted until the bitter end of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Supreme Court ruled that there should be a minimum of seven days if there is no urgency. In an inhabited property there is urgency, but in an uninhabited property less. If this period is not provided, the law is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. I would like and I find the right of ownership as a liberal, of course, super important, but I will not pass laws that are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. If a socialist wants to advocate for it, do not let me, but I will not do that as a liberal.

That being said, I think we found a good balance. We also work on two levels, namely the criminal level which I think is orderly and well-connected, and the civil procedure, which is strengthened without affecting the existing procedures. Mr. Van Hecke has said several times in the committee, including from his previous experience as a lawyer, that the current procedures already offer a lot of possibilities, such as short-term proceedings. That goes smoothly with some judges in Gent, for example, but this is not the case everywhere. We allow these procedures to exist, we do nothing about it. We will only strengthen the new segment of the criminal loop and the situation of the shorter procedure at the peace judge.

An important benefit point for the citizen facing this situation as a victim is that he now has the choice between a civil trial with a lawyer he has to engage and costs he has to pay, and simply submit a complaint to the police. This is a fundamental difference from the current situation. What the mayor of Gent said about this, I find it actually disturbingly populist.

He said that stakeholders will still have to conduct an outwitiszetting procedure, but that is not correct. You can only file a complaint with the police. The prosecutor must in principle do his job. I also understood from the advice of the College of Attorneys-General that they are not very enthusiastic about spending time and energy on it. But I think this shit is a big priority, especially in the regions where the problem arises. Therefore, a complaint can be filed. Then the prosecutor and the police go to work. That is a huge difference.

The logic is also reversed. It is no longer the victim who must go to court, but the crackers of an uninhabited property who must go to court to prove that they had a reason to be there; they must therefore justify their behavior. That is a very different logic and a sharp improvement in the victim’s position compared to today.

I regret somewhat the following. I admit that in the last days I have been punished in my criticism of the mayor of Gent, but you will forgive me that. We held a solid debate here in Parliament in the committee, with the different fundamental rights side by side. Gradually, together with the opposition, we achieved a catharsis with regard to the inhabited land; on this we were largely agreed. With regard to the uninhabited properties, we will not agree for ideological reasons.

And then we read that the mayor, who was the petitioning party for this law, declares in the press that this attracts nothing, that he can do nothing with it, that he will do nothing with it. Sorry, but then I just get angry. That’s a bit of populism that I’ve rarely seen. He gets his taste and then he explains something like that in the press. I think that is actually a middle finger for this Parliament. This is an unworthy mayor.

I hope that the debate can continue well. You will understand that my group, together with the majority parties, with whom we have discussed well together, as well as with the minister and his cabinet, by the way, with whom we have drafted a good text, will fully support this text.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the problem of the breaking of houses has kept us blocked for a year. It is, therefore, a case in which, on the one hand, the right of ownership of legitimate owners must be carefully balanced against, on the other hand, the right to dwelling often unlawfully acquired, as well as the violation of the privacy of the family home.

Beyond party boundaries, there has long been a consensus to do something about some very serious cases where people illegally enter someone’s home. In addition, these intruders continue to occupy the house and thus crack. This was and remains unacceptable for SP.

Earlier this year, and until recently, you, Minister Geens, and a number of colleagues-parliamentarians let you know that mayors, judges and police services on inhabited properties with the current legislation already have sufficient legislative resources to intervene quickly and efficiently in cases of crashes. Subsequently, with the majority, several attempts have been made to intensify the punishment and addressing the cracking of inhabited properties. This is therefore somewhat contrary to the previous report that the legislation in force at the time was sufficient.

Furthermore, some majority parties have agreed that the cracking of speculatively empty craters and long empty factory squads or abandoned schools should also be included in the new legislation. I think this is a bridge too far. I will explain it later.

First, I want to talk about the cracking of inhabited land. The cases facing in particular the parquets of the Gent region showed that the interpretation of existing legislation indeed left much to be desired. The mayor of Ghent was, through the existing uithuiszetting procedures, due to the fact that it could only be acted in the case of the punishment of the crime, for persons who had already stayed in the residence, always bound by strict objections and decision-making deadlines, which run eight days and sometimes even much longer.

Most often one was also dealing with the not so unambiguous interpretation of what is actually a residence and how wide one can go with the term “trap on heteract”.

When we discussed the definition of a home in the Justice Committee quite extensively, we quickly stumbled upon a grey zone. How do we have to name a property that is empty between two rental contracts? What about a home that is empty for a while because the owners are planning to renovate it in the future, or what about an apartment that is empty and officially not inhabited by the owners, because they are staying abroad for a longer period? The sp.a had a proposal that would also include the empty housing that will be renovated, rented or used by their owners in a definition. The fact that it was a residential property could easily be proven by rental contracts and construction requests. Subsequently, we again encountered other specific situations where the residence could not be demonstrated with evidence. For example, think of a family member who, without a contract and without a lot of furniture, with the agreement of the long-term overseas owners, uses an apartment as a student shutdown, or of malafide figures who open an empty home, then draw up a fake rental contract for it and finally falsified freely lease the property to partly naive, partly due to a lack of accommodation desperate families. They then think that they rent the property lawfully, while in fact they are the victim of less bonafide members.

There was also a false discussion in the committee, because the majority submitted a text that was shot down by the State Council. This had to do with the legal deadlines within which one can object when a home is cracked. As a result, the vote on the majority text was always moved on the committee’s agenda. Just before the recession, some attempted to shift the black pit for the untimely approval to the opposition.

Colleagues, in the reports you can check that sp.a has all – I emphasize that word – approved provisions on the cracking of inhabited properties. Let there be no doubt about this. By the way, we also approved all amendments that provide for OCMW mediation for persons receiving an uithuiszettings order, because they mean an improvement of what existed before and of the original texts.

Important in the text we discuss today is the rewritten article 439 of the Criminal Code. From now on, it will be punishable not only for entering the dwelling, but also for occupying it and staying in it without the permission of the owner.

The difficult definition of the term “residence” is solved through the sufficiently broad definition of the term in Article 439 of the Criminal Code. As an inhabited house is considered: any building, apartment, residence, pond, and any even portable cabin or any other occasion that serves as housing.

The conclusion is that the police can act when crackers are already present in a cracked home, just as they can act in the case of the third act. The communication that the property serves as a home offers a ⁇ broad fulfillment. Police can act in the same manner and within the same time limits as at the time of the arrest.

I would like to reiterate, colleagues, that we of the SPD can ⁇ agree with the proposal on residential properties. We approved the articles in the committee.

At the final vote, however, we will abstain, because we cannot find ourselves in the far too broad view of the majority on uninhabited land. Why should the occupation and inhabitation of long-standing empty houses and long-standing empty factory buildings and schools also be punished? We do not want to go so far.

First, Mrs. Lambrecht, I am pleased that you approve the criminalization of inhabited properties. You think that part is a very good part of the law, I suppose. With that, you go a lot against the mayor of Ghent, Daniël Termont, who claims that he can do nothing with that provision of the law. Do you think that part of the law is good? Who is right, Mrs. Lambrecht or Mr. Termont?

Secondly, as regards long-term vacant properties, if I understand you well, you would like to distinguish between long-term vacant properties which are temporarily vacant for, among other things, renting and renovating, and, on the other hand, long-term vacant properties that are truly long-term vacant. This distinction must be made on the basis of contracts and the like. by whom ? A judge of course.

What you create with such a system is actually a lottery for a cracker.

It consists that the cracker is encouraged to crack a home, after which it will be checked whether the property in question is long-term empty for speculation, or empty in anticipation of renovation or from a tenant. In fact, you are inviting the crackers with it. This brings us back to the problem we have identified for years in Gent, especially a mayor who says he can and can do nothing against crackers and crackers so welcome and invites them to come to Gent as the place to be.

The majority wants to end this situation. Therefore, we say very strictly that one must stay away from the convenience of others. It is not up to the cracker to distinguish between long-term speculative empty buildings and other empty buildings. That distinction must be made by policy, a policy that addresses vacuum.

At the local level, all means are available to tackle vacancy. You just have to want to do it.

Mr. Dedecker, I thank you for your interruption, but in life it is never good to take the word too early. I want to continue my speech first. You’ll see that you get a lot of answers, which will show that we ⁇ don’t let the cracker determine what can and what shouldn’t. In addition, I will conclude with an undoubtedly long-awaited consideration of Mr. Termont, so that you will surely listen to the end.

Now, after my discussion on the inhabited mansions, I come to my comments on the uninhabited mansions. Why should we also punish the occupation and inhabitation of crumbled and long-standing empty houses, factory buildings and schools?

We are not going so far. As you have cited, there is a much broader problem here, such as housing need, speculation and a human or non-human and visionary municipal policy on vacancy, crumbling and housing.

It is ⁇ not always unethical or inappropriate to appeal certain policy choices through the cracking of such types of houses. What about corporate occupations in trade union actions, where employees occupy a company and spend the night there, because they are afraid and want to avoid management taking away machines and moving to other establishments? Such a practice also belongs home to this series.

The majority has slightly mitigated the approach of occupying uninhabited properties, because it is not considered a priority. This immediately raises the question of whether the cracking of uninhabited properties should be criminalized at all.

For example, in such a case, a case is only brought to the prosecutor when a criminal charge is filed. Thus, the possibility of submitting an objection by the illegitimate resident is guaranteed until the seventh day after the establishment and the expulsion can only start from the eighth day, a period that can even be up to one month.

We believe that the approach to housing in empty factory buildings and deliberately demolished homes should be addressed in a different way and structurally. Such discussions must take place in other forums, namely in the regional parliaments and in the municipal councils, as, I know, has happened in Gent in recent times. The outline of a social policy, a vacancy and demise tax, municipal development companies, initiatives for homeless people and much more are included.

Finally, colleagues, regarding the time limits to be followed, when someone is notified of expulsion or exile and he or she unlawfully enters and occupies a home without the permission of the owner, there are still a lot of uncertainties at this time. What happens, for example, when the parties are not only formally but also physically opposed? What scenarios are envisaged for this? What happens when people are detained for 24 hours, then return to the uninhabited property and crack it again? What do we do with the ruling of the prosecutors-general, who have stated that they will not give priority at all to dealing with crackers?

The city of Ghent has already devoted a serious debate to the issue at the municipal level. I would like to speak with Mr Thiébaut, who is not present for a moment. We’re talking about Gent, but we’re at the federal level. We talk for everyone. Let it be clear.

The conclusion at Ghent was that an action plan on cracking would be drawn up. It’s good that Gent will be more concerned with the issue. However, now that the whole discussion here in the House after tonight is temporarily over and it will be recorded that the law will be reviewed in two years, I would like to conclude constructively with two very simple questions.

I can’t imagine you won’t want to answer my questions.

Due to the discussions over all the uncertainties, the SPA asks for a clear letter to the police and the prosecutors with a clear, step-by-step guide on how owners, residents, mayors, police officers, judges and court officers can act in cases where people illegally enter, enter and dwell in uninhabited properties.

That is a first question.

The second question is also very reasonable. It is now provided for an evaluation after two years, but actually sp.a would want to check after one year whether or not it is right with that law. We hope it goes well. We already have a very large part of confidence in it, because we go along in the whole part over the inhabited properties.

To please you, I would also like to say something about our Gentese colleague Termont. The concerns that Mr. Termont has continually expressed are not concerns of him alone. They point out the many uncertainties that exist here today for us. The current new law addresses these uncertainties, at least for inhabited properties. To get rid of the uncertainties, we ask that there be a very clear turnover bite. I repeat that we also request an evaluation after one year. It is very clear that the federal government has a major role to play in this regard in providing the local authorities with a good tool to act.

Mrs Lambrecht, thank you for your additional explanation. Forgive me, but in Ghent it was often referred to the Chamber and the city administration of Ghent has also asked many questions to the Chamber. It is therefore normal for Gent to be mentioned here.

It may be difficult for the SP in the opposition. In the previous legislature, I was in the opposition. Faced with proposals that we largely supported in terms of content, but in which we encountered a number of problems in the elaboration, we submitted amendments to improve the text. Today I hear from you that you substantially and principally support the approach regarding the inhabited properties, and Mr. Termont as well. Mr. Termont calls for additional measures. I would then expect that the sp.a. group would call Mr. Termont to submit amendments, to improve the part of the law that should give the mayor more powers, as your mayor asks. I wonder what happened, where there is noise on the line, where the long-awaited sp.a-amendment of Mr. Termont remains in the Chamber.

First of all, I would like the name of my mayor to be correctly pronounced. It is Mr. Termont, with the emphasis on the first letter.

Mrs. Lambrecht, Mr. Termont stated on the radio on Tuesday that he does not find the arrangement on uninhabited properties and the eight-day deadline. He said he would formulate proposals to the attention of the sp.a. group. I have been waiting for an amendment in this regard for a long time. Are you, as Mr Termont asks, in favour of reducing the deadline to twelve hours?

Mrs. Lambrecht, you just said that a political choice is being made in Gent. This is, of course, possible, also at the local level, but if cracking becomes a crime later, how will you fill that locally with a political choice?

Mrs. Lambrecht, I appreciate that you continue to uphold your right line in this committee. This is slightly different from what your party colleague in Gent has said.

If you now say constructively that this law should get a chance, and if you ask for an evaluation, then I just want to call you to ask everyone in your periphery to give this a chance and stop that disruption policy in the press.

Mr. Dedecker, you say that we have done nothing, but on 27 March we already submitted a bill on dealing with inhabited properties, so that not only the entry but also the stay in them.

I am not just here today either. I concluded with two simple questions that can help us a lot to move forward constructively, as Mr. Lachaert says. We ask for a clear message to avoid any uncertainty that exists now, and sometimes leads to annoying statements, in the future.

We also request an evaluation after one year. I think this is reasonable.

Mr. Yüksel, I do not like it, but I will say it anyway. I’m not here for a long time, everyone stands here on their point of view, but you’re always so bitter. I wonder if it is necessary to always be so bitter. Your first sentence is always so unfriendly. You can continue to do that, but I don’t think you ⁇ much with it.

You asked if we want to give mayors more powers. What we want, we have just said. You can read it, just like everyone else.

Colleague Lambrecht, I will speak to you with the broadest smile. I just asked you a very concrete question. Your mayor, my mayor, said on Tuesday that those twelve hours must come, that those eight hours are unworkable for him. Where is your amendment? That is my question.

And my answer is, I repeat it, the sp.a. faction does what I just said here. Thanks to these two questions in the end, we hope to reduce uncertainty in the future. If problems persist and if great uncertainties persist, then new questions follow from us. You can now ask again where what is and then I will answer that there is nothing, and so we can, it is now 18:55, continue another hour. I think, in all kindness, Mr. Yüksel, that my answer is clear. I have nothing more to add to this.

I like this debate. I will also be kind. I also never tend to be unfriendly. That is not my style.

Colleague Lambrecht, I understand that you have not been made easy. I realize this very well. Therefore, I addressed it subsequently in terms of content. In fact, I see a huge contradiction. Your explanation did not take away my questions. You confirm it, and I am very pleased about it, with regard to inhabited land. You also had a proposal. However, you should be well aware that in Gent something very different is claimed, rebuked and thrown into the press. Maybe you can take it to the city of Gent. I find this very important for your work in the committee, where you have followed a consistent line, where you have made a proposal. Your proposal has also been partly adopted in our own. It is then apparently always shot down as insufficient, useless and too soft. This is not fair, because you can do nothing about it. That is not your responsibility. You could take it to Gent.

You are now talking about a transcript and an evaluation. I have no problem, on one condition. Provided that it is not a new umbrella for your party mate to do nothing and say he can do nothing. He called a helpline, asked for federal legislation. We offer them. He must therefore grasp them with hands and feet, as well as his police services, and do something about it. If there are uncertainties, we will be the first to update. I totally agree with this.

Your question, a legitimate question, however, should not be a new umbrella and not a new excuse to do nothing. I hope you take that. It is not meant for you personally, because I understand that it hasn’t been made easy for you in the last few days.

The end of the two questions was very constructive.

This is a very interesting and special debate. Mr Thiébaut just noted that the network is like we are sitting here in the Gent city council. For all clarity, I am not in it. I do not live in Gent, but I can reassure Mr Thiébaut: the inspiration is mutual. Last week in the municipal council of Ghent was transferred the debate of the committee for justice. I will not exaggerate the debate, but I will try to express our position very clearly.

There has been a lot of talk about the rights in question when talking about this file. It is then classically spoken about the contradiction between the right of ownership, which, of course, is applied primarily by the liberals, which does not mean that it is not important for us, and the right to live, protected by the Constitution, but in fact there are other rights. At that time, the right to access to a court was cited. Another right is the protection of the family home. This debate must be addressed with the right to the protection of the family home, the right of ownership and the right to live. These rights should be considered when discussions occur. Sometimes, unfortunately, they can come into conflict with each other. We should ensure, by conducting a very good policy, that we see as few conflicts as possible between those fundamental rights.

Our group has always advocated a nuanced approach during the hearing in the Justice Committee, which does not mean that everything can be done. Those who have followed the debate know that it is essential for us to distinguish between inhabited land and uninhabited, abandoned land. Thus, I come to a position that is quite clear to us. Mrs. De White has said that it is a difficult debate, due to the terminology, the legal angels and the legal problem.

I will try to make our position clear. I have had to do that a lot in the last few days and weeks, and that’s going to happen if you take the time for it. This cannot be done on Twitter. In 140 characters, it’s a bit difficult. It takes a little more time, because there are also nuances.

I would like to highlight four elements. First, entering and occupying an inhabited house, of course, can’t. Everyone has acknowledged that, beyond the boundaries of majority and opposition, most of all. It is clear: that is not possible. The Criminal Code did not allow them to intervene. However, some people say that sometimes something more is possible. We have to admit, however, that the law was not so clear. If one looked closely at Article 439 there was indeed a problem. With the amendment that is now being proposed, it will not only penalize entering the city on the grounds of a crime, but also if one is inside to stay there against the will of the inhabitant. Therefore, the resident is not always the owner, as this also applies to protecting the tenant. This is about the protection of the family home. There is no conflict between property and right of residence. It’s not just the owner who can play a role here, it’s also about the one who rents, who stays there temporarily, rents a cock as a student and so on.

By the way, to get into the terminology, I have also always said in the committee: when it comes to entering inhabited properties, it is not about cracking. I will never talk about crackers. Cracking is entering and holding occupied an uninhabited property. In the first part of the law, where we are talking about inhabited properties, it is about penetrating and not about cracking. We need to clarify this distinction. There is a talk about “the law of cracks”, while one part is about cracks and the criminalization of cracks – I will talk about it later – but another part is about the protection of the family home and a better protection of those who live there.

The implementation of this law on the ground will be challenging. In all seriousness, when that law is now in place and one will have to apply it on the ground, it is very important that the mayor as chief of the administrative police, the chief of the corps and the prosecutor of the King make good arrangements to ensure that the inhabited properties in case of occupation can be quickly liberated. I emphasize that. It is essential that there is a good cooperation between the police, the mayor and the prosecutor’s office. If one acts on the fourth act, so the police enter and use the amended article 439, and the prosecutor then a few hours later finds it not necessary that someone be arrested or deprived of his liberty, something that one will do to be able to free the property, then one receives opposite signals and one goes the blame back into the shoes of the other.

A good cooperation in the field is therefore essential. Why Why ? Because there are some obvious things. Examples were cited: someone who is temporarily traveling, for a few weeks or a little longer, someone who is staying in a hospital. In Ghent, we also had the case of four Portuguese workers who work here and who in January went back to their families for several weeks after working here for months. They were tenants, not owners. When they returned, they found their estate occupied back. At that time, the police were powerless and could not intervene. There was also a legal mistake at the time, which took a long time before they were able to re-engage their apartment. It was in a state that I would not wish for anyone. These are scary conditions that are unacceptable. We cannot tolerate this. Therefore, we support and have always supported this part of the bill.

The challenge also lies in being able to quickly and correctly determine whether the home is inhabited or not. This is an important criterion. If a police officer says that he wants to establish and act there, then he will have to be sure that it is effectively an inhabited property. That is probably what one could blame the law in the first instance. The law does not say what is inhabited or uninhabited. That definition does not exist. I also understand that this is not obvious because in other legislation, including in regional legislation of the regions, there is regulation on vacancy. What is vacancy, what is not vacancy? What is Housing? It is important that one should check case by case whether there is an effective housing. The regional legislation that is different in this country may offer criteria for this. However, it can also be about the presence of a rental agreement. It may not be there either. Witnesses from neighbors can also help. The knowledge that neighborhood agents have can also be an element, but also the presence of furniture, certain clothes and personal items. These are all elements that can prove that the property was effectively inhabited by the person who claims to be the resident of the property.

Mr. Minister, we have not agreed on anything, but it might be advisable that the College of Attorneys-General issue a number of guidelines on that aspect to offer instruments. How will one act as a police service or parquet to judge quickly and efficiently in those very rare cases – let’s be clear – where it is about housing? That could be a help for many corpses, for mayors and for the parks that will face it.

The second element, the bill also deals with the classic cracking of unused, empty properties and aims to address this phenomenon in criminal law. It is not only a case of non-compliance with the order of the prosecutor, but a punishment pur sang. For us, that is a step too far.

Too often we see that properties are neglected by the owner for years. The owner does not sell or rent the property and leaves it leathered, often for speculative reasons. Later he can then sell the property at a higher price or realize a large project with it.

At the same time, if one finds that there is a large housing need in some regions and cities, and many people do not find a suitable or affordable housing, then this is of course a shaking situation. The cracking of such unused properties is then often a form of social or political action against a faulty housing policy or the speculation policy of certain real estate companies.

Should a cracker who involves such a property be prosecuted criminally? This is not possible for our group. This goes too far. In the end, you will meet people who do not have a roof over their heads and are unconscious. For this reason, we did not support this section of the bill in the committee. We will not do this today either.

Third element, the new procedure is intended to release an unused, uninhabited property. The owner can therefore file a complaint with the police or the prosecutor, who can then order the residents to leave the cracked property. If they do not do so in time, they may be prosecuted for this.

I am afraid that this new procedure will not or will not work properly in practice. I see two reasons for this.

First, the procedure, taking into account the various steps that must be undertaken, can easily take a month.

Today, there are already procedures to recover a property. For example, the media recently saw that an empty hotel in Brussels could be released fairly quickly, by a claim filed before the court in Brussels on 13 September, with an order on 18 September, five days later. This is much faster than the new procedure provided for in the present text. So it will not always be an improvement, it will not always go faster. Nowadays there are procedures that can be done much faster.

In my past as a lawyer I have often acted against crackers. I admit that. When you work at a desk, you sometimes get into certain things. Sometimes this was very efficient, if one had a good file, for example, if someone said that he needed the property and it needed to be liberated, through a one-sided petition, or if the identity became known, through a summons with shortened deadlines. One could often very quickly obtain a title on the basis of which one could proceed to the expulsion. This applies to uninhabited buildings.

I fear, therefore, that the procedure which is now provided ... It is now referred to the peace judge, who is naturally more competent to decide on housing disputes, rental disputes, everything that has to do with housing. However, it will not always go faster than it is today, but one will get a judgment on the ground.

There is a second reason why I think the new procedure will not be such a major improvement, namely because the prosecutor is of course not obliged, when a complaint is filed, to issue an order to leave the premises. We have seen the opinion of the College of Attorneys-General, which states that the case for the prosecutors is not always a priority. In other words, as far as the approach to cracking uninhabited properties is concerned, when complaints come in, not all parks will immediately take action, because they do not see it as a priority. The owner will then have to recur to the other, already existing procedure or the new procedure; hence it will not always be a step forward.

Fourth, this law, for or against it, with all its advantages and disadvantages, will not resolve the housing need that prevails in many cities. I hope that anyone who claims that cracking is a shame and that cracking should be punished will be equally fervent in support of a pervasive housing policy. A policy that ensures that in our cities there are no more families on the dool because they find no place on the local rental market.

This also means advocating policies that address the structural underfinancing of social housing. I know that this is not the competence of the federal government. Regions are responsible for this. From those here today who advocate a harsh approach to crack, I expect that he will lead the debate in the other parliaments and contribute to making much more resources go to social housing. The waiting rows are huge. As long as that problem is so gigantic, there will, of course, be a heavy pressure on certain cities. Without additional investments in new social housing, we will not be able to address the housing problem. For example, raising subsistence minimums and a real poverty policy at federal and regional levels can help fight poverty and make the search for affordable housing easier for those in a precarious situation.

Colleagues, in order to make it clear that we support part of this bill, which is the loophole on the occupation of inhabited properties, but another part not, in particular the criminal approach to the cracking of uninhabited and abandoned properties, we will ask for a split vote. Specifically, our group leaders will ask for a separate vote on Articles 2 and 3 of the bill. We find it important that in these two articles, which very clearly distinguish between inhabited and uninhabited properties, we can clearly indicate that we are in favor of a stricter action in the occupation of inhabited properties but opponents when it comes to uninhabited properties.

Mr. Speaker, please take my request into consideration in the voting later.

That will happen, Mr. Van Hecke.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague Mr. Van Hecke intervened on the content, in a relatively technical way. Personally, I will go directly to the essence of the positioning of the Ecolo-Groen Group and its various components. I note, as my colleague did, that this bill contains two problems, which the majority, unfortunately, combines. We think it combines them to create confusion and exploit the emotion of the population, either in one direction or the other.

This proposal contains, in its Article 3, provisions relating to what is actually called squat, that is, the occupation of buildings that are abandoned, unoccupied. Often, of course, these are goods used to speculate. They are left to abandon in the hope that their value will increase. When one hopes to get the most out of it, one wants to dispose of it immediately.

Penalizing people who occupy an abandoned building, and thus engage in squat, is completely unacceptable for our political group. This is unacceptable because there is a question of the right to housing, because this occupation does not bother anyone and allows people who, besides this, do not have access to a roof, housing, to use empty spaces.

We find that, in all major cities and in different regions, this practice is used to bring temporary solutions, of course, to the most disadvantaged people. We also find – practice demonstrates it – that the use of these buildings, the occupation of these squats, also allows to have neighborhood dynamics, to carry out social policies there, to ensure that people have access to social assistance, because we know that these people are there and that we can find them there. We observe positive policies and initiative from local authorities to use this technique and thus conduct social policies, access to housing and fight against poverty.

For all these reasons, we will vote against the article of the law that allows the penalization of the occupation of abandoned buildings. Furthermore, Mr. Minister, I would like to ask you to speak on these provisions concerning squat, in order to ensure that at no time will the federal provisions here envisaged affect the regional, local, municipal policies concerning the protection of squatters, the conventions that allow the occupation of the property, to negotiate this occupation with the owner and to negotiate how the occupants will one day or another have to move and return the property to the owner for future use.

I think it is important to say this here too.

The ambiguity of this bill is that it also takes up a provision for the protection of the inhabitant of a home who, because he has absented for various reasons (work abroad, hospitalization, vacation), finds himself with intruders who occupy his home. There, we are facing people whose right to housing has been violated and it is obviously necessary to provide them with a solution to enable them to quickly recover their housing.

We have supported this provision that allows to intervene quickly and to establish the flagrant crime of the occupation of the good of others. In addition, this device allows to resort to the intervention of a judge in the event of a problem of legitimacy with regard to the real occupant of the property.

I agree with the demands expressed by my colleague Van Hecke on the necessity – although it is impossible to strictly define what is inhabited housing – to take into account certain elements. In addition to the "domicile" itself, evidence of the neighborhood or the presence of property belonging to the usual occupant must be taken into account. It will especially be necessary to avoid abuses and to use the term "habited housing" to resort to the penalization of occupation, while the targeted form is, ultimately, a squat since the housing is uninhabited.

Mr. Minister, it is important to make an effort to describe the different elements that can be taken into account. They will also help protect victims of sleep merchants, which allow them to occupy homes already occupied by others.

In our view, it is important that you can take the initiative with the Attorneys General to recommend local authorities, mayors, bodies heads, prosecutors, according to their reality, to determine together how to identify an inhabited housing, the procedure to follow when a resident complains that he can no longer enter his home because his house is occupied. Depending on the simple or complicated situation on the spot, how to intervene? How does the policeman enter or not, because there is another need for intervention?

If good practices are developed by area or community, the way to proceed can not only be clear to the different stakeholders but also respectful to the different people.

Therefore, here is, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, our position with respect to this article 2 of the provisions relating to the housing inhabited.

We also took care to integrate an assessment approach in the work carried out in the committee. The consequences of the application of these provisions will have to be analyzed and any adverse effects observed will have to be corrected. The legislator often tends to make decisions without subsequently checking whether they are met and meet expectations. This provision introduced by Ecolo-Groen was accepted by the Commission.

After explaining our position on these two provisions, you will understand why, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we are asking for two separate votes.

These are two different realities, two different policies: squat and the protection of the owner or tenant whose home is occupied as a result of a period of absence. It is extremely difficult to understand why these two provisions have been brought together in the same text. The fact of mixing them raises people against each other, creates confusion. This prevents the citizen from being properly informed about what will be adopted.

Because we do not want to enter this game that allows confusion and stigmatization, because we have obtained a method of evaluating the texts, because we want to respect the right to housing for those who do not have access, who do not have a roof, while others speculate from empty buildings, because we want to respect the right to housing of both tenants and owners who are violated in the occupation of their property and because we want to be honest with citizens who are in these different situations, we will abstain at the final vote.

However, since we are asking for separate votes and you are at risk of rejecting this request, we are also submitting two amendments. These aim to remove articles relating to the penalization of squat, that is, the occupation of empty, abandoned buildings. Because you could also reject these amendments and given the confusion, the amalgam around this single text, two members of our group will vote against the final text in disapproval of the amalgames wished by the majority of this parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the bills that are submitted to us. First, I would like to remind you that the right to property is a fundamental right. This is a right that must be protected and, if necessary, strengthened. I would also like to remind you that, obviously, I can understand the emotion aroused by the squat that took place in Ghent and that I can also understand that the law is evolved so that it is more effective in relation to intolerable situations.

It is known that there are already procedures before the peace judge and that these procedures have been in part ineffective. In particular, the proposed bill aims to make these procedures before the peace judge more efficient and faster. We were delighted with this. This is the positive aspect of this law, but we also think that this law goes a bridge too far. It therefore organises a criminal type procedure for the expulsion of a squat from a building, even when that building is abandoned.

The very idea of a criminal incrimination of an abandoned building squat is not useful, especially since the owners of unoccupied buildings are not prosecuted, I recall, neither criminally nor administratively, while the law provides for it. This criminal incrimination is problematic, especially since we know today that very many houses remain unoccupied sometimes for years. In Brussels alone, there are now 15,000 empty houses while our fellow citizens sometimes have a foolish problem to accommodate themselves at decent prices and that the housing situation today, in particular in Brussels but also elsewhere, is ⁇ screaming.

It is also important to note that the occupation of squats through occupation conventions is sometimes organized to the satisfaction of all actors: public or private owners, homeless people, associations fighting poverty.

Of course, it is necessary to allow a owner to recover his property if the occupants do not voluntarily leave the place - at the first request or when his property is not abandoned. However, from the opinion of many experts - and we have cited a few of them: Royal Union of Peace Judges, the Council of the King's Prosecutors, Prof. Bernard (University of Saint Louis), Mr. Olivier Hamal, who sat on the banks of the MR and chairman of the National Syndicate of Owners – this proposal is not useful. In fact, criminal incrimination, they say, does not bring any added value. What is the purpose of the owners? It is practical, since they seek to recover their property and, eventually, to repair the damage that has been caused.

As I explained, the civil procedure before the peacemaker is already provided by the Judicial Code and allows the peacemaker to submit this request. It is now reinforced to increase its efficiency and make it faster. The goal could be achieved by this only provision, that is, the liberation of places. Criminal incrimination will add nothing to this situation, except to insist on the citizen that he will be reinvested in his rights more quickly – which everyone doubts.

The main task of the public prosecutor, dear colleagues, is not to intervene in the protection of property, while there is already the peace judge, who fulfils this task to the civilian and whose means for its accomplishment have been strengthened. The Royal Union of Peace Judges was also concerned. by Hamal. Ms. Özen recently read the article of La Libre Belgique in which she expressed herself.

The bill aims to give the public prosecution a function of protection of property, even though its mission of protection of minors in parental disputes before the family court has just been made optional, which was much more necessary.

The speed of execution through this criminal procedure will probably not be met given the labor burden of the prosecutors. This criterion of urgency can already be met by filing a request in an emergency or even in an extreme urgency. The action of the public prosecutor will therefore not present any added value in terms of judicial effectiveness. Furthermore, once the evacuation of the places is completed, will the prosecution actually prosecute persons before the correctional court on the basis of the new criminal incrimination? What will be the compensation of the owner? Should he submit a direct citation or return on the basis of a new petition before the peacekeeper, since the unilateral petition does not enable the question of damages to be settled? So many questions that remain unanswered.

In our opinion, this procedure will be more difficult, longer and ⁇ more expensive than the procedure already possible at the present time before the Peace Judge. It is also striking to recall that the State Council itself, in its opinion, asked the legislator to reflect on the opportunity to abandon this idea and I quote it: "It is recommended during the preparatory work to strictly balance the interests in question and to examine on this basis whether the intervention of the public prosecutor should be ⁇ ined. Civil judicial procedures exist, they have been improved and must be used for what they were created for: the civil law in which occupation without title or right is intertwined."

It is for this reason that our group will vote against this bill, as it did in the Justice Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, because many arguments have been given, especially by those who oppose this bill. by Mr. Germany has just put forward some very relevant arguments, which I largely agree with.

I would like to say first that in fact, a gas plant is created on the legal level, while there are fairly effective legal mechanisms, and even very effective if you want to use them correctly, in cases of real squats. As Mr. Mr. said very correctly. Squat is the case where an unoccupied property is penetrated and occupied, temporarily or for a longer period, by persons who have neither title nor right to settle in a building, regardless of its assignment.

I recall, and I am somewhat surprised that there is a controversy in this regard, that the mayors, by virtue of their power of administrative police, have broad means to prevent and end such situations. I am talking about experience. When I am informed by the police services of the occupation of a building in which there is indeed no activity, whatever it is, because it is an empty building, it is customary that I immediately take a police order that obliges the owner to take the physical measures aimed at prohibiting entry into the building, that is, simply to wall the accesses. This is a procedure that can be very quick, in particular if, on the basis of police reports, an irregular occupation is found – I will return to the importance of this finding – resulting in a risk, in particular of fire in the building.

However, it must be noted that, most of the time, people who occasionally come to occupy a building there develop heating means that pose a danger to safety: wood fire, oil lamp heating, gas candle, in short, all means that are in flagrant violation of the safety of persons and property. So, on the basis of a simple police finding, or even an investigation by an urban planning department, mayors are able to take measures that physically prevent the introduction into an occupied building.

The problem becomes a little more difficult on the legal level when there is a continuous occupation, that is, when people organize to stay there permanently. It is true that this creates a presumption of home in the head of these people. These cases correspond to behaviors due to organized groups, generally international movements – this is what is observed in the communes – which for purely ideological reasons, in the form of almost anarchist behaviors, decide to consider that it is necessary to challenge the very principle of private property and that it is necessary to systematically occupy all empty goods, regardless of its previous assignment – housing, office, etc. Thus they seek to challenge the right of ownership.

In this case, it is true that the police cannot intervene by authority to proceed with an expulsion even on the basis of a police order, because there is a presumption of domicile in the head of persons who occupy continuously and who organize themselves to occupy continuously the property. It is necessary to go before the peace judge, but I know few cases, or even none, where a peace judge would not have done right to the request of the owner of the property to proceed to the end of the occupation and order the expulsion. I confess that I do not very well see what is the added value of the mechanisms that are invented on the basis of the bill proposal.

Others have said it – there have been quite a few observations from both the peacekeepers and the College of General Prosecutors – we are accumulating criminal and civil proceedings, without determining in time which have priority over the others. This will create competition and ⁇ even risks of invalidity of certain procedures.

When property is assigned to housing and is occupied, it is obvious that one is in a completely different hypothesis and, there, the prosecutors generally give a criminal follow-up to this kind of forced occupation. However, it must be acknowledged that this is a rather exceptional situation.

But when it comes to an unoccupied property, if tomorrow the prosecutor’s office is to order a measure of prohibition to the property but that is not confirmed by the peace judge, in particular because there is a procedural defect in the procedure before the peace judge, one has gone in contradictions to determine who will have the last word – the King’s prosecutor or the peace judge. I do not see the interest of putting in competition civil and criminal proceedings for this kind of hypothesis.

In addition, the secretaries are forced to perform an unlikely job because, by person who occupies the property – they are often collectives – they will have to notify the CPAS of the domicile – good luck to know him when it comes to the people whose ideological habits I have described – or of the last known residence for the CPAS to propose a relocation plan. Can you imagine the work requested by the transplants of the peace judges? They have many other priorities. They will face occupations by 40 or 50 people, as happens in some buildings, and they will have to spend their time finding the home or residence of each of these illegal occupants in order to be able to write to the CPAS while the persons concerned do not want the help of the CPAS. Their approach is purely ideological and they go thus from good to good, across Europe to simply make an illegal occupation. As soon as they receive an order of expulsion, they will look elsewhere. And will we ask the secretaries of the peace judges to spend their time writing to the CPAS to notify that a procedure is pending before the peace judge? It is unlikely. Do we have anything else to do with our transplants, which are overloaded and inadequate staff?

A real gas factory was created for equally ideological reasons. Occupation without title or right of another’s property is unacceptable. No one disputes it. There were legal instruments. They were largely sufficient. This also implies that the mayors assume the administrative police powers that are assigned to them. A lot of people give up, for easy.

But, when you take a properly motivated police order with procedural guarantees, ... Certainly, there are some deadlines to observe, in particular calling the owner of the property. But the owner of the property is the first to tell you, “Just take the police stop.” If the owner of the property does not want to take the preventive measures aimed at prohibiting the intrusion into his property, you can order him authority to perform certain work. And, if you do not execute them within a certain period of time, you make them execute by your services and you recover the amounts of the expenses incurred by the municipality at the expense of the owner of the property.

I take an example. In my town, an empty well was regularly squatted. The owner was a public authority. Because of negligence or lack of political will, he refused to take preventive measures. I ordered, of course, after a number of police findings and the observance of a certain time, the demolition of the property. The building is being demolished to prevent the squat. It’s as simple as doing it when you want to take responsibility. It’s a matter of the mayor’s political will and ability to act.

We are charging the prosecutors with tasks that they will do little or little, very variably from one prosecutor’s office to another depending on their availability, and we are charging the peace courts with new tasks. Now, when the peace judges were truly seized of a flagrant situation, they were never late to take the necessary measures of justice. Therefore, I think that this bill has only a very random objective, not to say completely unsatisfactory from a legal point of view.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, it is obvious that I do not defend the possibility of creating a squat in an inhabited house, as it happened in Ghent.

But this particular case serves as a pretext for this bill, which constitutes a considerable extension of the existing anti-squat law. At PTB, we consider this proposal useless, ineffective and disproportionate, not to mention that it contains a potential attack on trade union rights.

The Royal Union of Peace Judges and Police finds the proposed law useless.

The squat of an inhabited building is already punishable under the current article 439 of the Criminal Code. As regards uninhabited buildings, Article 591 of the Judicial Code provides for the possibility for the owner to obtain the expulsion of the squatters through a civil procedure initiated before the peace judge or, in case of extreme urgency, before a judge of the court of first instance.

There are, therefore, serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed procedure. The majority invokes as an argument the slowness of existing procedures but is unable to replicate when it is noticed that the procedure provided by this new law will not be shorter.

The Attorney General’s College has also announced that this proposal would not be among its priorities.

This proposal constitutes a new extension of the power of the public prosecutor, which the State Council has repeatedly criticized, in the sense that the public prosecutor is not neutral.

The question is whether this proposal is proportionate. The Minister stated in a committee that the criminal judge would be heard only in the last resort. Why would such draconian measures be needed? Why not improve the current civil proceedings before the Peace Judge? Or carry out a re-evaluation of the conditions, so that the decision on the expulsion can be made in reference when it comes to an occupied building? On the contrary, what the majority really wants is to make squat criminally punishable.

This right-wing coalition wants to be able to expel vulnerable people from unoccupied buildings and lock them in our overcrowded prisons. It wants to be able to make reproachable the protests against expulsions or other faults in housing policy. She wants to be able to invoke this anti-squat law against trade union freedoms, for example in the case of occupation of factories, companies, occupation which would then be criminalized.

It is an attack against the most vulnerable of our society, against those for whom squatting is sometimes the only way to escape death by hypothermia, a new attack against those on whom this rich government continues to struggle!

Our country is facing a serious housing crisis. Regional governments refuse to build social housing while rents are unpaid for an increasing number of people. This antisocial government is unable to guarantee a roof for all and continues in this way to protect those who speculate on the back of the weakest.

For all these reasons, we will vote against this proposal.

It is not mandatory, because it is proposals, but I would like to give the Minister of Justice the word.

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that it is a majority bill, I will be careless in my comment, although my cabinet has actively participated in the preparation of the text and I myself in the discussions in the Justice Committee.

Let me give a few precisions. The President of the Court of First Instance in short-term proceedings remains, of course, fully competent. I do not see how we could reduce that power, Mr. Van Hecke.

I think the expansion of the crime of homelessness is a good thing for legal certainty. I am pleased that the Greens are willing to join.

I am pleased to hear that the mayor has so many police powers. We live in a country where everything is always the fault of another level. It has become a technique. Fortunately, we still have Europe, when there is nothing else that can help us.

As for the real cracking in the strict sense of the word, I think we have been careful. I dare to ask the opposition not to overuse the word disproportionate. If one knows that in the Netherlands the cracking by the prosecutor can be combated without a court order, to the extent that one even fears that that rule will not stand under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in the case-McCann, then I think that this bill has here found the right middle between the right to private property and the right to live: if the prosecutor's office gives an order to evacuate, there is always a appeal to the natural judge possible.

It is precisely that possibility that the European Court of Human Rights considers vital in cases like this, where, of course, the natural judge will have to balance between human rights, including the right of ownership and the right to dwell, and will have to make the right decision.

A lot of people were heard in the Justice Committee and I understood that the representative of the real estate association CIB in the Justice Committee welcomed the measure.

For the peacekeepers, I have the impression that they are fully recognised as natural judges, in which they will also and always, unlike the court in court in first instance, in judging on the merits, for the first time be able to use a clear procedure on unilateral petition.

I do not know what the exact problem is. One can, of course, differ in opinion and taste about how far it is going. However, cracking is a complaint crime, not an ordinary crime.

The order of the prosecutor can always be submitted to the peacekeeper within an eight-day period. The appeal to the peace judge has a suspensive effect. After that, the peace judge, when applying an exit setting, will still have to give a reasonable period.

In my opinion, the bill ⁇ ins the balance between many aspects.

As regards the occupations of companies and the rights of trade unions, I do not have the impression that the bill amends the common provisions in that area, namely Article 584 concerning the general competence of the court in court to terminate an occupation of an enterprise, and Article 591, 1°, concerning the competence of the peace judge to intervene in such matters.

These were some of the comments that I wanted to allow myself in the light of the legislative proposal presented by the majority.

Some members ask for a response.

Mr. Minister, thank you for your answers.

I have asked you, like colleague Gerkens, a very specific question, which you have not yet answered. The question is whether it would not be advisable for the College of Attorneys-General to issue some guidelines regarding the interpretation of an inhabited or uninhabited property, in order to avoid that this would give rise to discussions at the local level, as well as discussions between police and prosecutor's office or between prosecutors. We want to ensure that no abuse of the notion of inhabited or uninhabited can be made and we seek legal certainty. This is not included in the law, which I understand, for example, because it is very complex to establish it in a law. Nevertheless, I would like to ask whether it would not be advisable to make some guidelines or arrangements in this regard, with which one can take action on the ground.

Mr. Speaker, it may not be usual for me to speak again, but please allow me to do so anyway.

Mr. Van Hecke, it is indeed intended that the prosecutors-general of the Public Prosecutor’s Office draw up a directive on the whole of this regulation. I would like to answer one of Mrs. Lambrecht’s questions. I will ask the Attorney General to address this issue.

Mrs Lambrecht also asked me a question regarding the reduction of the evaluation procedure. Two years is actually very short. Therefore, I suggest that this evaluation period be ⁇ ined. The parket general sometimes does little more than writing guidelines. Otherwise, we are at risk of getting into a situation where we are almost evaluating the legislation even before the directive is fully ready. Therefore, we must take into account the work pressure of these people.

Mr. Minister, you are trying to answer the questions we have asked you. I would like you to reassess how these provisions could or could not affect regional and municipal competences and capabilities, with regard to the measures taken by these levels of power to encourage and develop the occupation of unoccupied and abandoned buildings, or to use them to provide temporary housing to homeless people.

I would rather not extend this discussion. I’d rather not go in either...

Yes, I know, but I would not like to insist on the rights and prerogatives of the Regions. I just want to say in general that there are two important things: the right to housing is a principle over which the federal is not competent, unlike the Regions that have all competence in this matter. In addition, the conflict between the right of property and the right to housing is the jurisdiction of the judge. What I regret is that in some cases, we allow the violation of the right of property to not have to realize the right to housing at the regional or local level, if you understand what I mean.

While I can very well imagine that owners abuse the situation and speculate, the local and regional authorities have, at the same time, every latitude to do what they must, that is, to guarantee the right to housing.

I am not the peace judge, but the latter must balance these two rights, in the event that the housing is not inhabited by the owner or a tenant.