Proposition 54K2919

Projet de loi portant dispositions diverses en matière de droit civil et des dispositions en vue de promouvoir des formes alternatives de résolution des litiges.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Feb. 5, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

civil law civil procedure judicial proceedings

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB VB

Abstained from voting

PP

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 ¶

June 7, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, given the diversity of subjects contained in this text, wisdom requires reference to the written report, each speaker coming to justify from his point of view.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. The title may misleadingly suggest that it is only about mediation and alternative dispute resolution, but there is more in this draft.

With a number of very important modernizations, the bourgeois state is changed. The main reform is the introduction of the database DABS, which will provide for more uniformization and, above all, will also operate in a cost-effective manner. We welcome this initiative. We believe that this will be an advance on the ground for the officials of the civil state, who are daily engaged in this matter. We expect that sufficient information sessions and training sessions will follow for these officials, so that the time savings aimed at this renewal can be felt from the outset.

There are other changes, such as the name right. The aim here is to simplify and rationalize the procedure for changing the name and first name. Not everything will have to appear before the Minister. Much will be completed by the civil state itself. This is a good thing in terms of handling and legal certainty.

For us, the most important change is mediation. It also creates a legal framework for collaborative negotiations. This is of great importance to our group. We have also submitted a number of legislative initiatives in this regard. A new bill will be discussed soon. We welcome any alternative dispute resolution initiative.

A judicial procedure too often leads to difficult situations that may eventually worsen and escalate. The relationship between individuals is further aggravated. That is why such mediation is so important, ⁇ in family conflicts, which are often publicly disclosed, which makes it even more difficult to find a reasonable solution.

We are very pleased that the Government in general and the Minister of Justice in particular are further encouraging alternative forms of dispute resolution. This legislative work is an important step forward in this area.

However, it can only work if sufficient attention is paid to this subject in the training of magistrates and lawyers.

Only in this way can the judicial procedure again become the ultimate remedy. We hope that this legislation will bring about a mental change.

It is important that citizens find the way to out-of-court mediation before they initiate a judicial procedure, but even when the procedure has already begun, it should not be too late for mediation. It is good that the court can refer citizens to mediation if he or she finds that this is still a valid option, without causing a delay in the procedure.

The training of accredited mediators will be thoroughly reformed and the title of the profession will be protected. Thus, the citizen can count on a qualitative guidance, which is very important.

We are therefore pleased that the final decision has been made to specialize the training, that this possibility remains. Mediation in family matters cannot be compared to mediation in commercial matters.

We welcome this with great pleasure, we hope that the goal is achieved and that we can continue to work on a change of mentality, making the legal procedure the ultimate remedy.

Dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, once again, we are faced with a waterzooi that makes us move from the creation of a civil status database to co-ownership, through alternative conflict resolution, the acquisition of citizenship and yet so many other, yet important, subjects that we are forced to overwhelm, given the chain of projects and the diversity of themes that are addressed there.

I will be ⁇ interested in co-ownership, the alternative modes of dispute resolution that constitute mediation and the law of collaboration, as well as the rules that further restrict the acquisition of nationality. I will point out the difficulties associated with the use of certain terms in the bill, which only respond to the concrete situation in Flanders and do not take into account the specifics of the existing systems in Brussels and Wallonia in terms of integration policy.

First, with regard to co-ownership, the bill is generally positive and facilitates sometimes complex situations between co-owners. But the fact of allowing a private use of communes and of providing for the possibility of modifying the common thing at its expense, provided that it does not harm and does not change its destination, was the subject of a series of very vivid remarks from the National Syndicate of Owners and Co-Owners (SNPC), which believed that this article could be assimilated to a form of expropriation for the benefit of private intervenants. We always ask ourselves why you did not decide to convene the working group again so that it would look more specifically at this issue.

Similarly, the accusations of privatization of a common space, knowing that the owner who installed this infrastructure for his own account remains the owner, seem to us to be current. If the amendment that allows the association of co-owners to perform the infrastructure optimization work itself is a real improvement of the text, the maintenance of the possibility for the co-owners or the public works operator to do the works without the consent of the co-owners and in the interest of a single co-owners seems to us challenging.

In terms of mediation and collaborative law, we are pleased that the hearings have made good progress and corrected the shot significantly. Ordinating a mediation, suspending the proceedings or even bringing the case back to a fixed date to impose or attempt to impose on the parties to settle their dispute by means of mediation seemed to us quite incongruous and contrary to the voluntary character by definition of mediation.

It can still be regretted that the abbreviated formulas such as "order the parties to try to resolve the dispute through mediation" or "as ordered to try to resolve", which continue to be meaningless in the face of the voluntary nature of alternative dispute resolution. Other questions arise regarding the training of mediators and the maintenance of specificities. The future will tell us if this reform needs to be revised again.

Finally, regarding the reform of the acquisition of citizenship, as noted by the professor and deputy dean of the Faculty of Law of Liège, the project on this theme is truly a missed opportunity. The 2012 law had shown a number of practical implementation difficulties. But the repair of this is not at all the ratio legis of this bill. Structural difficulties, in particular to allow the magistrate to take into account individual concrete circumstances, have thus been pointed out and have not been resolved in this bill. In addition, some specialized associations in the field of foreign law believe that the changes further restrict the acquisition of citizenship, in particular by creating new difficulties for persons seeking to become Belgians.

Although some changes are positive, such as the reintroduction of state possession, it is regrettable that the wording is more restrictive than it was before 2012. Others, on the other hand, are clearly disputable.

Again, this text does not allow to take into account the concrete situation of foreigners wishing to acquire Belgian nationality.

Furthermore, another essential point for my group is the problem of the evidence of social integration, and the question of the short path, also called the path of integration. As you know, before 2017, the integration path was not required everywhere in Belgium. Persons wishing to obtain Belgian citizenship had to prove their social integration from day to day, which was not materially possible. Since then, the French Community Commission has taken a transitional measure to address this blockage. It has set up citizenship modules for people who have been in Belgium for more than three years. These modules are in high demand, and the waiting list is long for people applying to participate in them.

Nevertheless, these modules do not constitute an integration path, a reception path, or an integration path as such. This is why the question of their recognition in the bill that we are dealing with arises. The notion covered by the words "successfully followed" also causes difficulties in some parts of our country. Therefore, in order to ensure compliance with the competences of the federated entities, it is appropriate to target the different terminologies present, and not to require having "successfully followed" a course or a path of integration.

It is true, you have slightly amended the project on this point, but unfortunately, this is not enough for us. The three-year transition period will not improve the situation since the obligation is not yet in force in Brussels, due to difficulties in concluding the necessary cooperation agreement. In addition, the obligation will not affect Europeans, which will therefore prevent a EU citizen from applying for Belgian citizenship.

We will ⁇ have the opportunity to return to these changes relating to these articles.

Despite the many advances achieved and the topics on which we agreed with you, Mr. Minister, my group will abstain on this text.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, in this text that no longer bears the name of pot-pourri but of "diverse provisions in matters of civil law", the MR is very pleased to find two themes that have been the subject of legislative proposals.

It is, on the one hand, the introduction of the possibility of an appeal of full jurisdiction before the family court in matters relating to name and surname. It was regrettable that the change of the surname or family name which was the subject of an administrative decision could not be the subject of an appeal on the merits. It is well known that the appeals to the Council of State concern the form and not the substance. From now on there will be the possibility of going before the natural court of this kind of affairs, that is, the family court. This is a good proposal that is integrated and we look forward to it.

It is, on the other hand, the privilege granted to co-owners. As is known, costs are incurred by the co-ownership and some co-owners, unfortunately, show themselves undelicate and forget to participate in the collective effort. However, in the case of a sale, some creditors could use themselves as a privilege over the price of the sale. From now on, it will also be possible for the co-ownership to recover, within the framework of a privilege, any rights in the selling price that would be obtained within the framework of the same.

We voted for the text in the committee. We will vote in the plenary session.

It ⁇ won’t surprise anyone that we will support this proposal. In fact, it contains many elements where our party lags behind, it offers solutions to all sorts of problems, and it means a modernization of the bourgeois state and the accompanying administrative simplification, which is a work not to be underestimated.

A database will be established. New documents will only be prepared electronically. I think many mayors who now have to sign a lot of acts will be happy that they don’t have to do it anymore. This avoids a lot of double work. This will ensure not only the civil status but also the simplification of the offices. Digital documents become authentic and can thus be retrieved; a unique data input is also provided. This, of course, brings financial savings, even though municipalities have to pay a small amount for the programs in their databases.

The procedure for the name change is now up to the municipalities. It is important that the staff who are initially involved are adequately trained.

In addition to the changes to the law on nationality and adoption, there are the adjustments related to co-ownership based on the proposals of the working group headed by the professors Lecocq and Sagaert of the KU Leuven with a view to a better and more flexible functioning of the association of co-owners. Thus, a smooth, qualified majority is sufficient to have the necessary works carried out for properties with different co-owners and blockages are avoided.

There is also the mandatory contribution to a reserve fund. Indeed, it is important that a commission be provided for necessary works on co-owned properties.

Furthermore, a privilege under the Mortgage Act is being created, as colleague Goffin has already said.

Finally, alternative dispute resolution is being further strengthened and expanded, and we are very pleased with this. There is clarity, not only about the out-of-court dispute resolution, formerly the voluntary dispute resolution, but also about the judicial resolution. We are simply talking about mediation, friendly settlement and settlement within the framework of family law. Even the peace judge could at that time, before a summons was passed, make an appeal for reconciliation or amicable settlement.

We all consider it important that mediation and agreements have a better and larger place. In the past, steps have also been taken in this regard, including the reform of the pro-deor arrangement with a lower threshold in the point count or the nomenclature for friendly arrangements in the second line legal aid.

The regulation also stipulates that, if the court considers it useful and considers that a mediation solution is possible, he may invite the parties to do so. Compulsion can be difficult in the context of a mediation; at the Flemish level, in relation to the special youth care, one has to speak about the provision of clamping care. For example, the court can provide for so-called clamp-up friendly arrangements.

Attention has also been paid to the quality of the recognised mediators and a new procedure for collaborative negotiations has been included in the text, a practice common to the OBFG. More opportunities will be created for resolving disputes by mutual agreement in a confidential manner, alongside and, where appropriate, with a court.

Why do we find mediation so important? Scientific research has shown more often that conflict solutions can offer more chances of success if the parties are really involved.

I am very pleased with the arrangement today in connection with recognition. I went to search the internet for a moment and noticed that I already submitted a draft decree on the recognition of mediators at the Flemish level in the 2000s.

We got a lot of counterwind then, because lawyers thought it wasn’t done that the regions would make arrangements for lawyers-mediators. I am actually very pleased that today a long way has been taken in resolving conflicts through mutual agreement. The introduction of quality guarantees confirms the recognition of the mediator.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, You no longer dare to use this term, Mr. Minister, when it was dear to you.

There are ten subjects that are unrelated to each other. Therefore, it is difficult to form a definitive opinion about it, although we are asked to engage in this exercise. I will explain it at the end of my presentation. Previously, Mr. Minister, I think we have reached the limits of the method of the texts “melting-pot”, “pot-pourri”, “waterzooi”.

Our colleague Van Hecke – who was absent – used to, at the end of our work, request a second reading so that the Chamber’s legal services could verify the legal quality of the task we have carried out. In this case, it must be acknowledged that their rating is, at least, severe. Indeed, it contains no less than 105 observations, which justified the submission of 60 amendments in second reading – irrespective of those that had been submitted during the first review of the draft. Most of them do not come from the opposition, but from the majority. This proves, on the one hand, that the method followed is not the most effective and, on the other hand, that the second reading that we frequently invoke is justified.

In my view, the majority of your work focuses, in my view, on two key issues. I think first of all of how our municipalities will write and manage the civil status acts, and then, instead, what you want to reserve to mediation as an alternative way to settle conflicts. On these two topics, I won’t have any trouble following you. The simplification and automation of the registration processes are in themselves praiseable measures, as they will bring our community services into the 21st century. These will now use computing as an essential support. I mean the establishment of a central register and the use of documents in electronic form.

This is ⁇ the prelude to the fact that, tomorrow, our fellow citizens will be able to order, whatever the place concerned by the act, a copy of it without even having to appear in front of the headquarters of any municipal administration which is sometimes even no longer that of the place where they are. Therefore, it is positive developments that will simplify the matter.

All the audiences that we were able to hear in the framework of this project expressed their interest. The question that remains and which will need to be the subject of particular attention in the coming months and years is that of the extent of the civil status officer’s responsibility in matters of acts. We know that today the civil status officer is responsible for errors, omissions or even faults that may appear in the acts and, in particular, for the retranscription of acts emanating from the judiciary. Your project does not definitively resolve this issue. We will need to be careful about this in the future.

Mr. Minister, I also asked you about the financial impact of this reform, especially for municipalities who will have to consider a completely different way of working on drafting the acts. If you believe it, and I am willing to follow you, except for the costs associated with the acquisition of software, or even of an appropriate computer support for the links to the central register, we should issue working hours for the municipal staff. I want to accept the augure and we will see in use what it will be.

It is obvious that additional costs will have to be taken into account by the federal, for the establishment of this central register.

The only real question I have raised in the framework of our committee work, which I will answer you this afternoon and which I will reformulate again in the form of an amendment, is that of the dematerialization of these acts of civil status, acts ranging from a prior recognition of paternity to a decision of legal cohabitation, the recognition of a child to be born, etc., a whole series of acts having fundamental consequences on the lives of citizens of this country.

With your project, tomorrow, these acts will no longer be signed by the civil status officer who will simply transmit them to the Central Register and, most importantly, will no longer be signed by the protagonists. Tomorrow, if I am going to make a statement of an unborn child, I will not have to sign that statement. If I am going to make a request for cohabitation, I will not have to sign the latter.

What problems will we encounter on the day when a person will come to the head of challenging a situation that he probably wanted by presenting himself before the civil status officer, asking the latter to draft an act of will that he expresses verbally before him? An act shall be drawn up without the signature of the applicant. And tomorrow he will come to say that it was not exactly what he asked, what he wanted, pretexting that the civil state officer or the communal agent had misinterpreted his request and had not correctly transcribed it, and he will challenge the document. How will it be done to ask him to provide proof of a negative fact that would constitute his absence of consent? We will face a real difficulty. We must be careful of such a situation.

Furthermore, by no longer collecting the citizen’s signature – this element is even more fundamental –, one disclaims the citizen in the act he makes. Now, as I have reminded you, these are essential matters, which affect the state of persons, which therefore have, in addition to this dimension of acceptance of their responsibility by the signature that they attach to the bottom of an act, a quite symbolic dimension. The Council of State had also attracted the attention of the legislator that we are on this issue.

In response, you told us, Mr. Minister, that such situations should not be many, which we could appreciate, depending on the evolution of the situation and the implementation of this text. In my opinion, this is one of the weaknesses of your project that does not call for other observations on this point and rather goes in the right direction.

We have already talked about the term co-ownership. Therefore, I will not extend long on this point. However, one asks why it appears, once again, in a text somewhat fuzzy while it has already been the subject of legislative amendments that are always made at a time-by-time according to more or less difficult or dramatic situations that are experienced in the management of the co-property, either with undelicated syndics, or with co-owners who, having not paid the charges, are not likely to be hit by a seizure, which is why it is considered, today, a privilege over the costs due to the co-property.

That’s fine, but again, isn’t it doing a little bit of anything, knowing that a property law reform is expected and which is – if I’m not mistaken – currently being discussed within the government?

The other central theme concerns the de-judicialization of a whole series of conflicts. We will obviously sign our agreement on this subject, Mr. Minister, because the matter has evolved as the committee works, the second reading and the number of amendments that were accepted by the majority, given the way our work went, the observations of the various MEPs, but also the opinions given by the persons concerned with this important topic. Indeed, not only does this de-judiciarisation apply not only to family conflicts but also to any form of conflict that can be resolved by a voluntary process; it necessarily results in an acquittal in the head of those who participate in it if this way of proceeding, of contemplating things, has been effectively consented.

So you are taking a step in the right direction. My bemo – and you know it – is that you do not bring this quite positive option of incentive measures towards the “justiciable” – since if one dejudiciaris, one may no longer have to call them as such. However, the financial incentive is indispensable in order for mediation to thrive.

As we have seen, a previous Justice Commission visited Quebec and examined how our friends in Canada could have, with mediation, settled a large number of cases that, otherwise, would end up in courts and courts.

If we want to have the same ratio of effectiveness, it will at some point be indispensable that public authorities make the "effort" not only to advocate mediation intellectually, legally, but to support it with a financial intervention. I would like to remind you that I myself submitted a bill to finance five sessions in the framework of family mediation. We should start with a form of mediation to see if, indeed, it is a timely and adequate way to promote this type of conflict settlement.

In the text, we have long debated the composition of the mediation committee, the specialization of mediators while we know that today, two-thirds (not to say three-quarters) of mediations are essentially family nature, that one cannot lose this specificity, at least in the first time.

The hope is that, in the long run, mediation, extending to other types of situations, can be considered not to be an exclusive use of the settlement of situations in family law. Today, we must take this reality into account. I think it is essential that the specialty of mediators continue to appear. The amendments you accepted were in this direction.

Another point, which I raised and to which you gave a provisional and partial answer, concerns the VAT exemption, which now applies to family mediators. The only tax element that encourages the use of mediation is that the fees of mediators are not subject to VAT, if it is family mediation. What about other forms of mediation? What about the maintenance of the VAT exemption for family mediators? Mr. Minister, in your answer, you may be able to return to the question and be a little more precise or more firm than in the commission.

However, the assessments and advantages brought by this text over the original text, such as the efforts made in the field of collaborative law, lead us to say that, in essence, this project is going in the right direction and deserves that we pay special attention to it, despite a few small imperfections that will likely be corrected with time. In the head of the group I represent, he justifies that we gave him a positive vote right now.

Mr. Minister, I would like to talk to you about the legislative technique you apparently like to use, namely the amalgam laws. You can also call it potpourri laws or describe it in another way. I can get some understanding of this when it comes to rapid reforms, for example on making justice more efficient. That you put together a few things, I can still understand.

However, the draft laws containing various provisions continue to flow into Parliament. Now it is a law in which there are matters related to family law: civil status, name, nationality, adoption. Then you jump to the property law, with a piece about co-ownership, and then you make a turn to the Judicial Code, with the seizure, alternative forms of dispute resolution and negotiations.

We are both very young and when we were a little younger than we are now, we both, I suspect, wrote about previous program laws that it was a very bad legislative technique. I suspect you did that too. That was a fashion topic at the time. I did that in any case, and I called them "rumple laws" and even "rumple bags laws". In French it is spoken of des lois fourre-tout.

I see that you are not listening, Mr. Minister of Justice. You listen, for which I thank you, because it is important. It is about legislative technology.

That makes parliamentary control ⁇ difficult, of course, because in amalgam laws there are things you are for, things you are against and things you can live with. However, it is already difficult for parliamentarians to struggle with those bills, let alone that it becomes easy for opposition parties to take a political stance. It is very easy for the majority parties to take a political stance: they must vote in favour, so they should not ask questions.

I would therefore call for the use of that legislative technique with the necessary moderation, only when there is a ⁇ serious reason that can justify it.

A few weeks ago, we also voted on a law containing various provisions. This included, among other things, a change in the language legislation in court proceedings, with corresponding sanctions. I read the report of the Committee on Justice, but it was very little. If that piece had not been housed in a large mosaic on all sorts of other matters, then I can hardly imagine that the Flemish factions would have approved it. Maybe, but I think not.

Therefore, I would like to ask for a bit more orthodox to deal with laws. It does not appear to me appropriate to include matters such as civil status, co-ownership or conservative seizure, which have nothing to do with each other, in a single amalgam law.

In this case, I will give the word to the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, colleague Vuye, I will begin with your general concern. You actually suggest applying a salami tactic to all those topics. In this case, however, there is another risk. Recently I proposed the civic infiltration in my committee, and later the regret-optants. The opposition has asked me to put these two topics together for voting.

More fundamentally, each of these topics has an urgent character in its own way. The modernization of the bourgeois state is urgent, as is the adaptation of the co-ownership to 2018 and the modernization of the mediation. Separate hearings were held on each of these topics. Per ⁇ the parliamentary control of the vote is somewhat obscured, but as regards the democratic control of the expertise, I must tell you that in the Justice Committee the necessary time is taken, first by extensive hearings and second by an almost systematic second reading.

I ⁇ ’t know in which other committee this is still systematically happening, but if you know one, I would like to take note of it.

As regards Ms. Özen’s remarks on network co-ownership, the co-owners are notified in a timely manner and may also propose to make the same investments themselves – for example a new network – without the other co-owners having to bear the financial burden. They can still object to it for a whole range of cases of legitimate interest.

I was also opposed that we would have affected the voluntary nature of mediation. There are always two aspects. At first, the question is whether a judge can impose an attempt at mediation. In the second part, the question is whether the judge can impose a mediation on its solution. To the second question, the answer is always negative but it is obvious that, in many cases, we know in our legislation the possibility for a judge to impose the attempt of mediation. This is exactly what we have tried to do. I refer, for example, for land lease, to article 1385 and for the labour court, to article 734, two articles of the Judicial Code or, for the case of mortgage credit, to article 59 of the law.

Regarding the issues of nationality between the Regions and the Communities, there have already been two round tables with the Communities. In response to the concerns of Brussels, a transitional provision was entered into. Furthermore, we will organize a third consultation at the end of June to further agree on what attestations should be taken into account in order to make the proof. The results of this consultation will be presented in a circular.

As regards the formations, Ms. Uyttersprot, various preparations have already been undertaken for the civil status in cooperation with the DAV and the association of civil servants. The training will take place in June and will be organised by the VLAVABBS. In addition, there is a list of frequently requested matters, Q&A, on the DAV website.

As for the second reading of which Mr. Brotcorne spoke, it is a beautiful response to what Mr. Vuye said. Mr. Brotcorne, we did our best to take this second reading seriously. We have not accelerated at all at any time. We had time to review all the amendments. Since there was a lot of material, it is normal that the technical corrections have been many.

Regarding the cost of mediation, it is obviously important that mediation is accessible to those who have little resources. I only point out that as part of the "second line" legal aid nomenclature, we have envisaged a higher rate for someone who succeeds in mediation than for someone who takes the way of trial. The ambition is to do exactly the same for the deductible legal protection insurance nomenclature.

As for the structure of the mediation committee, I believe that we have talked extensively about it within the Justice Committee. We believe that a division of committees by functional specialization should allow for better handling of cases. Furthermore, the committee that drafts the deontological rules will not decide on disciplinary sanctions. This makes the disciplinary commission more independent, through a separation of powers.

Furthermore, we have tried to extend the scope of mediation to disputes or disputes with public authorities. This also seems important to us.

I think we have sufficiently informed you in the commission on the aspect of VAT. If you have more striking questions, I will ask you to address to the competent minister.

Here are some of the answers you asked me. I hope that, in this way, we will be able to vote on this law which is of particular importance for our municipalities in matters of civil status and for our citizens in matters of mediation and co-ownership. I thank you.

Mr. Minister, I know that Mr. Vuye is asking for a response.

Mr. Vuye, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I thank you for your reply.

I find it very relevant that you compare various provisions holding your laws with a salami. Also of a salami no one knows what is inside it and it is very difficult to know where the salami is made from. This is the same for Members of Parliament in the laws containing various provisions.

You answer what I did not ask you. I, of course, do not ask you to present your salami to Parliament in millimetre cuts. I really do not ask you that.

Had you now divided that salami into three parts, namely one with the family law aspects, one with the property law aspects and a third with the judicial law aspects, I would have been quite satisfied. At that point, I would have fully known what your salami is made of.

By putting all the matters together, it really becomes ⁇ difficult for Members of Parliament.