Proposition 54K1476

Projet de loi modifiant, en ce qui concerne le statut des affaires urgentes inscrites au rôle du tribunal de la famille, la loi du 19 octobre 2015 modifiant le droit de la procédure civile et portant des dispositions diverses en matière de justice.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Sonja Becq, Raf Terwingen
MR Philippe Goffin
N-VA Kristien Van Vaerenbergh
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Nov. 24, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil law court of civil jurisdiction civil procedure family law public prosecutor's department judicial proceedings

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

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 ¶

Dec. 10, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur, Mrs De Wit, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two comments on the text that is submitted to us. The first is that we are already proposing to amend the law of 19 October 2015. It was this famous law "pot-pourri 1", presented as a miracle that would simplify our procedure, voted in urgency and under pressure, without taking into account the observations of one and the other, members of the commission and experts heard.

Oh the surprise! It needs to be changed because there are problems. We may be ironic about this first aspect of my speech. If the situation was not serious, I would allow myself to do so, but it is proof that we are working pretty badly, despite the goodwill of the members of the commission and its chairman. We are giving birth to texts that, as soon as published in the Monitor, must already be modified.

The second reason for my intervention may seem paradoxical in that I am trying to correct a text with which I fundamentally disagree. This text is the one that provides for making optional the opinion of the public prosecutor in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the family and youth court. As far as to do, since this text was so badly written that it must already be corrected, I find that it is necessary to take advantage of the correction to make it true.

My intervention is not politically but essentially technical. I did it before the commission, I did not have much luck. I will try again at the end of the afternoon by submitting an amendment. What is the objective? It is about simplifying the situation that is being created by the amendment envisaged by the proposal of Mr. Terwingen and consorts. In the Family and Youth Court, cases are brought before 1 January 2016, the date on which the new text should apply, but are not yet advocated. They are the subject of a removal, a postponement to a specific date, the reopening of the debates, shortly will have to return before the court.

We also have before the family court of affairs where, by virtue of the permanent referral, a novelty that we introduced on the occasion of the family court, the magistrate who may have already known of a case will be able to recognize it because, by simple mail, he is asked to resume a file due to the evolution of the situation.

Finally, the third situation, the case that will be introduced after 1 January 2016. In this case, there are no difficulties. But, for the other two categories of situation, we will remain with the obligation of opinion of the public prosecutor.

This does not bother me personally, but in the daily practice before the family courts, professionals tell us that this will lead to difficulties. Where you want to simplify things, you will complicate them. At the same hearing, we will be able to recapture the three situations I have just mentioned. For some, the opinion of the public prosecutor will be mandatory; for others, it will not be, but it may be necessary if the court requires it.

There will be a coexistence for a relatively long period, impossible to determine at this stage, of different procedural situations that are absolutely not going in the direction desired by the authors of the proposal.

If the minister had been present in the committee, I could have hoped to see him accept this purely technical reasoning that would simply ensure the repeal of the famous Article 50 in this proposal. We would then be in the application of a procedural law, immediately applicable to all situations, regardless of their origin. This would really simplify things. I hope we can vote on this amendment together.