Proposition 54K2907

Projet de loi portant modification, en ce qui concerne l'extension de l'action en réparation collective aux P.M.E., du Code de droit économique.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Jan. 22, 2018

Official page

Visit

Subjects

civil liability proceedings collective interest small and medium-sized enterprises legal action judicial proceedings

Contact form ¶

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

Discussion ¶

Nov. 30, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, as I indicated in the committee, our group is in favor of the principle of extending class action to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often in a situation of weakness compared to large enterprises, a situation that can be compared to that of consumers.

We are obviously in favor of more regulation to correct and re-balance the economic relations between companies. We therefore fully support the objective of the bill under consideration.

I intervene, as I did in the committee, to say that our group will approve the said project, but that I will abstain, on a personal basis, for several reasons.

First, in this case, Minister Ducarme does not follow the opinion of the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs. He is true with a little embarrassment, but despite our discussions in the committee, he did not think it was good to change his position.

This week again, the Higher Council of Independents and SMEs made a very relevant observation by demonstrating that the class action system that is put in place by the Minister in this project is very easily bypassable. One sentence in the contract is sufficient. It is sufficient that the most powerful business partner imposes a contractual clause on the SME promising it not to use the system so that it loses the opportunity to resort to collective action.

We wanted and always want to remedy this problem by banning this type of clause. Mr. Ducarme answered me in the committee that I was right, but that this was not the time, that we would consider the issue later, that another project would be submitted to us in June or later.

Since legislation is now in place, why not provide for an amendment in the direction of the Higher Council of Independents and SMEs? We didn’t understand why it wasn’t possible to do so today; it’s somewhat regrettable for small and medium-sized enterprises.

So I come to my second comment. With this project, the entire litigation in collective reparation will be transferred from the court of first instance to the Brussels Commercial Court, both with regard to the new SME class action and for the former consumer class action.

We took note of the information communicated by Test-Achats who requested to be heard on this point by the commission. Unfortunately, the majority refused to hear it. Nevertheless, it was not a dilatory manoeuvre, nor a maneuver to save time, the goal was simply to address a substantial issue.

Like Test-Achats, we believe that the Commercial Court is not specialized in consumer disputes. By locking in it all the collective contentious, the majority shows a conception of the class action confined to the sole economic domain, which is a shame.

My last comment is the lack of ambition in this project. The assessment of the law of 2014 was submitted to us at the beginning of the week. A report on the future of the lawyer profession was also published a few weeks ago. These interesting documents give recommendations on the basis of which it would have been possible to make collective action a real tool of access to justice for all our fellow citizens.

Access to justice has become a real problem for the middle class as well as for the most precarious. The measures adopted by the government in the area of legal aid are not foreign to it.

This class action reform was an opportunity to seize to facilitate access to justice for all. She was not seized. For this reason, I will personally abstain. As for the PS group, it is in favor of extending the action class to SMEs.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, this collective reparation action has been in place since September 1, 2014. At that time, it was for the exclusive benefit of consumers. Last year, the law was subject to an evaluation to measure the feasibility of its extension to other categories of legal entities. But it is mainly due to the damage caused by the fipronil and Dieselgate crisis that the need to extend this protection mechanism to SMEs has emerged.

The proposed reform responds to these considerations. It helps to re-balance the strength ratio by providing additional resources to SMEs victims of mass damage. While some still hesitate to embark on lengthy and costly legal proceedings, this bill will facilitate their access to justice.

It also contributes to a better administration of justice, on the one hand by avoiding the multiplication of individual appeals and, on the other hand, by reducing the risk of conflicting decisions. The collective reparation action also has the advantage of reducing the administrative burden for SMEs who would like to be brought to justice. Finally, the retroactive application of the law from 1 September 2014 will allow SMEs to act collectively to obtain compensation for the damage suffered, in particular during the fipronil crisis.

The importance of such action in the context of damage to a large number of persons is no longer to be demonstrated. The continued expansion of the collective redress action for the benefit of SMEs appears to be obvious. Therefore, the MR group will speak in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are also pleased that this bill is now on the vote and that we thus, within the framework of the government’s vision on economic policy over the past years, come to a greater B2B protection. Not only do we protect private consumers through joint lawsuits for collective recovery, but small ⁇ also get the same opportunities.

It has been our question for several years to make this possible. With this bill, this will be extended to the legal action for collective recovery. For example, in recent months, the fipronil crisis has made clear that it is very convenient and useful for a number of small enterprises to group themselves and be able to file a single joint recovery claim.

In the committee there was a brief discussion on which court should be competent for collective recovery claims in the case of SMEs. The question is whether this cannot be done by the General Court of First Instance. However, there has been a clear choice for the Court of Commerce, for several reasons, which I will not discuss further now.

We are pleased with the design as it is presented.

We submitted two amendments. I would like to give the explanation immediately.

The first amendment aims to include in Article 5 the following: “In Article XVII, 42, § 2, paragraph 3 of the same code, the words ‘and/or to SMEs’ shall be inserted between the words ‘consumers’ and the words ‘be granted’.”

The second amendment aims to repeal Articles 13 and 14. It is intended to eliminate the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court for collective recovery claims, so that consumers are not deprived of the possibility of appealing to the natural court, the court of first instance.

I will explain. In its opinion, the State Council made a number of fundamental observations, in particular on the procedural consequences that the concept that each category can choose a group representative, rather than one representative for all categories together, would have.

In the memorandum of explanations, one may possibly raise the perception that that criticism implies that the problem lies mainly in the fact that two different proceedings relating to the same case can be brought before a different court. This problem will then be addressed by the Commercial Court, which will in the future be replaced by the Commercial Court, giving exclusive jurisdiction to the collective recovery claim, regardless of the category that initiates this claim.

In our view, this perception is incorrect, since the above problem, as the authorised representative has already communicated to the State Council – I refer here to page 34 of the explanatory memo – is covered by the rules on coherence. Under those rules, claims for collective recovery brought before different courts will in any case be dealt with by the same court. The introduction of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court is therefore not an added value for this purpose.

Neither is the exclusive competence an added value or a solution to the actual criticism of the Council of State. I quote from the Explanatory Memorandum, page 34: "It is unclear what should be done in case of discordance between the negotiated agreement with each of the two groups, or if only an agreement is reached with one of the two groups and not with the other group."

For example, the question is also whether the division of the group representation can result in the application of the exclusion option system to one group and the inclusion option system to the other group.

A second argument arising from this exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court is that that court is the natural court for commercial practices. However, in the memorandum of explanation of the draft law incorporating Title 2, claims for collective recovery, it is clear that the natural court for claims for collective recovery, starting from consumers, is the court of first instance. I quote: “The preliminary draft does not indeed provide for changes to the material competence of the courts. If the plaintiff is not an enterprise, as in the present case the consumer, the natural court will therefore be the court of first instance, unless the plaintiff himself chooses, after the dispute has arisen, to bring the matter before the court of commerce.

Similarly, in the explanatory memo to the current bill, it is expressly stated on page 8 that the idea that the group of consumers and those of SMEs are represented by another representative is a choice that the legislator makes to take into account the peculiarity of those groups. Now, this justified choice of peculiarity implies, therefore, that one must retain the natural judgment for those groups.

Finally, the memorandum of explanations also argues that the choice of exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court corresponds to the legislature’s desire to ensure, in the recovery of the collective recovery claim for consumers, a specialisation among the magistrates responsible for such cases and for the harmonisation of the case-law in this regard. This argument also fails. After all, only the Court of First Instance in Brussels, and not the Court of Commerce in Brussels, has accumulated the expertise on the claims for collective recovery. In addition, the Commercial Court is specialized in commercial law and not in consumer law. The risk is therefore not inexistent that that expertise will serve rather the undertakings and, to a much lesser extent, the consumer.

Responsibility for the submitted amendments.

I would like to reiterate the arguments that we have put forward in the committee.

First, Ecolo-Groen has been advocating for many years for the extension of the right of action in collective compensation (class action) for SMEs and self-employed. Several colleagues referred to the current situation, such as the Fipronil crisis, collective dismissals at ING as well as those of independent workers working in agencies. The latter had therefore regretted not being able to unite to bring an appeal against the injustice that constituted this restructuring.

This extension was therefore absolutely necessary for SMEs and self-employed individuals to defend themselves by organising themselves collectively against the unfair behavior of certain business partners, suppliers or customers more imposing than themselves. For now, a small, isolated company cannot fight them with equal weapons.

In short, as I pointed out in the committee, we are in favor of the principle of such an extension. That said, like many colleagues, we had asked the question of choosing the judicial instance, namely the Commercial Court. However, we know that since 2014, it is the court of first instance that deals with all these cases from the consumer’s point of view. That is why it seems to me that it is of the utmost importance to retain this competence, which has been conferred on it for four years, but we know that you will transfer it to the Commercial Court. This choice raises many questions, especially from the consumer protection associations. I think in particular of Test Purchases, who deeply regrets this choice and who had wanted to be heard in commission. We had supported this request for hearing, which was rejected by the majority. This is really a shame, since I think it would have been wise to extend the scope of the debate by hearing field actors, in particular consumer associations.

At the time of the committee vote, I had abstained - on behalf of my group - on the article transferring jurisdiction to the Commercial Court. However, as we agree on the principle of extending collective rights to SMEs and self-employed, we will vote in favour of this text today.

At the same time, we have also approved the proposed bill in a positive manner. This extension of class action to SMEs is a favorable element for us.

I would like to remind, as my colleague did, that it is not anonymous that the text in question has been mentioned several times, during the Fipronil committees. We find it important to allow the merger of small and medium-sized enterprises to have reparation for crimes, fraud or faults committed by one person. This seems to be, at first, a good move.

The choice is left between the business court and the trade court. Small and medium-sized enterprises are used to this. Everyone knows the existence of consular judges and in this particular case it seems to me to be a balance, which is why we supported this bill as it is presented and we will support it in the vote.

Het is positive dat het ontwerp bijna unaniem werd gesteund in de commission in ook in de plenary vergadering wordt gesteund by de meeste fracties, zowel van de meerderheid als van de opposition. Dat komt door de gedeelde vaststelling dat underhavig ontwerp nodig is for SMEs.

Mr. Vanden Burre, you have taken a number of examples, such as the fipronil crisis. As a commission, I also indicated the dieselgate and, now, the Veviba case. These are all elements that demonstrate that the time has come to extend the action in collective redress to SMEs, which has so far been reserved for consumers.

As regards consumers, this mechanism was opened in 2014. Several stakeholders then expressed their support for the inclusion of new categories of beneficiaries, in particular to cover self-employed and SMEs.

The report of the evaluation of the law has also been transmitted to Parliament. It will also be easy for you to see that the bill provides a solution to the concerns raised by our self-employed and SMEs. Mr. Delizée, I obviously met with the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs in this context; I can say that they are extremely satisfied with this project and that they intend to promote it.

The reform will allow SMEs victims of a damage caused by a company, as a result of the breach of one of its contractual obligations, to initiate a collective damages action through a group representative to obtain compensation for that damage.

While the existing mechanism is extended to SMEs, some necessary adjustments have been made to take into account these specificities. I think it is before the Commercial Court that this action must be brought from now on. I would like to respond to Mr. Delizée who tells us that he will abstain, in particular on this aspect, and I would like to repeat what I said in committee in this regard: the Commercial Court, today, already applies cessation actions relating to consumer protection rights.

Supposing that these magistrates would not have the knowledge of this type of litigation makes no sense. Moreover – this joins in a filigrane what Mr. de Lamotte indicated – the bill is consistent with the reform brought by my colleagues the Ministers of Justice and Economy. The Commercial Court will become the court of the company. As a natural judge of the Code of Economic Law, this court will become the natural judge of class actions for SMEs.

Finally, I am a little surprised by Mr. Delizée’s comment. The insinuation that protection would be less against a Commercial Court magistrate than against a first-instance court magistrate and that the independence of the first would be less than that of the second could legitimately shock the magistrates.

I would like to repeat, however, to Mr. Casier too: this transfer is a response to an observation of the State Council. In its opinion, it emphasized that a number of difficulties could arise from actions brought separately before different courts by a consumer representative organisation and a small and medium-sized enterprises representative organization.

Mrs Dierick asked whether the Farmers’ Union could be considered a group representative. I can reassure her: according to the spirit of the law, the Boerenbond, like other representative organizations, is eligible for the statute. This can be done through either a satellite association, or on the basis of the Royal Decree with the specific criteria, which will complete the bill.

In conclusion, I think this is an essential measure for our companies. Small ⁇ will thus be able to effectively gather and work in solidarity, in situations where defending itself in isolation was quite impossible.

I truly believe that we are facing a need. We offer an additional tool to our SMEs. We naturally took care - and I think it is also in this that the support goes beyond the majority - to fix a certain number of tags and to build a project that is balanced so as not to suffer a certain number of deviations seen in other countries.

I thank you for your attention.

March 22, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Colleagues, as I indicated in the committee, our group is in favor of the principle of extending class action to small and medium-sized enterprises, which are often in a situation of weakness compared to large enterprises, a situation that can be compared to that of consumers.

We are obviously in favor of more regulation to correct and re-balance the economic relations between companies. We therefore fully support the objective of the bill under consideration.

I intervene, as I did in the committee, to say that our group will approve the said project, but that I will abstain, on a personal basis, for several reasons.

First, in this case, Minister Ducarme does not follow the opinion of the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs. He is true with a little embarrassment, but despite our discussions in the committee, he did not think it was good to change his position.

This week again, the Higher Council of Independents and SMEs made a very relevant observation by demonstrating that the class action system that is put in place by the Minister in this project is very easily bypassable. One sentence in the contract is sufficient. It is sufficient that the most powerful business partner imposes a contractual clause on the SME promising it not to use the system so that it loses the opportunity to resort to collective action.

We wanted and always want to remedy this problem by banning this type of clause. Mr. Ducarme answered me in the committee that I was right, but that this was not the time, that we would consider the issue later, that another project would be submitted to us in June or later.

Since legislation is now in place, why not provide for an amendment in the direction of the Higher Council of Independents and SMEs? We didn’t understand why it wasn’t possible to do so today; it’s somewhat regrettable for small and medium-sized enterprises.

So I come to my second comment. With this project, the entire litigation in collective reparation will be transferred from the court of first instance to the Brussels Commercial Court, both with regard to the new SME class action and for the former consumer class action.

We took note of the information communicated by Test-Achats who requested to be heard on this point by the commission. Unfortunately, the majority refused to hear it. Nevertheless, it was not a dilatory manoeuvre, nor a maneuver to save time, the goal was simply to address a substantial issue.

Similar to Test-Achats, we believe that the Commercial Court is not specialized in consumer disputes. By locking up all the collective contention therein, the majority shows a concept of class action confined solely to the economic domain, which is a pity.

My last point is the lack of ambition. The assessment of the law for 2014 was submitted to us at the beginning of the week. A report on the future of the lawyer profession was also published a few weeks ago. These interesting documents provide recommendations on the basis of which it would have been possible to make collective action a real tool of access to justice for all our fellow citizens.

Access to justice has become a real problem for the middle class as well as for the most precarious. The measures adopted by the government in the area of legal aid are therefore not foreign to it.

This reform of class action was an opportunity to seize to facilitate access to justice for all. She was not seized. For that reason, I will personally abstain. As for the PS Group, it is in favor of extending the action class to SMEs.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Ladies and Gentlemen, this collective reparation action has been in place since September 1, 2014. At that time, it was for the exclusive benefit of consumers. Last year, the law was subject to an evaluation to measure the feasibility of its extension to other categories of legal entities. But it is mainly due to the damage caused by the fipronil and Dieselgate crisis that the need to extend this protection mechanism to SMEs has emerged.

The proposed reform responds to these considerations. It helps to re-balance the strength ratio by providing additional resources to SMEs victims of mass damage. While some still hesitate to embark on lengthy and costly legal proceedings, this bill will facilitate their access to justice.

It also contributes to a better administration of justice, on the one hand by avoiding the multiplication of individual appeals and, on the other hand, by reducing the risk of conflicting decisions. The collective reparation action also has the advantage of reducing the administrative burden for SMEs who would like to be brought to justice. Finally, the retroactive application of the law from 1 September 2014 will allow SMEs to act collectively to obtain compensation for the damage suffered, in particular during the fipronil crisis.

The importance of such action in the context of damage to a large number of persons is no longer to be demonstrated. The continued expansion of the collective redress action for the benefit of SMEs appears to be obvious. Therefore, the MR group will speak in favour of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are also pleased that this bill is now on the vote and that we thus, within the framework of the government’s vision on economic policy over the past years, come to a greater B2B protection. Not only do we protect private consumers through joint lawsuits for collective recovery, but small ⁇ also get the same opportunities.

It has been our question for several years to make this possible. With this bill, this will be extended to the legal action for collective recovery. For example, in recent months, the fipronil crisis has made clear that it is very convenient and useful for a number of small enterprises to group themselves and be able to file a single joint recovery claim.

In the committee there was a brief discussion on which court should be competent for collective recovery claims in the case of SMEs. The question is whether this cannot be done by the General Court of First Instance. However, there has been a clear choice for the Court of Commerce, for several reasons, which I will not discuss further now.

We are pleased with the design as it is presented.

We submitted two amendments. I would like to give the explanation immediately.

The first amendment aims to include in Article 5 the following: “In Article XVII, 42, § 2, paragraph 3 of the same code, the words ‘and/or to SMEs’ shall be inserted between the words ‘consumers’ and the words ‘be granted’.”

The second amendment aims to repeal Articles 13 and 14. It is intended to eliminate the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court for collective recovery claims, so that consumers are not deprived of the possibility of appealing to the natural court, the court of first instance.

I will explain. In its opinion, the State Council made a number of fundamental observations, in particular on the procedural consequences that the concept that each category can choose a group representative, rather than one representative for all categories together, would have.

In the memorandum of explanations, one may possibly raise the perception that that criticism implies that the problem lies mainly in the fact that two different proceedings relating to the same case can be brought before a different court. This problem will then be addressed by the Commercial Court, which will in the future be replaced by the Commercial Court, giving exclusive jurisdiction to the collective recovery claim, regardless of the category that initiates this claim.

In our view, this perception is incorrect, since the above problem, as the authorised representative has already communicated to the State Council – I refer here to page 34 of the explanatory memo – is covered by the rules on coherence. Under those rules, claims for collective recovery brought before different courts will in any case be dealt with by the same court. The introduction of the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court is therefore not an added value for this purpose.

Neither is the exclusive competence an added value or a solution to the actual criticism of the Council of State. I quote from the Explanatory Memorandum, page 34: "It is unclear what should be done in case of discordance between the negotiated agreement with each of the two groups, or if only an agreement is reached with one of the two groups and not with the other group."

For example, the question is also whether the division of the group representation can result in the application of the exclusion option system to one group and the inclusion option system to the other group.

A second argument arising from this exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court is that that court is the natural court for commercial practices. However, in the memorandum of explanation of the draft law incorporating Title 2, claims for collective recovery, it is clear that the natural court for claims for collective recovery, starting from consumers, is the court of first instance. I quote: “The preliminary draft does not indeed provide for changes to the material competence of the courts. If the plaintiff is not an enterprise, as in the present case the consumer, the natural court will therefore be the court of first instance, unless the plaintiff himself chooses, after the dispute has arisen, to bring the matter before the court of commerce.

Similarly, in the explanatory memo to the current bill, it is expressly stated on page 8 that the idea that the group of consumers and those of SMEs are represented by another representative is a choice that the legislator makes to take into account the peculiarity of those groups. Now, this justified choice of peculiarity implies, therefore, that one must retain the natural judgment for those groups.

Finally, the memorandum of explanations also argues that the choice of exclusive jurisdiction of the Commercial Court corresponds to the legislature’s desire to ensure, in the recovery of the collective recovery claim for consumers, a specialisation among the magistrates responsible for such cases and for the harmonisation of the case-law in this regard. This argument also fails. After all, only the Court of First Instance in Brussels, and not the Court of Commerce in Brussels, has accumulated the expertise on the claims for collective recovery. In addition, the Commercial Court is specialized in commercial law and not in consumer law. The risk is therefore not inexistent that that expertise will serve rather the undertakings and, to a much lesser extent, the consumer.

Responsibility for the submitted amendments.

I would like to reiterate the arguments that we have put forward in the committee.

First, Ecolo-Groen has been advocating for many years for the extension of the right of action in collective compensation (class action) for SMEs and self-employed. Several colleagues referred to the current situation, such as the Fipronil crisis, collective dismissals at ING as well as those of independent workers working in agencies. The latter had therefore regretted not being able to unite to bring an appeal against the injustice that constituted this restructuring.

This extension was therefore absolutely necessary for SMEs and self-employed individuals to defend themselves by organising themselves collectively against the unfair behavior of certain business partners, suppliers or customers more imposing than themselves. For now, a small, isolated company cannot fight them with equal weapons.

In short, as I pointed out in the committee, we are in favor of the principle of such an extension. That said, like many colleagues, we had asked the question of choosing the judicial instance, namely the Commercial Court. However, we know that since 2014, it is the court of first instance that deals with all these cases from the consumer’s point of view. That is why it seems to me that it is of the utmost importance to retain this competence, which has been conferred on it for four years, but we know that you will transfer it to the Commercial Court. This choice raises many questions, especially from the consumer protection associations. I think in particular of Test Purchases, who deeply regrets this choice and who had wanted to be heard in commission. We had supported this request for hearing, which was rejected by the majority. This is really a shame, since I think it would have been wise to extend the scope of the debate by hearing field actors, in particular consumer associations.

At the time of the committee vote, I had abstained - on behalf of my group - on the article transferring jurisdiction to the Commercial Court. However, as we agree on the principle of extending collective rights to SMEs and self-employed, we will vote in favour of this text today.

We have also approved the legislation that has been presented to us in a very positive way. This extension of the class action to SMEs is for us a favorable element.

I would like to remind, as my colleague did, that it is not unusual that the text in question has been mentioned several times during the Fipronil committees. We find it important to allow small and medium-sized enterprises to merge together to have redress for crimes, fraud or faults committed by one person. At first, this seems to be a good move.

The choice is left between the business court and the trade court. Small and medium-sized enterprises are used to this. Everybody knows the existence of consular judges and in this particular case it seems to me to be a balance, which is why we supported this bill as it is presented and we will support it at the vote.

Het is positive dat het ontwerp bijna unaniem werd gesteund in de commission in ook in de plenary vergadering wordt gesteund by de meeste fracties, zowel van de meerderheid als van de opposition. Dat komt door de gedeelde vaststelling dat underhavig ontwerp nodig is for SMEs.

Mr. Vanden Burre, you have taken a number of examples, such as the fipronil crisis. As a commission, I also indicated the dieselgate and, now, the Veviba case. These are all elements that demonstrate that the time has come to extend the action in collective redress to SMEs, which has so far been reserved for consumers.

As regards consumers, this mechanism was opened in 2014. Several stakeholders then expressed their support for the inclusion of new categories of beneficiaries, in particular to cover self-employed and SMEs.

The report of the evaluation of the law has also been transmitted to Parliament. It will also be easy for you to see that the bill provides a solution to the concerns raised by our self-employed and SMEs. Mr. Delizée, I obviously met with the Superior Council of Independents and SMEs in this context; I can say that they are extremely satisfied with this project and that they intend to promote it.

The reform will allow SMEs victims of a damage caused by a company, as a result of the breach of one of its contractual obligations, to initiate a collective damages action through a group representative to obtain compensation for that damage.

While the existing mechanism is extended to SMEs, some necessary adjustments have been made to take into account these specificities. I think it is before the Commercial Court that this action must be brought from now on. I would like to respond to Mr. Delizée who tells us that he will abstain, in particular on this aspect, and I would like to repeat what I said in committee in this regard: the Commercial Court, today, already applies cessation actions relating to consumer protection rights.

Supposing that these magistrates would not have the knowledge of this type of litigation makes no sense. Moreover – this joins in a filigrane what Mr. de Lamotte indicated – the bill is consistent with the reform brought by my colleagues the Ministers of Justice and Economy. The Commercial Court will become the court of the company. As a natural judge of the Code of Economic Law, this court will become the natural judge of class actions for SMEs.

Finally, I am a little surprised by Mr. Delizée’s comment. The insinuation that protection would be less against a Commercial Court magistrate than against a first-instance court magistrate and that the independence of the first would be less than that of the second could legitimately shock the magistrates.

I would like to repeat, however, to Mr. Casier too: this transfer is a response to an observation of the State Council. In its opinion, it emphasized that a number of difficulties could arise from actions brought separately before different courts by a consumer representative organisation and a small and medium-sized enterprises representative organization.

Mrs Dierick asked whether the Farmers’ Union could be considered a group representative. I can reassure her: according to the spirit of the law, the Boerenbond, like other representative organizations, is eligible for the statute. This can be done through either a satellite association, or on the basis of the Royal Decree with the specific criteria, which will complete the bill.

In conclusion, I think this is an essential measure for our companies. Small ⁇ will thus be able to effectively gather and work in solidarity, in situations where defending itself in isolation was quite impossible.

I truly believe that we are facing a need. We offer an additional tool to our SMEs. We naturally took care - and I think it is also in this that the support goes beyond the majority - to fix a certain number of tags and to build a project that is balanced so as not to suffer a certain number of deviations seen in other countries.

I thank you for your attention.