Proposition 55K0373

Projet de loi modifiant le Code judiciaire en ce qui concerne les biens insaisissables.

General information ¶

Authors

Vooruit John Crombez, Melissa Depraetere, Ben Segers

Submission date

Sept. 17, 2019

Official page

Visit

Subjects

seizure of goods 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 ¶

March 30, 2023 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Laurence Zanchetta, the rapporteur, refers to this in her written report.

The bill was thoroughly discussed in the committee. Our group will abstain from voting, but it must be correctly interpreted. It is a matter of sensitivity. The testimonies in the committee of people who ended up in poor circumstances have indeed reached everyone. Many compatriots are unable to pay their bills or debts immediately. More than 370,000 citizens in this country have default loans. Approximately 1.8 million Belgians have trouble paying their bills. The Federal Public Service Economy calculated that 46,7 % find it difficult to tie the ends together. That’s just 10 percent more than a year ago.

These are worrying figures. Therefore, it is not surprising that a debt industry is emerging. It is the N-VA group that is concerned with ⁇ ining the delicate balance between creditor and debtor, a balance that protects the vulnerable consumer on the one hand, but also the entrepreneurial power and the freedom to undertake. One is very quickly removed as an asociaal – colleague Van Bossuyt should have experienced it yesterday in an article by Knack – if one holds a nuanced plea to maintain that balance. The creditor of today may be the debtor of tomorrow. We must be vigilant about this. It is then wrongly argued that it is preaching for the debt industry and for the court enforcers. That is absolutely not true and I will also try to objectivize something in a meaningful way. This is the reason why we abstain.

Let us be honest, this is not a big proposal. It is an adaptation of Article 1408 of the Judicial Code. We will not talk about the stripboard anymore, we have talked about it long enough in the committee. In all seriousness, what is this article for? Why is this included in the Code of Justice? This is as a means of pressure to maintain the economic balance between creditor and debtor. What is present here weakens that pressure agent.

Furthermore, according to the figures delivered, only in 2% of cases, fortunately, there is an effective sale after seizure. The introduction in Article 1408 of a number of cases not subject to seizure would contribute to greater human dignity. In essence, this is not the debate. The debate concerns an imbalance that arises after one has sent warnings and obtained a judgment or a legal title. There is a substantial difference between collection agencies and court enforcement agencies, which through enforcement and seizure provide a helping hand to the creditor who legitimately tries to recover a debt from a debtor. While it’s not about cowboy states, which we unfortunately know from collection agencies, the courier’s capabilities to give people a more humane existence are now limited. This is not the right step, because this balance must be ⁇ ined. Citizens are equal, whether you are a creditor or a debtor.

In the discussion – and Mrs. Depraetere and I are sitting on the same wavelength in this regard – I suggested that we should closely monitor the debt industry. Any meaningful legislative initiative will surely also get the support of the N-VA group. However, here it is about light cosmetic interventions. There are more important things than that, even though every step is in the right direction, you will argue, a good step. That is the nuance why the N-VA abstains. Indeed, there are still some profits to be earned, including in the regular execution by a court executor. We can limit the costs there by, among other things, allowing the interim step of the repeated order to be legally excluded. In practice, you will ensure that the debtor quickly faces 200 to 300 euros less court fees compared to the creditor. This must, of course, be discussed with the court executor, who is a servant of the court and who must be able to properly execute the cases; I think that may be a suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Ecolo-Groen group fully follows the logic that led our colleagues from Vooruit, whom we thank, to submit this bill aimed at updating the list of property that are protected during seizure. Article 1408 of the Judicial Code had, let us admit, a serious need to be refreshed. In fact, it had not been reviewed in depth for more than 30 years. During this period of time, the list of unattainable goods had become obsolete. In the last 30 years, the notion of what makes it possible to live a dignified life has evolved considerably. Until today, this article protected from seizure “one cow, 12 sheep or goats, at the choice of the seized, as well as a pig and 24 baseball animals, with the palm, feed and grain needed for the litière and the food of the said animals for one month.” Let us admit it, this only refers to the reality of a small number of people likely to be subjected to seizures. On the other hand, this list does not mention a cell phone or a computer at all. I recall that during the hearing on this text, the Belgian Network for Combating Poverty had emphasized that this list does not guarantee a decent life for the persons seized.

The text that is submitted to our vote is therefore truly welcome and, Ecolo-Groen is absolutely convinced of it, it is capable of truly improving the dignity and safety of the persons seized, by sticking more to the reality and current needs. We know, for example, that in 2023, in a world that is increasingly dematerialized, a computer and access to the internet are essential to undertake many steps ranging from paying certain bills to looking for a job, through access to a huge amount of information, justice, and so on. In normal time, this is already essential, but the two years of covid that we have experienced emphasize even more the absolute need to protect such internet access and the tools that facilitate it. Therefore, we look forward to seeing a very broad protection in this regard. I would also like to emphasize that the text provides better information for the persons targeted by a seizure – which is also welcome in our view.

The text as amended in the Justice Committee represents a balance that has enabled to gather a large majority. My group is pleased with this, because this is an improvement that has been needed for a long time. In order for this to be recorded in the report, I will, however, allow myself, if not to make reservations, at least to express a taste of too little in certain aspects. In fact, environmentalists believe that it was possible to go even further in some adjustments to better protect the dignity of the indebted persons who are the subject of seizures.

In this regard, I will only cite two examples.

Following the subsequent hearings and discussions, the protection of property that has a sentimental value for the seized was present in the text initially filed but it was removed by amendment because the notion was considered too vague. It was a collective decision, but I regret it somewhat, because I would have wanted to have managed to find a formulation to protect such high sentimental value assets from people who may be targeted by seizure.

Furthermore, at Ecolo-Groen, we believe that while the costs incurred by a seizure cannot be covered by the expected profits of the public sale, the seizure does not really make sense and should therefore not be possible. Generally speaking, steps should be avoided that will result in nothing but additional costs for those people who are already in very precarious situations. Public deficit sales are part of this category.

As is known, and colleague D’Haese has just alluded to it, in such cases, the threat of seizure is actually used to pressure in order to obtain a payment. That said, forcing a payment with this method simply risks shifting the problem, at the price of otherwise incurred debts, non-payment of rent or postponed medical treatments. This was also a point that was supported during the hearings by the Steunpunt Mens in Samenleving as well as by the Belgian Network for Combating Poverty.

In this case, there has been no consensus to make progress in this direction, and the points I have just expressed do not give rise to the deep conviction of my Ecolo-Groen group that this text represents a great step forward for the rights of the persons concerned by the seizures. We will therefore support this text with great pleasure. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues’ thanks to my Comrade Melissa Depraetere of the Vooruit group for the work she has done and for the ambition she has given herself to reform this article 1408 of the Judicial Code concerning unattainable property.

It is a modernization that is more than necessary and useful because it makes things clear and responds even better to the essential concept of human dignity. This is fundamental and is not negotiable. It is the ambition that has guided my colleague Depraetere and that leads us to adopt a text that makes a step forward and allows to improve dignity, this fundamental right of every individual.

Even if, in statistical terms, we would only speak of 2% execution of seizures, I will speak of men and women. Even though only 2% of seizures lead to a sale, these men and women live, despite the absence of the seizure, in fear of a list of goods that is being made and in fear of being deprived of these goods.

Even though this execution is not accomplished, this fear does not contribute to the well-being of very many people, those who have been the subject of a listed list and who have lived with this Damocles sword over their heads to see disappearing a good to which they are fundamentally attached.

When it comes to these goods, we know that society has evolved, we know that digital is prevailing in our lives and we can’t avoid it, we know that computing is necessary and that it should benefit everyone, including those who are more precarious in our society. They should be supported.

This more than necessary modernization will ensure this, it will allow everyone to continue to make a bank transfer – while there are fewer and fewer distributors in our cities and villages – to fill out their tax return, to request documents from the administration.

The protection of these assets, through a small bill – but important in its size – helps to strengthen the protection of the citizens of this country.

We know that this is not enough. One article is reformed in connection with over-indebtedness and the issue of over-indebtedness touches many other topics. These subjects are not absent from this bill; they are debated next to it.

We talked about the fight against the debt industry. We can talk about the issue of collective debt settlement and in particular the bill proposals presented today to ensure that, throughout the entire chain, the citizen is best protected.

Sur une touche d’humour, j’en terminerai. Since we speak of the modernisation of this list, on ne peut le faire sans lui donner le sens que Jean de la Fontaine donnait à cette phrase "adieu veau, vache, cochon, couvée." “Adieu veau, vache, cochon, couvée”

This bill amends the list of non-confiscable goods, as established today by Article 1408 of the Judicial Code. It is a reasonable and logical adjustment, as the list of protected goods is highly outdated and needs to be adapted to the current needs. We must bear in mind that every citizen today lives in a digital society and that a computer and a smartphone as well as access to the internet are indispensable. They are not only important for the studies of children and the continuation of professional activities, but also necessary in everyday life. Just think of an appointment with the doctor or with the civil status of the municipality for the application of documents and so on. It is therefore important that the list is modernized.

I expressly stress that it is intended that every citizen attempts to pay his invoices and that attention must be paid to the balance between the creditor on the one hand and the debtor on the other, on which the current article 1408 of the Judicial Code is based. As Mr D’Haese has already said, this must prevent the creditor of today from becoming the debtor of tomorrow.

While I asked a number of questions during the discussion in the committee, I subsequently had the opportunity, Mrs Depraetere, to examine that bill thoroughly. I dare to say that the proposal presented today, in its entirety, is logical.

I have understood that the fixed amount of 2,500 euros, which is still the limit in Article 1408 of the Judicial Code, covers all devices and supplies for access to the Internet, and this for the purposes of the exercise of the profession. I remain only afraid that the determination of the value of these goods in practice will give rise to very many discussions. Who will determine the value? There was no clear answer to this question during the discussion in the committee. I only hope that this will not lead to endless disputes for the confiscation judge.

It is also a legitimate concern that goods with a limited but emotional value will now be protected. A wedding ring is a good example of this. However, I would like to make two comments. First of all, the concept of emotional value is a very vague concept, because what has emotional value for one may not have it for the other. I would also like to point out the spontaneous opinion of the court enforcement officers, in which they emphasize that the provision stipulating that goods with an emotional value of up to 400 euros may not be seized today either. This is, therefore, in fact an unnecessary provision, since the court executor already takes this into account in practice.

However, our group regrets that the bill does not take into account the daily practice of the court enforcement mediator. I would also like to point out that, in practice, only a very limited number of enforcement seizures on movable goods are actually subject to a public sale by the court enforcement officer. According to recent figures from the court enforcers themselves – you may also have been aware of it – not even 2 % of the movable seizures would effectively turn into a sale after 30 days.

In their spontaneous opinion, the court enforcers rightly state that – I quote – “the enforcement is not an end in itself. Rather, it acts as an emotional pressure tool to get the debts still paid. The enforcement measures and specific mobile seizures are always part of the negotiation process with the debtor with a view to a solution in which both parties can find themselves. The public sale is therefore only considered as a last resort and does not preclude the possibility of reaching an agreement at this stage and within the specified deadlines.”

I think I can say from practice, and I speak with a different hat, that most court enforcement officers here take their responsibility and seek a viable and responsible solution, both in the interests of the debtor and the creditor. For example, we have a wide range of payment options.

In practice, it is a fact that the court executor seeks balance and safeguards the interests of both the creditor and the debtor and actually seeks to mediate in this regard. The goal should always be to guarantee a responsible, efficient and humane recovery of debts. This may be emphasized in the context of this bill and I regret that this aspect has not been addressed, both in the explanation and during the discussion in the committee.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to insist once again on addressing the debt problem and the debt industry as a whole. Mrs. Depraetere, it’s really not the first time I do this. I have done this several times, both during the discussion in the plenary session and in the committee. For example, there is an urgent need to modernise the implementation procedures. Collega D’Haese has just given an example of this, in connection with the repeated applies. Solely addressing that is not enough. The entire implementation process must be modernized.

In the spontaneous opinion of the National Chamber of Judicial Enforcement Officers, it is justified to include a plea to strengthen and expand direct and regulated access to the most relevant sources of information in order to avoid useless enforcement procedures. By optimising the existing resources, the court executor can obtain a fully accurate and up-to-date picture of a debtor’s solvency situation. In some countries around us, this is already possible. I refer to the various examples in the opinion of the National Chamber of Judicial Officers.

Also, the National Chamber of Judicial Officers, rightly I think, refers to the good cooperation with the OCMWs. Indeed, debtors in serious financial difficulties can only be identified in a timely manner with the support of the OCMWs. The National Chamber of Judicial Officials has taken proactive action and is now rolling out a national communication platform with the OCMWs. Here, every debtor who wishes to do so can be registered and assisted with the purpose of managing his or her debts, and this by guidance on a suitable path.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is still a long way to go. Repeatedly, the Minister of Justice, who had just been present in this hemisphere, made promises but on the subject, but so far without much result. I really insist that this work will also be done quickly.

Colleagues, this bill is, as colleague D’Haese said, only a slight cosmetic procedure.

Collega Depraetere, I say: it is only a symbol file, given the figures of the effective sales, that 2 percent to which I just referred.

Since this is an important step, our group, despite the concerns I have raised, will support this bill.

This bill modernizes the list of assets that cannot be seized by a court officer. The list also included “cows, twelve sheep, a goat, a pig, and twenty-four baseball animals.” This point is replaced by more typical goods of our current way of life, namely a computer with an internet connection that is an open window on the indispensable world of today, especially for students. It also includes books and objects necessary for vocational training and studies. Certainly, one may ask why we have waited so long to change these completely outdated things. Fortunately, this proposal came to put everything in order.

Even if this is a positive proposal that we will support, it does not go far enough, in our opinion. With the crisis, more and more people will face seizures. One can think, for example, of unpaid energy bills that will inevitably result in visits of a court officer. In this sense, the PTB proposes to move towards a real moratorium on seizures for energy bills that have reached unpaid prices. Given the surplus profits of multinational companies that practice completely exaggerated prices, the minimum is to protect workers from these abuses. Our proposal is still in the committee and I hope that, following the proposal we vote today, it will be supported in the same way as this proposal, since we share the same logic at this level.

Mrs. Speaker, colleagues, I would like to thank you for the presentations and support. A few speakers talked about a slight cosmetic procedure or a simple proposal. However, this has been discussed for five years.

It is true. This is indeed a limited proposal. Mr D’Haese noted it, as did other members. It is right. It is a small proposal with a huge impact on a lot of people, who are facing seizure. I just note that for five years there has been a discussion about something that should just be mega-logical.

The list has not been updated for 30 years. It has already been mentioned. There are still animals and grain on the list. These are things that the judges will never face again today. However, a laptop, a mobile phone, internet access, a printer and more can be confiscated. There is no logic behind the list.

It is time to update the list. First, as already mentioned, to provide access to the Internet. This was quoted by a few speakers. Not only for school or work, but also just for a doctor’s appointment and others, access to the internet is required. It is just human to protect it.

Second, what has been less discussed is the fact that a number of deadlines are also modified to ensure that someone who is still faced with seizure does not stand powerless in the face of procedures and court enforcers, who are just doing their job. We ensure that there is more time to take action, for example, against the things that are seized.

The basic principle is that debts must always be paid and that there is a certain balance. That is true of course. However, here we are talking about something that comes out in the final phase. It is about a group of people who have not been able to pay multiple bills and who eventually face seizure in a final phase.

It has been noted that in the end, it is only about two percent that effectively moves to sales. I agree with Mr Aouasti’s comment. It is about people. So whether it’s about two percent or ninety-nine percent, I don’t care. It is also about ensuring that this group can be human.

Regardless of the actual sales, and I recently asked the Minister for these figures, it is also true that in 2021 more than 560,000 orders were issued, of which more than 179,000 cases were effectively seized. This is a conversion of 32%. So if we look at the numbers, we see that a lot of people are already in the stage of effective seizure.

I do not think this is a symbolic file, but a very important file. Mr D’Haese has said that it is a weakening of a pressure agent, but I absolutely do not think so. I think this is a means of making the press more human. People have to pay their bills and there are rules for that. At certain times one must indeed be able to force something to do so, but no one prevents us from organizing it in a human way. This is a strangely chosen judgment.

I would like to reply to two comments by Ms. Dillen. First, you referred to the emotional value and you had some comments about it that were also followed by the court enforcement officers. I know that the text has been amended several times, but the piece around the emotional value is no longer in the final amended text. In fact, the court enforcement officials have noted that they already do that for a large part. If a sum is attached to it now, some jewelry, for example, will no longer fall under it or make it very difficult. In the case of wedding rings, for example, it is about two persons. Therefore, it is no longer in the final proposal.

The value of electronic devices will still have to happen. This is not obvious, because the value of such devices changes very quickly. They buy them and a day later they are much less worth. That makes it a lot more difficult. It is, of course, today also so with other goods that the custodian must already make an estimate. That must be perfectly possible.

I totally agree that the debt industry as a whole needs to be addressed. This is an important proposal. It is not a symbolic file, but an important step forward. In addition, there are, of course, many greater challenges to address within the debt industry. We must ⁇ better organize all the important steps for this, so that for fewer people it will ever come to this point as in this case.

Minister Dermagne has just submitted a bill for the friendly phase. This has already been approved in the Economic Committee, so a first step has been taken. He was also asked when his colleague, Minister Van Quickenborne, will come up with the next steps for the judicial phase and the collective debt settlement. That would be pretty soon, so we can only welcome that.

Finally, I would like to comment briefly on the animals and the grain. The colleague already referred to it: away with the animals and the grain. A few bad farmers actually contacted me. Hopefully CD&V will continue. They said, “You will not take away our animals when they are taken.” It is, of course, only about private seizure and not about professional activities. The court enforcement officers assured us that this case will never happen again and that the update was very urgent. This was supported by all the poverty organizations.

I thank all colleagues for their support.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, first of all, I had to thank our colleagues in Vooruit for the submission of their bill, for the course that this proposal took, but also for the changes that have thus been made to the original text following the hearings held almost two years ago.

It is a proposal that was more than necessary given the obsolescence of our legislation on seizable goods, a proposal also that finally takes into account the evolution of our society and what has become basic goods and services, goods and services without which we could not today live decently. This proposal will also restore balance. We talked about this fundamental balance between the interests of the debtors, on the one hand, and the creditors, on the other, a balance that must be the cardinal principle in this matter. We must stop demonizing one another. Ms. Depraetere very rightly spoke of bringing humanity into our legislation. In fact, I think that this is the goal that we must pursue, all and all, while recalling that the creditor of today can be the debtor of tomorrow. The creditor has the same right to see his debt repayed as the debtor has the same right to live a dignified life.

This text has evolved since its first mould in order to respond to the various proposals made by experts during their hearings. I think in particular of the removal of the notion of sentimental value goods, a concept that has been criticized because it has been considered unclear. Consequently, it constitutes a notion that could have given rise to divergent interpretations. I can understand the frustration raised by my colleague Hugon in this regard, just recently, and I want to tell him that the removal of this notion in the current text should not today be seen as definitive. On the contrary, it must be seen as something temporary because we have not been able to reach a consensus today, and it is up to us to reflect on a definition that can provide more legal certainty in the long run.

I also think of the removal of the television from the list of unattainable goods, since its seizure is generally much better accepted by the debtors than that of a phone or a portable computer – reason why, as it has been said, the latter are, in turn, immune.

Indeed, it was necessary to take into account their indispensability for everyone, whether it was to study, to work, to inform themselves, to buy a train ticket or to return their documents to their mutual and thus see their health care or their medicines partially or fully refunded, but also to maintain social ties.

Allowing the seizure of these assets would therefore only strengthen this famous digital divide, isolate debtors and their families, but also deprive them of tools that can help them repay their debts, by obtaining aid, by finding a job.

We also know that phones or computers are tools that lose value very quickly. It is generally referred to the fact that the price of a computer drops 50 to 60 percent in just eight months. It therefore seems totally illogical to allow the seizure of such devices and thus to force the debtor to buy another at an ever higher price.

The other novelty brought by this proposal of law is to make inaccessible the property indispensable to the profession of the seized, but also of his spouse or legal cohabitant, for a sum of 2,500 euros. This will allow these persons from now on to provide proof of ownership of the seized property.

You will have understood, dear colleagues, for all these reasons, my DéFI group will support this bill with great enthusiasm. I thank you.