26 AVRIL 2007. - An Act to amend the Judicial Code with a view to combating judicial backlog (1)

ALBERT II, King of the Belgians,
To all, present and to come, Hi.
The Chambers adopted and We sanction the following:
Article 1^er. This Act regulates a matter referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution.
Art. 2. Section 19, paragraph 2, of the Judicial Code is replaced by the following paragraph:
"The judge may, before declaring right, at any stage of the proceedings, order a preliminary action intended either to instruct the application or to settle an incident involving such a measure or to settle the situation of the parties on an interim basis. The most expeditious party may, to this effect, bring the case before the judge at any stage of the proceedings by a simple written request filed or addressed to the Registry; the Clerk summons the parties and, where applicable, their lawyer by simple fold or, where the party failed at the introductory hearing and has no lawyer, by judicial fold. »
Art. 3. In Article 31 of the same Code, the word "753" is replaced by the words "735, § 5, 747, § 2, paragraph 7".
Art. 4. In section 656 of the same Code, paragraphs 3 and 4, replaced by the Act of 12 March 1998 and amended by the Act of 10 June 2001, are repealed.
Art. 5. The following amendments are made to section 700 of the Code:
1° the words "A penalty of nullity" are inserted at the beginning of paragraph 1^er;
2° the article is supplemented by a paragraph 2, which reads as follows:
"The acts declared null for contravention of this provision shall interrupt the limitation and the procedural deadlines imposed only on the waiver. »
Art. 6. section 729 of the same Code is replaced by the following provision:
"Art. 729. Where the case is not of a nature to be pleaded at the time of its introduction, counsel of the parties may, in common agreement, replace the appearance provided for in Article 728 with a written statement of postulation explaining, to the extent possible, their position with respect to judicial review. This statement is addressed to the Registry in advance. This is referred to in the hearing sheet. »
Art. 7. In section 735 of the same Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992, the following amendments are made:
1° § 2 is supplemented by the following paragraph:
“With the consent of the parties, the case shall be dealt with under the procedure provided for in the summary proceedings in the following cases:
- recovery of uncontested claims;
- applications referred to in Article 19, paragraph 2;
- language changes governed by section 4 of the Act of 15 June 1935;
- conflict resolution on jurisdiction;
- requests for grace periods. »;
2° § 5 is supplemented by the following paragraph:
"However, in the event of an inadmissibility of the dispute, where one or more parties fail to do so and at least one party appears, this section is applicable by summoning the deficient parties under judicial fold by the Registrar to a hearing set at a close date, to which a contradictory judgment may be required. The convocation reproduces the text of this paragraph. »
Art. 8. Section 744 of the same Code is supplemented by the following paragraph:
"The conclusions must express the conclusion of the conclusion and the means of fact and law on which each of these claims is based. The conclusions reached in another case or other jurisdiction, to which it is referred or referred, are not considered to be conclusions within the meaning of Article 780, paragraph 1^erThree. »
Art. 9. In section 745 of the same Code, as amended by the Act of 3 August 1992, paragraph 2 is repealed.
Art. 10. Section 747 of the same Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992 and amended by the Acts of 23 March 1995 and 23 December 2005, is replaced by the following provision:
"Art. 747. § 1^er. The parties may agree on time to conclude at the introductory hearing and at each subsequent hearing.
The judge shall inform the parties who wish to agree on time to conclude the closest date to which a hearing may be scheduled.
The judge takes note of the deadlines to conclude, confirms and fixes the date of the hearing in accordance with § 2, paragraph 3. The order is mentioned in the record of the hearing. The Registrar shall bring this order to the attention of the parties and their lawyers in accordance with § 2, paragraph 4.
§ 2. Without prejudice to the application of the rules of the defect, the parties may, separately or jointly, if any in the introductory act of a proceeding, address to the judge and other parties their observations on the judicial review, no later than in the month of the opening hearing. This period may be shortened by the judge in the event of necessity or agreement of the parties.
They may also derogate from this status by mutual agreement and seek the removal of the cause to the role and, where the circumstances are appropriate, a fixed date.
No later than six weeks after the opening hearing, the judge shall determine the procedural schedule, if any, by entering into the agreement of the parties or taking into account the comments of the parties. Depending on the date of the plea hearing, which, in the event that the time limit is set by the judge, takes place no later than three months from the communication of the last findings, the judge determines the number of conclusions and the final date on which the conclusions must be filed at the registry and addressed to the other party, as well as the date and time of the oral hearing and the duration of the hearing.
The order for remediation and fixation is not subject to any appeal. However, in the event of omission or material error in the order of remediation and fixing, the judge may either at the request of a party, or at the request of a party, correct or complete it. The order is referred to in the minutes of hearing. The Clerk shall notify the parties and, where appropriate, their lawyers and by judicial fold to the failed party.
Where the case has been referred to the role, or postponed to a later date, any party may, by simple written request filed or addressed to the Registry, request judicial review in accordance with paragraphs 1^er 4. This application is notified by the Registrar by judicial fold to the other parties and, where appropriate, by simple fold to their lawyers. Such notification shall be subject to the deadlines set out in subparagraphs 1^er and 3.
Without prejudice to the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 748, §§ 1^er and 2, the conclusions that are delivered to the registry or sent to the opposing party after the expiry of the deadlines are deferred from the proceedings. On the appointed day, the most diligent part can demand a judgment, which is, in any case, contradictory.
In the event of inadmissibility of the dispute and without prejudice to the application of Article 735, § 5, where one or more parties fail, while at least one party appears, this paragraph must be applied.
§ 3. By derogation from the preceding paragraphs, before the Referee Judge, the chair of the court serving as a referee and the judge of the seizures, the time limit for the parties to make their submissions is not more than 5 days and the time limit within which the judge sets the schedule or acts the agreement of the parties on it is not more than 8 days. These deadlines may be reduced or deleted by the judge if the circumstances warrant it.
The Clerk shall notify the order by simple fold to the parties and, where appropriate, to their lawyer and by judicial fold to the failing party, not later than the first business day following the day the order was made, unless the parties exempt it from the notice. »
Art. 11. Section 748 of the Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992 and amended by the Act of 23 March 1995, is amended as follows:
1° § 1^er is replaced by the following provision:
« § 1^er. Unless the purpose of the finding is a request under section 808 or a finding made with the express agreement of the other parties, in the causes to which section 735 is inapplicable, the conclusions filed at the office of the Registry or sent to the opposing party after the request for a joint fixation referred to in section 750 are deviated from the proceedings.
This section shall remain applicable where, at the request of one of the parties, the judge shall grant a fixed date surrender of the case. »;
2° in § 2, paragraph 2, the last sentence is replaced as follows: "The Clerk shall notify the parties by simple fold and, where applicable, their lawyer and by judicial fold to the defecting party. »;
3° in § 2, paragraph 3, the words "of sending" are replaced by the words "of this consignment";
4° in § 2, paragraph 5, the words ", if summary conclusions are to be taken" are inserted between the word "fine" and the words "and amend";
5° in § 2, paragraph 6, the word "reported" is replaced by the words "delivered to the registry or sent to the other party".
Art. 12. An article 748bis, as follows, is inserted in the fourth part, book Il, title Il, chapter II, section III, of the same Code:
"Art. 748bis. Without prejudice to Article 748, § 2, except for the case of conclusions with the sole purpose of requesting one or more of the measures referred to in Article 19, paragraph 2, to raise a procedural incident that is not of a nature to terminate the proceeding or to respond to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the last conclusions of a party take the form of summary conclusions. For the purposes of section 780, paragraph 1^er, 3°, the summary conclusions replace all previous conclusions and, if applicable, the introductory act of the party that files the summary conclusions. »
Art. 13. Section 750, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992 and amended by the Act of 23 March 1995, is replaced as follows:
"Art. 750. Without prejudice to the application of Article 747, the cause shall be set at the joint request of the parties.
The application is addressed to the chair of the chamber to which the case was distributed, and filed at the Registry, simultaneously or after the filing of the parties' findings.
The clerk informs the parties and their lawyers, by simple fold, of the fixation. »
Art. 14. Sections 751 and 753 of the Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992, are repealed.
Art. 15. In section 755 of the same Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992, the following amendments are made:
1° paragraph 2 is replaced by the following provision:
"The submissions, notes, documents and conclusions are forwarded to the chair of the chamber to which the case was distributed. »;
2° Paragraph 3 is replaced by the following provision:
"The memoirs, notes, documents and conclusions subsequently tabled are deferred from the debates. »
Art. 16. Section 756 of the same Code, repealed by the Act of 3 August 1992, is reinstated in the following wording, in Part IV, Book II, Part II, Chapter II, Section VI, of the same Code:
"Art. 756. In the cases set out in accordance with sections 747 and 750 and without prejudice to different derogations or terms set out in the order of remediation, the order of fixation, the notice of remission or the notice of fixation, the documents shall be filed at the office of the court at least fifteen days before the hearing for the pleadings. »
Art. 17. An article 756bis, as follows, is included in Part IV, Book II, Part II, Chapter II, Section VI, of the Code:
"Art. 756bis. Without prejudice to the rules referred to in Article 735, § 3, the absence or deferral of the conclusions shall not prevail. This argument is not worth conclusions.
As a result of this argument, the opposing party may file conclusions in response. To this end, the cause will be put on a continuance of fifteen days and will then be deliberated without further debate. The judge may reduce this period to the request of the authorized party to conclude under this paragraph. »
Art. 18. An article 756ter, as follows, is included in Part IV, Book II, Part II, Chapter II, Section VI, of the Code:
"Art. 756ter. At the oral hearing, or prior to the hearing, the judge may propose to replace the arguments with an interactive debate. In the event of an agreement of the parties, the judge directs the debate in which he has the opportunity to direct the parties on matters that he considers to be relevant and of a nature to clarify. The parties may ask in this debate questions not raised by the judge as long as they are either invoked in their writings, or related to the application of Article 735, or in relation to an irregularity affecting the status proceedings. If a party opposes that an interactive debate replaces the arguments, the debate may nevertheless take place after the arguments. »
Art. 19. Section 770 of the Code, as amended by the laws of 3 August 1992 and 14 November 2000, is replaced by the following provision:
« § 1^er. When the judge holds the case in deliberation to pronounce the judgment, he sets the day of this pronunciation, which must take place in the month, from the close of the proceedings.
If the case is communicated to the Public Prosecutor's Office, the pronunciation period shall take place on the date on which the Public Prosecutor has given the notice or, where appropriate, on the expiry of the time limit available to the parties to file their findings with respect to the notice.
If the pronunciation cannot take place within that period, reference is made to the hearing sheet of the cause of the delay.
The reference to the hearing sheet to the cause of the delay must be objectively justified to the hierarchical authority responsible for exercising control over the time limits of the deliberate.
§ 2. The Clerks list, in two copies, cases in which the statement was postponed beyond a month. This list is subject to the signature of the judge or magistrates concerned, who have the opportunity to make written comments.
The lists are established and sent each month, at the initiative of the Chief Clerk, to the Head of the Jurisdiction and to the Head of the Public Prosecutor's Office near this jurisdiction.
The Chief Clerk of Peace Justice lists the King's Prosecutor of the Court of First Instance in his judicial district.
A copy is kept in the registry.
By following the same rules, these lists are updated monthly.
§ 3. If the judge extends his deliberation beyond three months, he advises the head of the body and the first president of the court of appeal or the court of work, without prejudice to the possibility for a party to take the initiative.
§ 4. In the case referred to in paragraph 3, the magistrate or magistrates concerned shall be summoned without delay by the head of the body to be heard on the causes of the delay.
In the cases referred to in paragraph 2, this summons is mandatory if it is repeated breaches.
The head of the body and the magistrate or magistrates concerned shall develop concerted solutions to address this delay.
The hearing results in the establishment of a report.
§ 5. The information referred to in § 3 as well as the relevant minutes may be taken into account in the course of disciplinary proceedings, the periodic evaluation of the magistrate or a procedure for appointing or appointing him or her.
If a disciplinary penalty is justified, the penalty shall not be less than a first-degree major penalty. »
Art. 20. Section 775 of the same Code is replaced by the following provision:
"Art, 775. If the reopening of the proceedings is ordered, the judge invites the parties to exchange and hand over to it, within the time limits it sets and under penalty of being deviated from the proceedings, their written comments on the means or the defence justifying it. Where applicable, it sets the day and time when the parties will be heard on the subject matter that it determines.
The parties are notified by judicial fold and, where applicable, their lawyers by simple fold.
The decision made after reopening of the proceedings is in any case contradictory if the reopening decision is contradictory. »
Art. 21. Section 779, paragraph 2, of the same Code, is repealed.
Art. 22. An article 780bis, as follows, is inserted in the same Code:
"Art. 780bis. The party using the proceedings for manifestly dilatory or abusive purposes may be sentenced to a fine of 15 euros to 2,500 euros without prejudice to the damages claimed.
In this case, it will be decided by the same decision to the extent that it is entitled to an application for damages and damages for trial and trial. If this is not the case, the parties will be invited to explain themselves in accordance with section 775.
Every five years, the King can adapt the minimum and maximum sums to the cost of life. The recovery of the fine is pursued by all means of the right to due diligence of the administration of the Recording and Domains.
This section is not applicable in criminal matters or in disciplinary matters. »
Art. 23. Section 782 of the same Code is replaced by the following provision:
"Art. 782. Before his pronunciation, the judgment is signed by the judges who rendered it and by the clerk.
Paragraph 1^er is, however, not applicable if the judge or judges consider that the judgment may be pronounced immediately after the proceedings. »
Art. 24. An article 782bis, as follows, is inserted in the same Code:
"Art. 782bis. Except in repressive and disciplinary matters, the judgment is pronounced by the president of the chamber who rendered it, even in the absence of the other judges and the public prosecutor.
However, where a presiding judge is legitimately prevented from adjudicating the judgment in which he participated under the conditions laid down in article 778, the president of the court may appoint another judge to replace him at the time of the decision. »
Art. 25. In section 838 of the same Code, paragraphs 3 and 4, as amended by the Act of 10 June 2001, are repealed.
Art. 26. Section 865 of the same Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992, is replaced by the following provision:
"Art. 865. The rules of section 864 and section 867 are not applicable to the decays provided for in section 860, paragraph 2. »
Art. 27. Section 867 of the same Code, replaced by the Act of 3 August 1992 and amended by the Act of 23 November 1998, is replaced by the following provision:
"Art. 867. The omission or irregularity of the form of an act, including the failure to comply with the time limits referred to in this section or the mention of a formality, cannot result in nullity, if it is established by the documents of the procedure that the act has realized the purpose that the law assigns to it or that the formality not mentioned has, in fact, been fulfilled. »
Art. 28. Section 1072bis of the same Code, inserted by the Act of 3 August 1992, is repealed.
Art. 29. Section 1261, paragraph 2, of the same Code, is repealed.
Art. 30. The King is authorized to adapt to the legal provisions in force the references made to the legal provisions as amended by this Act or as a result of an amendment to this Act. The royal decrees made under this provision which have not been confirmed by a law on the first day of the eighteenth month following that of their publication to the Belgian Monitor cease to produce their effects.
Art. 31. With the exception of sections 4, 5, 19, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 30 this Act applies, to any degree of jurisdiction, to the causes that, on the date of 1^er September 2007, are not set, in which no procedural schedule has been established or for which no request for fixation has been filed. Subsequent adjustments and fixations shall be sought in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Promulgate this law, order that it be clothed with the seal of the State and published by the Belgian Monitor.
Given in Brussels on 26 April 2007.
ALBERT
By the King:
The Minister of Justice,
Ms. L. ONKELINX
Seal of the state seal:
The Minister of Justice,
Ms. L. ONKELINX
____
Note
(1) 2006-2007 session.
House of Representatives:
Parliamentary documents:
51-2811:
Number 1: Bill.
n^bones 2-4: Amendments.
Number 5: Report.
No. 6: Text adopted by the commission (art. 78 of the Constitution).
No. 7: Text adopted by the commission (art. 77 of the Constitution).
No. 8: Text adopted in plenary and transmitted to the Senate.
Full record: 1^er March 2007.
Senate:
Parliamentary documents:
3-2095:
Number 1: Project referred to by the Senate.
No. 2: Amendments.
Number three: Report.
No. 4: Text corrected by the commission.
No. 5: Decision not to amend.
Annales: April 12, 2007.