Proposition 54K1219

Projet de loi modifiant le droit de la procédure civile et portant des dispositions diverses en matière de justice.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 30, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil procedure electronic government judicial reform public prosecutor's department appeal judicial proceedings criminal procedure auditing

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Oct. 16, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Miller is the rapporteur, but Mrs Temmerman asks for the word on the arrangement of the work.

For information I would like to ask you the following question. Regarding receiving the budget books you said yesterday that the day was still long. (The microphone is out)

The boycott!

Did you finally receive the budget books yesterday?

By the Post?

By the post, yes.

The budget books have not arrived, Mrs. Temmerman.

Thank you for this communication, Mr. Speaker.

I give the floor to the rapporteur, Mr Miller.

Mr. Speaker, in agreement with my colleague co-rapporteur, Mrs. Smeyers, we refer to our written report.

Mr. Speaker, I truly regret that on such a matter of such importance for the judiciary and of such importance for the prosecutors, the rapporteurs do not consider it useful to mention the interesting discussions we have had in the committee. I find this really weak and very light compared to the judiciary.

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, before my group intervenes on the substance of the case, I wanted to address the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Minister, we truly regret that you did not have the strength to defend, within the government, a budget worthy of that name for Justice. This department, your predecessors, whatever they are, have defended it, allowing it to have a significant budgetary progression or an exception to the savings envisaged in the budget of public services of the state. You did not have that strength and the current budget, both in terms of operating costs and personnel costs, is totally insufficient to allow the judiciary to function normally.

Moreover, on the ground, the actors are plagued by anger, or even despair. Everyone will remember that on May 20, last year, the first president of the Court of Cassation spoke in the newspaper La Libre Belgique. He accused the state of carrying out "a disastrous policy of drying out the personnel of the public service, including the judicial order, whose autonomy is more than threatened. It seems that the state has chosen to dismantle its own justice.” These words are strong. The first president of the Court of Cassation is not known for speaking lightly. I would like to emphasize this at the beginning of our work.

In early June, Brussels investigation judge Michel Claise, a specialist in financial crime, said he was totally desperate. He denounced certain guidelines of the Minister of Justice concerning, in particular, the role of the judge of inquiry, especially, he said, that the prosecutors are completely destroyed due to lack of means, and that they classify hundreds of files without follow-up while the perpetrator and the victim are known.

In recent days, we have heard appeals from the family court of Brussels, including a letter from magistrates addressed to the Minister of Justice. We no longer want, say the magistrates, to remain the silent window of a shop in total liquidation. It is not a member of the opposition who says it, but magistrates of the judicial order who do their job on a daily basis.

Youth judges threaten to release minors appearing in front of them because they no longer have the means to function. These are screams of despair that we all have to hear in this hall and you the first.

Despite this, the magistrates, the experts, have decided to try to participate in the work of justice, in the work of reforms. A Special Courts Journal was created with ideas from the entire judicial world to try to participate in the reform work within the framework of the decided economies. In the Justice Committee, in recent weeks, their representatives have come to speak, try to understand, modify certain elements so that they can continue their daily work.

That is why I find that the decision of the majority, your decision, Mr. Minister of Justice, to refuse to hear anyone, to refuse any amendment, even minor, is a serious defect to these judicial actors.

Today, my group will intervene on the substance, as it has done during all these days of study in the Justice Committee. He will not argue, but will argue.

We wanted to tell you, Mr. Minister, that your refusal to hear the actors of the judicial world can be considered either as indifference towards them or as weakness towards some members of the government and the majority. In both cases, by this attitude and this method of work, Mr. Minister of Justice, you weaken the judiciary. We will fight until the end, alongside him, so that justice will be rendered to him.

I did not like Mr. Onkelinx very much. If we referred to our written report, it is because it is highly technical. We could very well have developed it in the courtroom, but we thought it was better to open the debates.

At the parliamentary level, everyone works as he wants. I would like to say to my colleagues that I have not missed a single minute of all the work that took place in the committee and that I have followed them. This has not been the case for everyone!

Your silence there was also obsessive.

Mr. President, Mrs. Onkelinx, I have a quiet conscience. You want me to understand that I don’t have the strength to defend the judiciary, while you properly know the opposite is true. To this extent, I do not take it personally. I also believe I have done everything in the past twelve months to ensure that justice and the judiciary can work better than before.

Ms. Onkelinx, you know the strength I had to have to find the 150 million euros that helped absorb all the delays in court costs and that were put into the 2014 budget. These 150 million euros allowed us to give a huge oxygen bubble to the 2015 budget. Indeed, those 150 million euros, which should have been put into the 2015 budget, represent ⁇ 10 percent of the Justice’s budget.

Furthermore, you do not ignore that, as of December 9, the first day I came to the Justice Committee, I said that I would ensure that the rate of savings, imposed by the government declaration for 2015 at 4%, was reduced to 1% for the judiciary and the judiciary overall. The prime minister said, “The word is kept.” No less than 37 million euros (oxygen) were allocated to the judicial staff costs.

Mrs. Onkelinx, since I took office, I have vacated 800 positions in the judiciary and 37 million served this year alone for more than 100 positions in the judiciary.

Yesterday, the Finance Inspection authorized me to declare vacant 50 magistrates positions for the month of October. Don’t tell me I don’t have the strength.

Last weekend, along with other ministers – I’m not the only one to be brave; don’t underestimate the government as a whole, Mrs. Onkelinx! - I obtained for my department, in addition to everything I had already received for staff and for the backward, an investment credit of 32 million which I can still engage this year for IT and infrastructure. The documents are being submitted to the Financial Inspectorate.

State Security, Ms. Onkelinx, can carry out 80 additional recruits on a staff of 500 only for 2015. Also, do not tell me that I do not have the strength to defend the judiciary and the services of which I am guardian!

As for the Brussels Court of First Instance (francophone), we have jointly – and to the extent that we have made mistakes, we are all guilty – decided on the split of Brussels-Hal-Vilvorde. You and we are responsible for the consequences of the decisions we have made at the time. But let us be serious! The framework of Brussels was expanded at that time.

I spoke to the judges of the youth, for every fifteen days I receive a letter from the judges of the youth, from the courts of the family, from the judges of instruction. I showed them the cadres by telling them that every month, I was questioned at the government level about the fulfillment of the Brussels cadres. I want to get to 100% as soon as possible.

But how does it happen that by carrying out all these recruits, cadres don’t fill up more and I don’t have enough candidates? But let us be serious! Of the 122 French-speaking judges in Brussels, 117 are present. Certainly, it is not 100%, but I can give you examples in the country where this rate is much lower.

Why are there not 12? The reason is simple, there are not enough candidates. For officers and transplant staff, we are at a 85-90% filling rate in Brussels, after all the departures that have taken place. This was recalled in the newspapers as well as in the statement that the youth judges made out yesterday, there are a lot of secretaries leaving for the province and I can’t hold them back. I would like to reiterate in the "pot-pourri 3", which I hope will be approved next week by the government, the fact that the change of the transplant staff is only possible after having held a position for three years. Today, due to the agreements that have been concluded with the transplant staff and unions, the mutations are total, one can move anytime. This means that at the time of posting vacancies, you must first arrange a turn of mutations. After this turn of changes, vacancies can be made. Overall, it takes nine months between my decision and the nomination! It’s not me who created this gas plant, Mrs. Onkelinx!

I am extremely grateful to you for being willing to discuss the substance of things today, but don’t say I don’t have the strength. Your introduction led to the conclusion that I had neither the strength, nor the dignity, nor the respect to listen to the experts. I don’t know if all the ministers are still present in the committee, but I’ve listened to all the experts during the hearings you organized. Before the debates in Parliament, I had the opinion of the Court of Cassation, the opinion of the College of the Headquarters, the opinion of the College of Prosecutors-General, the opinion of the National Council of Justice, the Order of the French and German-speaking Bars and the Order of the Flemish Bars. I had all those opinions. I listened to a lot of teachers. At the time you requested hearings, we already had the opinion of the State Council. You know, the most important expert we would have wanted to hear was Mr. by Englebert. by Mr. Englebert is a member of the Council of State.

You blame me for things that I do not accept.

by Mr. Englebert wrote this State Council opinion on these elements. We followed the Council of State on almost everything except three points and we will come back to them.

As for the other experts, I read here and there in the press some comments that surprised me. I do not want to name names. We will come back to that too soon, but let us take Article 867, the great stumbling stone for some experts that appeared in the press. This gentleman subsequently claimed that he was not followed by the minister, but the commission voted Article 867 with eleven votes against one, including the socialist votes!

As regards Articles 860, 861 and 862, they were voted unanimously. How can we say that the experts have not been followed?

No, Mrs. Onkelinx, this is the truth! He is the only expert who has spoken in the press. There is the OBFG and with it I understand very well and everyone plays their role in this game that is ours, but don’t tell me that I didn’t have the strength to defend justice and the judiciary. I do not accept this criticism.

Mr. Minister, first of all, you defended here the fact that you obtained temporary budgetary resources to enable you to realize your great savings plan. I’m not going to be like mr. Van Parijs at the time spent his time checking if he had done more or less, compared to his predecessors or successors, whether we were at a slightly greater growth or not. I do not do that. I just say that for the first time, despite the fact that you were going to look a little here and there to plan your savings plan, you failed to make an exception for justice. The judiciary needs it. I am deeply convinced that with the savings that your government has planned, it is impossible at the level of staff and operations, to still have a judiciary that has the strength to work normally.

Secondly, you say, “We’ve listened to the experts, etc.” Listening to the experts is good, but considering what they say is better. If it was simply to foolishly vote the text without taking into account the important debates we had in the Justice Committee where I am, Mr. Miller, speaking several times, then why were they brought? Why was it simply not warned: “This won’t help, it’s the text without a comma change.”

Third, in the context of the reform, you advocated some changes that made sense. Who says the Socialist Party is against everything you put on the table? Certainly not . There are good things. You said that we had voted for one or the other of the reforms. But that is obvious. This does not change our finding that you are undertaking these reforms without sufficient consideration of experts and in a narrow budgetary context.

Fourth, and I conclude, you say, “I have listened to them widely, I have obtained the means.” Why are they still complaining? Mr. Minister of Justice, why do you have every day interpellations, open letters, hearings in courts where a minute of silence is observed to challenge what is currently happening at the federal level? Why Why ?

Do you think they are ingrats? It would still be strong, because they must, with the means you give them, fight daily to make justice. Finally, you say that what I say to you is unfair, that I should not show you this way. Today, I simply expressed to you my inner conviction that it was possible to do otherwise, in dialogue with justice, and with the budget that the judiciary should have to exercise this fundamental power in our democracy.

Ms. Onkelinx had asked me to make a preliminary statement before the start of the general discussion. Everyone will have the opportunity to come back and respond. I would like to start the general discussion.

Everyone will be present in the general discussion...

by [...]

Mr. Ducarme, the reason is that several members have ⁇ to me that they want to start the general discussion.

Mr. Speaker, would it not be useful in the future, when a member asks you to make a declaration in advance, to inform us so that we may eventually join? I find it strange that I did not know this, come here and then hear a preliminary explanation from someone.

Anyone can return at the appropriate time. I give the floor to Mrs. Van Vaerenbergh.

In the meantime, we have had a small discussion.

The Commission for Justice began this year exceptionally early, even before the judicial year. This is a good example and can be repeated.

There is still a lot of work to be done because we have a full program.

The designs, the so-called potpourri, should make Justice more efficient, reduce the workload, ⁇ process economic gains and this through a number of quick wins. Furthermore, they do not affect the rights of the applicant. After hopefully achieving some quick wins by the end of the year, we will be able to carry out more profound reforms in the further course of this legislature.

The plans for Justice and the passages in the government agreement regarding Justice are ambitious, but ambition is needed on such a department. Justice has a huge backwardness. Contrary to what Ms. Onkelinx says, we are leaving this legislature with a lag, because Justice has been neglected for years.

The hearings also showed that everyone agrees that something needs to change in Justice. Justice must urgently enter the twenty-first century. This is not easy in times of budgetary tightness. However, this draft is not only due to budgetary reasons, but thanks to its positive process-economic impact, will lead to a better use of the available resources.

I think, ⁇ unlike others, that we should not be too pessimistic. We must try to turn the budgetary tightness into an opportunity, because we will have to make choices in the field of Justice, even though it is sometimes difficult to make choices there.

Just adding more money to justice is not the solution. Adjustments in the legislation that generate process-economic profits and where the prosecutor benefits are also needed. I think, for example, of getting a court ruling faster in a dispute. This was also shown by the Justice Barometer: This is perceived by the legal applicant as a major pain point. My group believes that this draft is a first step that can contribute to a better Justice.

Regarding the work of the committee, I would like to talk about this one. Before the parliamentary recession, we decided to start our work earlier. We held two full days of hearings. All experts requested by the opposition were also allowed to come and speak in the committee. All questions could be asked. The Chairman gave the word to every expert and every member of the committee from all the parties present in the committee — and that can be said sometimes because not even all the parties that may criticize today were present in the committee. The debate was completely exhausted and amendments were accepted, following the advice of the State Council. Almost all of the comments in the State Council opinion led to adjustments. Therefore, amendments were also accepted and some amendments were even co-signed by the opposition.

I will not overlook all points of the draft potpourri law, as this has already been done abundantly in the committee. I would like to draw out a few points, to show that this draft leads to a more efficient Justice. Mr. Uyttersprot will address a number of points later. Let me start with computerization.

Informatization is, according to our party, a very important point for Justice. In the context of the global plan on informatization, we already received explanations from the Minister for the parliamentary crossing. We will have a debate on this in the committee next week. The draft potpourri law provides the basis for enabling electronic communication between the actors of the judiciary. In practice, this results in two flies in one blow.

First of all, this is a first step to get rid of the paper age at Justice.

Second, this government is finally cutting the port costs of Justice, which in this country still amount to more than 20 million euros per year. The ultimate goal should be to move to a fully electronic file management. It is in the interest of all parties, both the applicant and the lawyer as well as the Judiciary itself, to make everything more efficient.

Even though Justice comes from far away, in a recent visit to the Court of Appeal in Antwerp, I could myself find that in practice it is used hard on computerization. There are good initiatives. One is itself asking party to move on to a more advanced informatization.

The second point is the harmonisation of non-compliance. You have already talked about this, Mr. Minister. As a result, a lack of form will only lead to invalidity if interest damage was caused by it.

We welcome the purpose of this intervention because it constitutes a deformation of the legislation. Less, but simpler rules where possible. Legal rules are intended to keep the process running correctly and should not be a goal in itself. Unnecessary formalism should be avoided. The reform of the rules on nullity will make our civil procedure law simpler and therefore clearer.

A third point relates to the interim judgments. It will no longer be possible to immediately appeal the judgments before giving justice. That is a good thing because such appeals delay the proceedings and result in the transfer of the case to the appellate judge, who must decide on the rest of the case in first and last instance.

Furthermore, the court will only be able to order a further investigative measure if the claim in question has already been declared admissible. This measure is also again an example of process-economic profit, because what use has a costly expertise had when the case is still declared unacceptable after an expert.

Furthermore, this draft also provides for the adjustment of the suspension effect of the appeal. The first-instance judgment will now be enforceable on stock, unless the court decides otherwise, with the exception of judgments in family matters.

This intervention has the advantage that no more appeals are brought, merely and only to delay or delay the execution of the judgment of the court.

The procedure also improves the procedure. We have discussed this in the committee extensively, specifically the role of the judge, what the public order is and so on. Judgments can, as a rule, also be enforced for a period of 10 years, with the exception of sentences of suspension, which must be notified within the year in order to remain enforceable. Here too, an unnecessary, unnecessary formality is intervened. In these cases, sentences of suspension will also become enforceable for 10 years, without notification within the year and without unnecessary recourse to the court again if the sentence of suspension was not notified within the year.

Another aspect of the draft is to increase the limitation periods from 15 to 20 years for crimes punishable by life imprisonment or crimes committed against a person under the age of 18, without prejudice to the possibility of suspension or shutdown. The extension of the limitation period comes in accordance with the government agreement. More specifically, we will now concretely, by applying that rule, also ensure that two important matters, namely around Remes-bis and the Bende van Nijvel, do not age. In the first case, the perpetrator will not escape his punishment and in the second case, the possibility of finding and punishing the perpetrators remains open.

As a final point, I refer to the reform aimed at reducing the systematic intervention of the public prosecutor. All matters will still be communicated to the Prosecutor’s Office, but not in every case will still automatically be given an opinion from the Prosecutor’s Office. We are aware that the Public Prosecutor’s Office has a very important advisory function in many matters, but the opposite is that it must give advice in many matters where it is not always useful. Now the public prosecutor has to do that. In this last category we want to intervene. The prosecutor himself speaks of time gain. This time gain can then be usefully used on other priorities of the parliament, such as the fight against crime. In addition, the judge can still request the Prosecutor’s Office for advice in social and minor matters.

Dear colleagues, my colleague Goedele Uyttersprot will later return to some important aspects of the bill. I conclude by stating that this first draft contains a number of good measures that lead to a better, more modern and more efficient Justice, with the aim of regaining the confidence of citizens in Justice. I hope that we will soon be able to start the next potpourri law.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, it is true that we have had interesting debates within the Justice Committee, interesting hearings and criticism, including on these hearings. I just heard the courteous exchange between my group leader and mr. The Minister of Justice.

Mr. Minister of Justice, when you presented your general policy note, you had told us about the budgetary difficulties you were facing, the world of Justice was facing, budgetary difficulties that you found difficult to overcome. You had made us share your will to change things by accelerating the processing of proposed reforms and by reversing the logic of savings in the functioning of Justice.

Thank you for achieving your goals. Indeed, you have been able to change this logic of savings, less waiting for the reforms to take course to reach more at the end, that is, at the dawn of 2019, when we will have to find ourselves in front of the voter.

In your general policy statement, you inform us of the different purses you intend to set up. It is known that moving the ship of Justice is not easy; I will not say that it is a drunk cruise ship, nor that it is the Titanic, although, on the budget level, one can ask questions.

Why are things not easy to change? I believe it was Ms. Cadelli, president of the Association of Magistrates, who told you this and repeated it during her hearing. It is the procedure that constitutes a guarantee and a lock to human weaknesses and connivence with a party. The Procedure .

Whenever one touches on an element of procedure, whether in civil or criminal matters, one risks, either by veiliness to advance, or by budgetary weakness, or simply by the will to concrete commitments, to make mistakes. We know how, for the judicial world, the principle of the laws of reparation is ⁇ delicate, difficult and also ⁇ tired given the number of laws of reparation that exist, paradoxically often in the matter of laws that affect the organization of justice.

You told us that a collaboration could be implemented. We went, in good faith, into a committee in order to collaborate, to try to advance the Schmilblick. We consider that it is better to have a good collaboration to ⁇ a good improvement of texts, rather than to find ourselves in this confrontation, which sometimes seems sterile, between the majority and the opposition. Justice is much better than that.

You also told us that opinions would be taken. You just confirmed this in this courteous exchange with my group leader. You may doubt that I do not have the same reading. But I don’t blame you, it’s a good war. However, with regard to the commitments you made, a first distortion was made to your wish for a good collaboration with the addition to this pot-pourri 1 of amendments relating to the civil procedure including a change in the limitation period; my colleague Özlem Özen will return soon. You will agree that you put the knife under our throat by stating that this must be published no later than October 23, otherwise there will be problems to make a whole of these two changes.

We really believed that either of the two changes could bring improvements. The other change appears as an emergency law, or even an exception. Joining the two seems to me to be a violation of your promise of good collaboration.

Despite all and with the fact that auditions were scheduled, we decided to play the game, however – and it was our feeling – that the proposals of the audited persons could be taken into account and that amendments eventually be accepted. So we were going to work during the holidays, whether they were judicial, whether they were too long for some. We took advantage of the end of the holidays, i.e. the entire month of September, to proceed with the analysis and evaluation of the dossier.

You tell me that you have listened to the experts and that you have received opinions from the Court of Cassation, the College of Prosecutors General, the Prosecutors of the King, the National Council of Magistrates, the College of Courts and Tribunals, Avocats.be and the OVB and that you have taken into account the opinion of the Council of State, except three points. In short, you have taken into account everyone’s opinion. I suppose therefore that you have improved a very large text, the one that you and your services had initially imagined.

I repeat that I do not have the same reading as you. I don’t read all the expert opinions here, and I don’t want to read all the opinions. As Ms. Onkelinx told you, we don’t want to make the “flibust”. We decided to collaborate. We have done this in the committee and we will do so in the plenary session. It remains no less that, when I read the opinions, I say to myself that one can nevertheless not suspect Mrs Matray honorary adviser at the Court of Cassation and Mrs Lefebvre, president of the Court of Appeal of Hainaut, of not wanting to improve Justice. There is also no suspicion that Mr. Desmecht, President of the College of Courts and Tribunals and Mr. Vrancken, President of the Royal Union of Peace Judges and Police. I am passing you mr. Boularbah because you may have a small dispute with him, though... Sometimes we have a divergence of views on an article of the Judicial Code relating to prescription. However, Mr. Boularbah questioned one or the other element.

Everyone came to the committee with suggestions for improvement. Some were not included in the text, including those of Ms. Matray and Lefebvre. I think they could have made an amendment. They were relatively easy. We wanted to attach a bill and, since there was a computer problem, you were even told that the entry into force could eventually be postponed.

No, we disjoined after all, although it was a proposal that seemed interesting. Matray had suggested that the first-instance courts remove the control of the civil status records, as this would have saved time – as you wish. This was not held, as was the obligation of appearances in cases of divorce by mutual consent or the additional proposals for cheap reforms. Similarly, some criticisms were not heard, in particular regarding the default judgment or the summary procedure for payment order. I will come back.

Sorry, but I don’t have the same reading as you. You may feel like you’ve listened to the experts. They believe they have not been heard. This is also the case for us as members of the opposition. This reform is either to take or to leave.

We had excellent intellectual exchanges. I would like to quote Mr. Desmecht: "Since taking office, the minister stated that his mission was to manage poverty. The budgetary situation of the judiciary is difficult. We must find means. In addition to the lack of staff and budget resources, there is a lack of quality." This is the heart of the debate.

You have acknowledged the existence of budgetary problems and tried to reverse the trend by giving liabilities. If we had not joined the issue of the imprisonability of a crime or, in any case, the extension of the prescription period – even if the State Council tells you that we have almost reached the imprisonability – the texts might have been improved and gathered a consensus of parliamentarians and stakeholders in the judiciary world, putting their hands in the camouflage within courts and courts. They could not have been the subject of appeal – announced by some speakers – before the Constitutional Court or clarifications in the head of the Court of Cassation.

It could have been simplified without compromising the rights of the parties. It could have been a faster and more efficient judicial procedure without compromising the quality of justice. I agree and you will agree, but I don’t want to spoil your pleasure. There are also positive aspects.

Some speakers nevertheless come to ask questions about elements that I personally consider as positive: the e-box, the ease of meaning changes, the limited communication to the lawyer when he is referenced in a case, the exclusion of the appeal of judgments before saying right. We have already had the opportunity to say this to you in the commission, and we confirm this to you. Effective implementation, especially in the context of electronic communication, should be considered. The Chairman of the College of Courts and Tribunals says that there is however concern that ordinary mail may prejudice the rights of the justiciable in enforcement. I ask you to be ⁇ attentive to this. I can’t help but confirm that many provisions and many projects put on the table endanger the rights of the justiciable.

I have told you, justice is there to ensure a balance between the defendant and the applicant, both of whom must collaborate in the work of justice; a balance between those who are necessarily to be protected and those who do not need this protection; a balance between those who have the means and those who have little or no means. The means are not always financial.

Economies, economies, economies unfortunately! When we talk about savings, we are talking about potentially endangering the rights of the justiciable and the rights of the weaker. I will not take it all over again, but some elements need to be highlighted.

I come to the conclusions, their structure and the motivation of the judgment. You have already mentioned several points in the debate. The parties must be held accountable. It is also true that, constitutionally, the judge has an obligation to justify his decision. Sometimes one can say that one goes a little farther; it may not be appropriate to sanction a magistrate because he has not answered all the arguments appearing in terms of conclusions, especially since, sometimes, the latter are especially – let me here use a French term, which I hope will be understood by all, without this creating a problem of translation – absconses. This is the old French, I apologize.

As a practitioner, I’ve ever asked myself questions, reading my opponents’ conclusions, telling me I don’t understand anything about what they want me. I am in the position of the judge who is facing great difficulties.

In civil matters in the broad sense, i.e. civil law, commercial law, labor law, 95 or even 99 percent of practitioners already structure, even if, sometimes, there are pen mistakes or simply the mind is not necessarily clear.

But will the judge be able to do so on time? and no. This is what most of the experts have said. It is false to believe that the magistrate will save time, and thus the opportunity to make more judgments, simply because it will force the parties to structure. The Council of State also tells you to pay attention to the fact that this is a recommendation and not an obligation. You must confirm that this is a recommendation. If it is an obligation, I remind you of a passage from the Constitution: “The judge is obliged to justify his judgment.” The judge is not required to receive advice on how to make his judgment. Otherwise, we are at risk of encountering problems.

This is a general provision, which applies mainly to the lawyer. But we can clearly attain the rights of defence for the justifiable who defends himself. The rights of the citizen as well as the right to be able to defend themselves before the courts can be clearly attacked.

Today, either the judge or the secretary is there to act. The Secretary-General does not act as the Assistant Judge. The judge is not a judge’s officer. The officer is normally independent. He is here to act. The party that will defend itself, will give a piece of paper and will explain its piece of paper. The officer must do what is said to the audience.

The magistrate will not answer to the person who defends himself and who has explained a lot of things verbally, that I consider the items lying on the piece of paper, even if it is a tram ticket or a cardboard or the magistrate will have to remove the pieces because they are not numbered. This is not only legal but also constitutional. I also think that this is evident from all the statements made by the speakers and the experts who came to the parliament, whether it were lawyers.be, the OVB or the magistrates who came to explain this to you.

We could exclude the non-professional, an option that is not selected. We talked about a pre-filled model of conclusions. Per ⁇ we didn’t have time to realize that. But by extension, these are considerations submitted by experts that have not been heard. You have listened to them and heard their opinions. They came to Parliament to try to improve the text. I do not know if they will come back again. I see, without wanting to criticize you, that they have entered into your logic, our logic, that of progress.

Let’s go to the judgments where, too, a response must be given. "Judgments are provisionally executed even in case of appeal." I do not deny that this can bring added value and that this helps to avoid what is called dilatory calls. There may be two subjects on which questions should be asked a little further forward. This is obviously the right of the family with the execution of a decision that is taken, for example, by the family judge allowing a parent to leave for a few weeks on vacation with a child. You will tell me that in family matters, it is often enforceable by provision but it can create a problem.

You also have the OVB (Ordre des Barreaux flamands) which, for example, told you, here in Parliament, to pay attention in tax matters. You have been Minister of Finance. You know that it is a serious armed arm of the State but that there can also be a serious disproportion of the means between the justiciable and the Ministry of Finance which has, behind it, a real army of hyper competent lawyers who deliver extraordinary opinions that are unfortunately not always available to everyone. But there is clearly a disproportion between the situation of one and the other. The big difficulty in this matter is obviously the fact that the weak will be less protected. But I tell you, it is true that it allows at least to avoid something harmful to everyone, that is, dilatory calls.

I believe that one of the central elements of your reform requires further observations. This is the intervention of the Public Prosecutor in civil matters. We will submit amendments on this subject. Beyond the discussions we’ve had – and it’s clear that we don’t have to rework the whole debate – it seems to me, however, that based on the opinions of experts, one might be able to try to see if Parliament will again follow as one man the project that is put on the table.

You have answered this question in the commission, but the problem is still on the table: in matters of public prosecution intervention, it is therefore the College of Prosecutors-General and the Prosecutors of the King who will write a circular. They have also announced it. I had asked the president if it was not possible to ask the minister to obtain the circulary because it is available, he says. We could have been acquainted. I hope that soon we will be able to have it in the commission to see exactly what’s going on.

You have said that you have opened up a lot of places. It may be necessary to remind the Attorney General of the Court of Appeal of Hainaut. Serna and the Attorney General of Namur. Macq, that their numbers may no longer be entirely correct. Indeed, they told us that your will was not to complete the framework, except 90%. In Hainaut, the framework is only 75% complete. For the Prosecutor’s Office of Namur, that would be 80 percent. by Macq. Hearing you recently in the courteous exchange you had with my group leader, I suppose they’re wrong.

So you will tell them, Mr. Minister of Justice, that their figures are not correct. I will listen to you very carefully. Serna says that in some parks, such as Hainaut, the framework is only 75% filled. It should be noted that the savings in Justice are mainly on staff, since the cadres are no longer 100% filled like the public prosecutor, etc.

So, the approval of the attorneys and the attorneys of the King, you get it only because you say that you do not complete the frameworks, and anyway, if you complete them, you only do it at 90 percent. So they tell themselves that they no longer have the choice and therefore they sort out to save time. This is what mr. Macq, prosecutor of the King of Namur, when he came to visit us. I can finally understand it. He must deal with criminal matters, some civil cases... He is obliged because the law imposes it on him, but the government does not give him the necessary means. I therefore understand that he says to himself that he has no choice and finally writes the circulary, saying to himself: either one must give an opinion, or one will communicate and we will see what we do, and in other cases we will do nothing at all.

Do you believe that it is truly constitutional to leave in the hands of the College of Prosecutors General and therefore the prosecutors of the King and the Executive, therefore of yourself, to choose the cases in which the prosecutor’s office gives or does not give an opinion? Many of the speakers hearing, if you have heard them, indicated that this was part of the judicial function of the prosecutor’s office. Therefore, we have proposed that this prerogative be fixed in the law, if not in the Constitution. But you wanted to soothe our fears about the constitutionality of the project. We will see what the magistrates themselves, namely the Constitutional Court, will say, since some have already announced that they will appeal.

However, the most important thing to remember are the remarks of the speakers regarding the presence of the public prosecutor.

For example, in conflicting family cases, a neutral opinion of the prosecutor on the situation can allow the judge to consider solutions that are not proposed by the parties. The judge of the family hearing indicated that it was necessary to specify, in a text other than the circular, that he should be systematically present at all hearings and in all cases, except when it concerned claims issues.

With regard to the audit board, you state that it will continue to investigate (as it is said in law) on the files, that the balance of the parties is guaranteed, that the weakest parties are protected. However, it is noted that the role of the auditory could take another dimension. Due to the nature of certain conflicts which these jurisdictions have to know, one often finds himself in an unequal relationship of forces, for example a conflict between an administration and a judge often precarious in matters of social security. Through investigative work prior to the hearing but also through the formulation of specially motivated opinions, the auditor is likely to provide a neutral point of view capable of objectivizing the conflict and enabling the correct application of the law.

From his own confession, the auditor will nevertheless intervene, whatever the content of the circular, because the defense of the weaker will justify it. We could all have grown, Mr. Minister, by listening to these opinions and by making the small changes that were necessary. This would have prevented the public prosecutor from wasting time. This principle should have been incorporated into the law, except in the legislation on social security and family – but by applying it to claims. It did not eat bread. In this regard, the adoption of an amendment of the “salt socialist opposition” did not have anything debilitating.

I heard that the country of socialism had to be purified. I can hear it, but we must also admit that we do not necessarily say nothing but nonsense and that we are not necessarily obbed.

Let’s come to the judgment by default. I have already mentioned the balance of the parties. I will repeat what I have said many times in the committee, because it seems fundamental to me. You said in the committee that public order is not determined in the law. If I have understood correctly, it is the Court of Cassation that will have to decide and state what the judge will be able to do or not. Until now, the notions of public order and protection of the essential interests of the parties seemed clear to me. This is no longer the case from now on. Why can the defective magistrate do more than the magistrate can do when the parties are present?

This is an essential principle of our way of working. It is considered that when a party fails, it opposes the request. We change the principle. I can understand and accept it, but we could have made certain restrictions or given certain guarantees. When it is said, “Beyond the laws of public order going to imperative laws,” it was the necessary and sufficient protection only to accept the fact that we change the logic of balance that had been put in place at the time of the drafting of the Judicial Code, or even before, and which was to ensure the equality of the parties. The most important thing was that abusive claims were not followed.

During the hearings and discussions, you told us that there would be no problem because the judge could do so. But as this is not clearly stated in the law, it is the Court of Cassation that will have to decide. I do not know if in the opinion you obtained from the Court of Cassation this issue was mentioned. I did not receive that opinion. It would be good to see what is going on.

It is true that the minimalist position of the fundamental mission of the default judge is taken. The poor mr. by Fettweis. Fortunately, he is no longer there.

by [...]

Otherwise, I think he would have cried all the tears of his body, Mr. Brotcorne. All of them!

It is rejected. of which act. I will cry myself, but I will not compare myself to mr. Fettweis, do not worry. I don’t have that claim, I don’t know him enough.

With regard to the single judges, I can understand that one says that they are the magistrates who come to complain. They complain because they have to work. As one touches their status more or less in this way, one understands why they come to complain.

You can have this grid of reading of what the judges say, but you can also have another grid of reading. In this regard, without taking the Trade Union Association of Magistrates, without taking one or the other college of magistrates who are still in office, we had the position of Mrs Matray, honorary adviser to the Court of Cassation, who cannot be suspected of anything, I think.

Regarding the single judge or collegiality, Ms Matray points out that the merits of collegiality are obvious, even in terms of legitimacy. But she believes that this system should not be sacralized because it also has disadvantages. Collegiality ⁇ enables the training of young recruits but, sometimes, bridges vocation or creativity. She also says that if the institution of the single judge works well, for example the peace judges and the police judges, it remains no less that, within the framework of the court, the collegiality must be ⁇ ined because there are examples where it works well. His proposal is to reflect on the modalities according to which one switches into a collegial system. One may wonder whether it should not be reserved to the judge seized the right to ask the chief of the corps to pass in front of a collegial seat. She then says that, in order to avoid arbitrariness, one could imagine legally framing the criteria of a refusal by considerations based on the difficulties of disposing of personnel or on the fact that there would be more added value to a collegiality from the moment when there would be no such within the court or court of magistrates sufficiently specialized to play the role, etc.

I think we could have tried to improve the text. Do not think that we are against the single judge, this is not the case. Three years is not a catastrophe. You need to know magistrates, you may have passed a recruitment exam of the magistrates, which I find more difficult than those you pass at the university. I know people who have gone through it, and that is far from obvious, but they say that doesn’t mean that they can make a judgment. Three years are necessary to learn.

In addition, it must be said that only the president of the court, without the possibility of appeal, in exceptional cases (interest of the case, complexity or delicate or media character), will be able to make its decision. What do you think of those who came to see us? Beware of arbitrariness!

The notion of arbitrariness must not exist in law, it must not exist when it comes to the function of judging. This is the most important.

The Constitution and all the codes in place are built to avoid arbitrariness, and above all to prevent the justiciable from having the feeling of arbitrariness. I think we could have been more cautious, and adopted some amendments such as those we have submitted. We could have gone back to three years, forecast a possibility of having these chambers, forecast decisions that do not give this impression of arbitrary, with a possibility of appeal. Sacrifying collegiality on the altar of austerity is really not a good service to justice, nor to the feeling that the justiciable have justice.

Now on to the uncontested claims. Do you know, Mr. Minister, how many systems of recovery of claims and procedures as such we will now have in our right, at least once we have voted and these provisions will be published? and four . The common law system – I go before the peace judge, or before the court of first instance, depending on the importance of the request – the summary procedure, the European procedure for recovery of uncontested claims, the summary procedure for payment order and the new procedure established.

Let’s go back to Mrs. Matray. What does she tell you? As regards the recovery of uncontested debts, a payment order procedure should be imagined based on the European model, as the Belgian procedure is archaic and ineffective. And we keep it anyway. Why not remove it? We will have a procedure for foreigners, for foreign companies, a procedure for those who are registered with the ECB, and the classic summary procedure of payment order. Everyone acknowledges that this does not work well. Should we really rush? Couldn’t we have kept two systems, the classic, which leads before the peace judge or before the court, and a new system, which would have been either the European system or the current system slightly improved? No, we will meet with four systems. As a rule, one can choose which according to its interest, when one is a creditor, and not when one is a debtor. This does not compete with the balance between the parties, you will agree. You could have gone further and it would have been easier.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Massin, for all clarity in the current debate, you should dare to call a cat a cat.

First, your words about creditors and debtors are correct, but here it is about commercial debts, which is a very different story than for a private person, who still retains certain protective mechanisms.

Second, Mr. Massin, I have been listening to you for a long time now. I had even planned not to interrupt you, but what do you really want?

You have subsequently stated that you want a faster and more efficient justice, but that is what we all want here. We can all continue to dance on the tile that we have been dancing for twenty or thirty years now. However, we can also squeeze the sleeves, start with it and do something. That is what we are doing here now.

I admit that I, probably like everyone else, was surprised here in the hemisphere when the minister came up with a plan for Justice. Friends and enemies were surprised.

You can agree on some points and agree less on other points. At some point, however, it is already refreshing that a global and comprehensive system is being considered. That is the starting point of the whole story, in particular the potpourri law 1, the potpourri law 2 and everything that will follow, including hopefully those larger very fundamental reforms. These reforms are very important for us.

But let us try now, instead of continuing to scale around on the same plate, now, step by step, to change small things that can lead to a faster and more efficient Justice, where, after all, the right-wing is also better at speed. You now make it seem that the right-handed will be the big fool who is constantly being countered. That is not true. What the subordinate now especially feels unfair is that it does take a very long time before he or she gets a decision.

On the ground there are indeed statements of people who are for and of people who are against. This will always be prevented. We’ve heard people from the seat agree with a certain point, while the parquet didn’t like it, or vice versa.

Mr. Massin, what are we elected for? We have been chosen in such cases to eventually cut through the node and cut through a few buttons we hope to do here today.

That we should continue to listen to the people in the field, in that you are right. We must continue to do this, because they must carry it out. However, if the people on the ground did not reach it themselves or did not agree, then it is our responsibility to cut through the knots.

Do you want a faster and more efficient justice? Your party delivered the Minister of Justice a few years ago. You have been in the government for years. What stopped you from finally getting out of your tiles? That I ask myself.

I think you must have heard, in the same way as me, that we are ready to move forward. We have said. It is not because we are ready to move forward that this is exempt from some criticism. We also collaborated by submitting amendments. If you find that it’s stumbling on the spot because I don’t want to move forward, I understand why the amendments we have submitted and that we would have voted for, with in the end a general vote in a beautiful unanimousness, have not been accepted.

I will finish on the order to pay. You say that you heard the experts, including the Trade Union Association of Magistrates who proposed a revaluation of the payment order procedure. I believe that one of the elements (per ⁇ even two) could have been ⁇ ined without necessarily making things easier. Indeed, the reason why I asked this question is that the intervention of the judge no longer exists today, unless a contest is made. The question was the motivation of the protest. If a person says that they disagree, it is not enough; they must expose their means. There are many legal entitlements, even those registered with the ECB, which may have difficulties. You do not necessarily have a diploma to perform a job as an independent, small craftsman or small merchant. You are registered with the ECB and you are therefore likely to be attracted in the course of this procedure.

It would have been important to have this possibility of intervention of the magistrate simply when a person disputes. This is what the syndical association of magistrates tells you: "There are often difficulties with regard to the accessories of the claim, interest, penalties. But there are interest rates that sometimes exceed 24% per year, or even exceptionally 36%. This is true, including in the context of commercial claims.

If the bill entrusts external stakeholders, as is the case with court officers, to take care of the recovery, it is necessary to be able to maintain control over these incidental costs. We do not have it, as it will not be the job of the judge to verify it. I take in particular the case of a person who says “no, I disagree” because he may not know how to formalize that they are accessories. As part of the protection but also of a proper functioning of the judiciary, it would have been important that the judge could intervene without requiring excessive formalism. But asking a part to articulate all its means is excessive formalism.

Mr. Minister of Justice, dear colleagues, I ended my speech on the substance, because it was indeed a debate on the substance that was sought, although, I admit, it contained a bit of form, when I approached the consideration of the proposals of the various experts. I hope that they will return to Parliament because it was very important and very helpful. We have had an excellent illumination that may allow tomorrow to advance the jurisprudence somewhat in relation to your project. I have no doubt that he will be voted. This is the meaning of my speech.

We will submit further amendments. You have the possibility to vote for them, although I understand well that we are obviously in a war of tranches between the majority and the opposition. We want to build bridges between you and us. We give you a hand. You still have the opportunity to take it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, on March 18, 2015, you came before the Justice Committee to present your Justice Plan, through which you presented the main lines of your policy for the four and a half years of work that remained at that time in the government.

You then consulted, already within the framework of this Justice plan, but you announced a few guidelines to try to make justice more effective, corresponds to the challenges of today and tomorrow and – we must also be able to say it – can integrate into the budgetary effort required to all citizens and our country. And you kept your word since, a few months later, you are here in front of our assembly to present your first bill "pot-pourri I" which contains many important developments for a justice, let us think, more efficient, faster and that, ultimately, more responds to the expectations of citizens. Time will allow us to evaluate the reality or not of these three objectives. We believe in it and, for this reason, we obviously support this project.

As chairman of the Justice Committee, I would like to thank all the parties that played the game of serious work. We avoided the emergency, we, contrary to what was said in a certain press, did not take three months of vacation, but three weeks.

All the parties contributed positively to the work, the majority as opposition. Mr. Massin, Mrs. Onkelinx, you have not been averse to interventions to advance the debate. For all these aspects, I want to thank you, as well as for not choosing to play a procedure that would have delayed our work. On the other hand, you will easily understand that what you have called "the obscuring silence of Mr. Miller was not one. Miller was an attentive rapporteur. (The applause)

I prefer these courteous applause to this recent expression. I thank you for that. As chairman of the Justice Committee, I would like to state that I took care to request the second reading, which was consistent with the agreement that had been reached.

You are also a university professor. I had the feeling that getting us back in August was a bit reminding us of our second sessions. There was not much people in the buildings at that time, but for several days we benefited from updating our knowledge through auditions. It was not unnecessary.

I heard the debate about the importance of these hearings. They are there to enlighten parliamentarians, to make improvements to texts and to allow all parliamentarians, who are not all practitioners in the matter, to be able to react with amendments and questions that can be asked between parliamentarians or the minister. I note that all the questions asked have received answers from you. The rich and serene debate that took place for a few weeks in the months of August and September responded to this goal.

If I have to summarize your first "pot-pourri" bill, two words come to mind: responsibility and trust. Indeed, through the measures that are put in place, you give the possibility to the judiciary to work in greater autonomy because the texts do not go to the end of an obligation as could be provided in the law. But you give the magistrates an opportunity to assess, on the basis of their experience, whether or not it is necessary to follow this or that procedure. Responsibility, too, because when you are brought to make decisions, you have the responsibility for them.

The first element of responsibility is the relationship between the lawyer and his client. Nowadays, it is considered that a home choice is made with the lawyer. In addition, the transplants will be relieved from their work. This is the goal for better efficiency and consider that with a little less staff, we will do just as well. It will be up to the lawyer to have the follow-up of the notifications made by the transplant.

At the level of motivations and conclusions, it is not abnormal to consider, in order to avoid appeals that extend the response that the justiciable awaits to a problem he faces, that you have requested a structuring of the conclusions and means to allow the judge to make his judgment faster and to avoid long, long readings to uncover whether one or another point constitutes a means or an expression accompanying the means. This is a positive measure. This was part of Mr. President’s program.

You have also proposed a limitation of the role of the prosecutor. We talked a lot about it. by Mr. Vincent Macq, Procurator of the King in Namur, expressed himself saying that, indeed, in his practice, he had found that it was not necessarily mandatory, useful and efficient to systematically resort to the presence of the public prosecutor when matters were pending to the civil in general.

You have envisaged two exceptions that seem to meet a balance in relation to the weaker. In matters of family court and social matters, the two elements meet, namely that in this case, at the request of the judge, the public prosecutor will be obliged to give an opinion.

We believe that security is present. and Responsibility! Why Why ? Since all cases are communicated to the public prosecutor, it is up to him to consider freely or not whether he intends to act, to intervene in the procedure in place.

As for the defect, the same thing. The judge performed a job that was somehow a facilitation for the person who was not present at the hearing. In some cases, it was justified, but not always. In this case, you are responsible for the choice of a person not to be present. The defect in this case regains a certain form of common sense, namely that the judge has the task of ensuring that procedural aspects are properly respected, that public order is properly respected. It is up to the failing person to make or not oppose freely.

As regards the appeal, since 2012 there was a request to amend the rules of the appeal. Here, you reinforce with the bill "pot-pourri I" the force of the decision in first instance, since it is enforceable, which ultimately seems logical. In fact, there is no need to consider that a decision made in first instance is not enforceable in itself. Exceptions may be provided, but it is not necessary to provide it by office.

Recovery of debt has been discussed recently. Ms. De Wit explained usefully that we are here in a relationship of professionals to professionals. There are several ways to try to recover your credit. You have imagined a new system that will need to be evaluated, like any new system. He has the merit of wanting to go quickly, to reduce the number of intervenants.

We had the numbers: too many claims remain unpaid within a normal timeframe. Your will is to allow for faster recovery because a suffering claim is problematic. We have lived it for several years with the debts of the state to companies or individuals who trust the state in the field of justice. These are just being absorbed by a work of conviction that you must have done within the government as part of your budget work. It was normal to give this faculty to companies that contract with other companies and trust each other.

As for the generalization of the single judge, it is the same thing. It is an evolution. The way in which we have accessed the judiciary in recent years requires a more punctual knowledge of the subjects. You don’t become a judge automatically. It takes some experience and, behind the establishment of this generalization of the single judge, the element of training is essential.

Not to mention the accountability and confidence left to the chief of the corps who will be able to estimate that for some cases, it is necessary to move to a three-judge chamber. We talked a lot about this during our committee work. Particular attention must be paid to this point in order to ensure that judges are operational as soon as possible to make effective judgments that respond to a clearer need for justice for the citizen.

The fact of having single-judge chambers will also allow for a greater specialization of judges. This will respond to the expectation of the justiciables. In fact, it is sometimes difficult, given the matters today, to be omniscient in all matters. This specialization of judges can only be a positive element.

The extension of the prescription was a wish of the Minister. This was stated by the Attorney General of Liège. Some crimes are part of the collective emotion and prescription may not leave the necessary space to forget it. Some said it was a law of circumstances. There are, of course, two circumstances present, which cannot be denied. The debate on prescription should take place in a second time but it was important to send a strong signal for this very painful period of the 1980s for our country. It also extends the prescription for non-correctionalizable crimes against minors.

I will conclude, Mr. Minister, with a few general considerations. As you announced, the continuation of the work will be dense, as the project "pot-pourri 3" will be presented to the government next week.

I am not discouraged. I think the hearings will need to continue, because the previous ones were ⁇ enlightening. I would like to thank the people who took the effort to answer us in writing or come to give their views in the committee. They will, of course, be invited to do so. I can understand the expressions of regret and frustration, but we all know that the debate between university professors is sometimes difficult. Some say they have not been heard enough. However, votes translate a democratic expression.

Ms. Onkelinx, you ⁇ that justice was in trouble and recalled the opinions of several important actors in the judicial world. They must indeed be heard. The text that is submitted to Parliament is a way of answering it, ⁇ imperfect – time will tell – even if I don’t think so. These measures are in line with a necessary evolution.

We talked about the single judge chamber and the computerization we have been asking for years. You are right to point out that you can’t always look in the mirror. We obtained the government’s commitment that at the end of this legislature, computerization would finally become a reality and would no longer be just that Loch Ness monster or a pious wish formed with every government change. We will pay attention to it. The introduction of the e-box should already facilitate contacts and speed up procedures.

We are naturally optimistic. The challenges are huge. As Ms. De Wit recalled, the reforms have the merit of being concrete. You have been Minister of Justice, Mrs. Onkelinx, and so you know that it is difficult to advance this ship. Several actors are involved: the sitting magistrates, the standing magistrates, but also the citizen, who - according to the figures of the Higher Council of Justice - does not have sufficient confidence in the judiciary. We want to trust him. Justice must therefore be more comprehensible and faster in the answers to the citizens. These feel frustration when a response is not brought quickly enough to an injustice.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, I repeat what the Minister has already said, in particular that the new government started a year ago. About half a year later the Minister of Justice proposed a plan, as he so beautifully called it. He not only had a plan, but also a vision in which a policy for the future was formulated. In this context, he made it clear that in a difficult phase of our society, he wanted to assume the responsibility to, together with the courts and all relevant actors, find a way for Justice to come to a restoration of trust. During the previous legislature, too, we talked about restoring trust for the judiciary and the legal subordinates — a difficult, ugly word. The ultimate goal is to restore trust in the judiciary, which is important for all those facing the right, as well as for all actors in the judiciary.

It was a plan with a vision. We have nothing to do with a plan alone, but we need a plan to determine the course we go. The plan is based on a lot of preliminary consultation and it has been translated — we are pleased to do so — in the first potpourri that we faced in Parliament. Its purpose is to ensure that conflicts and disputes do not remain unresolved for too long. The efforts made daily by courts, the prosecutor’s office and lawyers must end in a good and efficient justice system.

We are therefore pleased with the present draft law, which represents the first concrete step to accelerate the handling of cases and to reach a fast, efficient and fair functioning of Justice, because long waiting periods for a judgment are also considered unfair.

The more efficient application of procedures and means of work must be sought not only in times of scarcity of resources, but always, and also that I find an important data. Even when there are many resources available, the effort must be made to determine what is needed and what is superfluous. I also consider it an ethical task to ensure that the resources provided by society are used properly.

The design improves efficiency in the short term. In this regard, choices have been made. Some procedures and elements are quite easily digestible for everyone, but there were also less obvious choices made, all to increase efficiency and strengthen confidence.

The less obvious measures have already been mentioned. These include the choice of three judges instead of a single judge and the mandatory advice of the prosecutor’s office in family and other civil matters. In the course of the discussion, we have repeatedly considered how to ⁇ a balance between, on the one hand, efficiency and, on the other hand, the involvement of the weaker and stronger parties in the proceedings through the advice of the Prosecutor’s Office and the judgment of three judges, also when it comes to family matters or when the judge asks. Indeed, the president of the court may choose the ultimate option to have three judges seated in certain court proceedings instead of the single-seated judge.

Mrs. Becq, I hear your speech about the pursuit of the balance to tend toward efficiency and restore confidence. I am not convinced that, in particular on this particular point of the need for an opinion of the public prosecutor in family matters or before the Labour Auditory or through the Labour Auditory before the Labour Court, this objective will be met.

I remember that you and I supported before this Parliament not long ago, in the framework of the establishment of the Family and Youth Court, what all political groups have recognized as an added value, that is, the presence of the public prosecutor at the hearing in family matters, at least where the fate of minors is at stake and is at stake.

I would like to admit, in some situations, that the prosecutor’s office presence may seem unnecessary because there are no concerns. But in many cases, and precisely when the cases are the most difficult, that is, often with precarious families for which there are already difficulties in the education or management of children, one makes the economy of this presence of the public prosecutor, one tries to hide this economy by saying that at the request of the magistrate, it will always be possible, or that it will always be possible that the public prosecutor seize itself by office and come to the hearing.

What made you change your mind, Mrs. Becq, to accept a situation like this? It is known that, in particular, the time limits for the citation before the family court will not allow an office referral to the prosecutor's office because there are citations made until the day before the hearing. Will we work at night to find out the identities of the parties? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to maintain at least the presence of the public prosecutor at each introductory hearing?

What is it that, in a year, allows you today to completely change your appreciation of the situation? A year has passed since the establishment of the Family and Youth Courts. Was it not appropriate to make an assessment in the coming weeks and months, before embarking on a total shift from what was the unanimous opinion of that Parliament?

Mrs. Becq, I will not try too long to convince you, but nevertheless. During the hearings, we heard, sometimes listened but not always understood the speakers, but there was quite impressive testimony about the family court. Regarding whether the opinion of the public prosecutor is mandatory or not, we have all been well aware of what was going to play with the formula you present, in my opinion to the contrary. I know that there is still a heart in CD&V, I do not doubt, but it is not enough to talk about it, it must also be demonstrated. This representative of the family court balanced the workload and the fact that at some point, she is well aware that with the text you propose, the public prosecution will do something else, because it will have other things to take into account given the available resources.

I am not asking you to accept amendments from the opposition. Who are we, poor parliamentarians of the opposition, to dare to improve this Bible that is the number one pot-pourri? Mrs. Becq, you may have the opportunity, at noon time, to convince the partners of the majority. You could make a gesture for this family court, around which there was a large majority to create it recently, for which we have had a testimony one can no longer enlightening, and where it is the interest of the minor that is targeted. Mrs. Becq, I think I did not mistake myself as the interlocutor in speaking to you about this amendment that has been re-submitted. It is now up to you to convince the majority partners that it is a measure of common sense to ensure that in the name of the interests of minors, you can re-evaluate your position on this aspect that is cinematic from a budget point of view but that is so fundamental at the level of actual decision.

Colleagues, frankly, I found the testimony of the youth magistrate excellent. In doing so, she emphasized the credibility of Justice and confirmed the quality of youth magistrates. I am also confident that she will ask the Prosecutor’s Office for advice if she considers that that advice can bring added value. She has demonstrated her qualities: she is not only legally educated, but also showed her awareness for the people she is dealing with.

There is still an opening. First, there is the possibility of communication and secondly, the judge can always request the intervention of the prosecutor’s office. She has strengthened me with her testimony in my position on the subject.

We have addressed this element. It also appears in my speech. The way you try to save this attitude, the removal of the opinion of the King’s prosecutor – although one can always ask him, and he can seize it by office – was not, I told you, a miraculous solution. The same judge as Mr. Cheron made reference explained to us that the simple presence of the prosecutor’s office, the public prosecutor’s office, at the hearing, was important, in sometimes difficult situations, where parents, because they have the desire or interest to be divorced as soon as possible, hide difficulties with a child, and come up with solutions or proposals that are not in accordance with the interests of the child. The magistrate reminds us that he is not a party to the cause, that he is there to settle a dispute, while the King's prosecutor can intervene as a third party, raise questions, reactions of one and the other, make discover that we may be trying, between guillemets, to manipulate the magistrate to make him make a decision that is absolutely not in accordance with the interests of the child. Only in such cases is it indispensable, useful and necessary. At the CDH, we have not changed our mind: we want to maintain the presence of the public prosecutor at those hearings where minors are concerned.

I would like to intervene in this case. This part of the dossier is really very important. At the time, during the previous legislature, when the King’s prosecutor was wanted to be present at the family court, including during the introductory hearing, this was to avoid conflicting decisions. We wanted to avoid, when it came to the protection of the child, that elements of which the prosecutor’s office had knowledge are or remain unknown to the court.

I understand all the arguments. Ms. Schyns spoke of very practical and pragmatic things. He said that this is a request. So we compare fifteen days later. The Public Prosecutor has time to give an opinion. Except that, you know as I do, not all cases are processed by request. A lot of cases, especially when it comes to emergency, are handled by citation, with a 48-hour deadline. You may even have a reduction of the quotation time to 24 hours, I remind you. The case is repeatedly discussed on the day before the hearing. Ms. Schyns says that either the King’s prosecutor will not be there, or he will be there because he has time and we have had a lucky blow.

What is likely to happen is that he gives an opinion. What will the parties ask? Delivery of the file. The file will be postponed. And to avoid this, she says that the Procurator of the King must be ⁇ ined, at least at the introductory hearing. Then, when it comes to pleasures, etc., if he decides not to come to the hearing, it is not serious. But he must at least be present at the introductory hearing to avoid, tomorrow, that in the cases to which the family court is brought, there will be either a waste of time, or pieces of files that the court will not have knowledge tomorrow because, for a reason x, y or z, the prosecutor will not come or deliver a written notice that will be partial or that the magistrate will be obliged to request the remission to bring the prosecutor to the hearing. At that point, we will be completely passed by.

I would like to thank Mrs. Becq for her reply. We are not always accustomed to this.

What does Mrs. Becq say? He says he understands the problem we are facing. It is fine, and I note it. There are ministers or representatives of the majority who don’t even want to understand the problem. I note the positive things.

Second, Mrs Becq tells us that in the text – and she presents this as a victory but you have a modest victory, so I translate –, we can always do it. It is magnificent! The problem is, what you’re saying is that we’re going to get back to random. It is enough once when the "may" has not been applied and the "may" will not be enough. That is the problem, and that is why it would be good to return to the situation as it is desired through the amendment. I wanted to say that because the “may” is not enough in relation to the challenge.

Colleagues, I’m not convinced that even if the public prosecutor’s office were always present, nothing would escape attention and le peu as you say it could not be there. So I’m not sure that everything would go perfectly.

What is happening here today is an effective responsibility, both of the judges and the prosecutor. In the story of greater autonomy and independence, responsibility is a very important element. This goes through the whole project. If I have heard of Mrs Schyns, I say that this is a lady that we should respect. We must respect the way in which she deals with the matters with which she is dealing, both legally and humanly. I am convinced that the same applies to the public prosecutor who, if it wants to take itself seriously, will have to take a substantial stance and prepare it as it can, and if it can’t at the moment, will fundamentally respond by postponing. In this way, the public prosecutor can also take a substantive stance, which may not always be possible at the hearing itself.

There were indeed non-evident measures. Among the most obvious measures in this project is the eBox, the informatization. We all talked about it for so long. We all hope that this will become a magic box for electronic communication. The digital platform should result in savings in the costs of paper communications. I think of the stamps, the mail, or the time spent on them, the copies, and so on. We hope that this legal basis can effectively ease the burden of office, magistrates and secretariates.

There are other measures to relieve the burden of judges and to enable extrajudicial settlement of a number of disputes. This is the unquestionable debt. I would like to reiterate that this is not a matter of private debt, but of commercial debt. There is an enforceable title for it. It may be somewhat rude if this happens through court enforcers, but this option was taken to look for efficiency and added value. We may wonder whether such procedures often weren’t just set up to ⁇ delay or to get discussion without actually challenging the claim itself.

In the same line, some traditional procedural rules have been challenged, such as the suspensive effect of the appeal, which was reversed, even though the possibility is retained. Also the claims of claimants in default will be looked at in a different way. They are elements to ⁇ greater efficiency and speed up the procedures.

Mr. Minister, with this draft we take a first horde to ensure that our Justice System becomes more efficient. We give our full trust to you and to the actors of Justice, who indeed have a great responsibility. They claim independence, we also give them responsibility. We want to do this with full confidence.

Mr. Minister, when you announced the potpourri law, I was reminded that potpourri is used as an air refresher. Well, I would like to expand it. I hope that this potpourri can also provide the necessary oxygen to Justice, so that it comes closer to the citizens and so that justice is delivered fairer and fairer.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude with a humorous note, I would like to remind Mrs. Becq that, on the French-speaking side, the pot-pourri can sometimes be used to hide bad smells.

Colleagues, I suggest that we close the morning meeting and resume our work at 13:45.