Proposition 54K3549

Projet de loi portant dispositions diverses en matière d'informatisation de la justice et de modernisation du statut des juges consulaires et relativement à la banque des actes notariés.

General information ¶

Authors

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

Submission date

Feb. 14, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

automation commercial court database computer systems magistrate judge judicial power legal system

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

∉ PVDA | PTB 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 ¶

April 24, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs De White, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, the proposal provides for a number of points to further pursue informatization, and we support that, of course.

We would like to submit an amendment to the language law for this bill. On 25 May 2018, we passed a law in the House, which had left the character of public order of the language legislation and had moved to a relative nullity. In fact, before that, the language legislation prescribed an absolute nullity, on which the judge could take a decision on its own.

The memory of explanation to this legislation was not entirely clear and was also very vague about that article, which is why the N-VA as the only one in the committee on this matter intervened at the mouth of colleague Uyttersprot. She asked the representative of the Minister for clarification. This replicated that the State Council had suggested that there should be an equalization between the nullities for violation of the rules on the use of languages and the other nullities, in order to limit the latter to purely formal violations. This refers to comments made in the wrong language, but not to the fact that a case is dealt with in the wrong language. In the latter case, it is a material violation of the legislation.

Collega Uyttersprot asked for further clarification and explicitly asked whether it was not intended that matters in Flanders would be handled in French. The Minister’s representative confirmed that it was not intended that this would be possible from now on.

In practice, however, some concerns have arisen. Among other things, Mr Lamon has written an opinion paper on this subject, stating that the language law in court proceedings was fully disguised, because it would be possible for a French speaker to prosecute another French speaker in Flanders without either party being able to invoke interest damage.

Of course, it was not the purpose of this legislative amendment to facilitate such situations. I have therefore asked the Minister in the committee for more clarification regarding this legislation.

The Minister replied that it is a purely theoretical scenario that such problems would arise in practice, that it would testify to evil loyalty of the parties involved and that it would be unrealistic. Nevertheless, the minister promised to submit a draft law to proceed to a repair of the legislation, but then the government has fallen and as a result we have not reached an approved draft law.

It is also true that it was originally intended to eliminate discrimination in terms of language legislation with the amendment of Article 5 of the Act of 2018. A language legislation, of course, has a certain status, so that form errors cannot be equated with language errors.

A judgment of 26 February 2019 showed that the problems we feared – which were not confirmed by the Minister due to the vagueness with which the subject was dealt with in the committee – are now a reality.

I will explain the case from the judgment of 26 February 2019. It is about a Dutch-speaking man from Zaventem, who could not enforce his right to conduct the procedure in Dutch at the French-speaking court of first instance in Brussels. The summons were drafted by his ex-wife in French and although the man had correctly invoked the nullity of the summons, the court ultimately ruled that the person concerned was not injured in his interests. This is a concrete example. It is a first judgment, but it will be followed by the amendment of the language legislation in the potpourri law of May 2018.

Meanwhile, there is a question on this issue pending to the Constitutional Court, but we consider it very important that we can submit our amendment so that the language legislation can already be restored and we in practice do not face the consequences of a change of the language law.

Therefore, I hope for the support of the Flemish parties for the approval of our amendment.

Mrs Van Vaerenbergh, I assume that you will send me that amendment, because I do not have that document yet.

We will forward it, Mr. Speaker, if it has not already been done.

No, but that must happen now.

Mr. Speaker, this text, called ICT, has actually received the support of the opposition, which we have invited to sign a series of additional amendments. It will be remembered that this was the opportunity to give a series of legal bases to databases. We have often regretted the fact that it was difficult for justice to have a powerful computer tool. This text will continue the efforts undertaken to modernise justice and the use of IT tools. For most of them, legal bases were lacking. By voting this text, we will enable the launch of these different databases, in particular that concerning the monitoring of what happens in prison.

The proposal also provides for a set of rules for access to criminal records, with amendments concerning such access. The procedure for collective debt settlement has been amended. A legal basis has been established for the creation of electronic lists relating to the judicial order, lawyers, court officers. We have been working on the status of consular judges. A database has been created for notarial acts. There is also a situation that has become obsolete compared to the microfilms relating to the preservation of a copy of the Belgian Moniteur.

Then, a series of amendments came with explanations given in advance to the opposition. In the Justice Committee, we work a lot in advance to allow some and others to eventually join texts by taking the time to inform themselves. This was the case here, in particular on the possibility for an accused or his lawyer to take free copies of a criminal file by their own means when the consultation of that file is allowed. I refer here to the work initiated by our colleague Ms. Van Cauter, who had initiated long negotiations with the judges of instruction to make this consultation possible. With this text, this will be the case under very precise conditions that appear to correspond to the concerns expressed by the judges of instruction so that the files do not find themselves too easily on the public path, with the consequences that this may eventually entail.

There is also a party that coordinates and inserts into the Judicial Code the provisions relating to the National Register of Judicial Experts and Sworn Translators. Personally, I was delighted to find that for a last text in the Justice Committee, or in any case for one of the latter, this text was able to receive the support of the majority and the opposition, which I thank.

Mr. Goffin, as chairman of the Justice Committee, gives me a penalty. We still have to gather the committee but this text is actually quite emblematic of how we have been able to work unfortunately too rarely in committee. I believe that compared to others, it was a way of functioning that was interesting and where we sometimes had the feeling, in the old opposition – since there is no longer a majority or opposition and we know too much who does what – to be heard a little more. Per ⁇ it was the situation of the former majority that led it to be more attentive to the requests of the opposition.

It remains no less – and this was the subject of my speech –, Mr. Speaker of the House, that I take this moment to thank President Goffin for the way he led the debates of our committee throughout this legislature. He was attentive to the requests, urgencies and diligences of the minister, who always wanted to make us work more than we were able to do sometimes. He has been attentive to the demands of his majority partners but also to the fact that the opposition or the former opposition is heard and respected. I would like to thank him for this work.

Thank you very much to Mr. Goffin!

Mr. Speaker, I think I can draw from your body language that the misunderstanding has been resolved and that our amendment has reached you.

I just wanted to start about that. The amendment has entered. It will get a number later. We have no number yet.