Design Your Wrestling Singlet

August 1, 2003 (Act Borloo) called Second Chance:

It would allow citizens sucked into the quicksand of debt , their return to life active and participatory .

This reform is an undeniable and laudable its purpose, but must be arranged, to avoid interpretations from the goals of the legislature where many victims have not yet been able to get out of hell, mainly because of the non-application of the term as it is now defined by law since Borloo 2003, following the amendment of Article L 331-6 - last paragraph of the Code of Consumption:

"The total duration plan, including when been a revision or renewal , not exceed ten years .
These measures may exceed this limit when relate to the repayment of loans contracted for the purchase of real property constituting the principal residence and the plan avoids the assignment by the debtor. "

The first three words of this section are sufficient to justify that it is well to take into account all the plans already made, otherwise the legislature would have simply stated "the term of a plan."

Zumkeller Michel, a member of Belfort, had questioned the National Assembly, January 8, 2008, the former High Commissioner for Active Solidarity against Poverty M. Martin Hirsch, about this famous period decade :
"This period of time it from the original date of the first plan, or that the review"? Mr. Hirsch
made the following clear and precise answer:

" The duration of plans, that it be conventional or based on the recommendations of Justice, the total duration shall not exceed ten years, including when it subject to revision or renewal .
This period therefore applies to the original date of the first plan ".

(See Judgement of 11.06.2009 - TGI Ales - George Krausz / Credit & Housing Neuilly-Ctx, Sofinco, etc.) reversing the decision of the Commission's indebtedness Gard

"We can not evade the previous plans adopted by the Commission which would result in totally unjustified aggravate the situation of the debtor , particularly since that article L 331-7 in its previous version, provided that the duration of the recommended measures could not exceed 8, not 10 years ".

So why, both commissions as judges, they stubbornly on victims (beneficiaries of the plan), by making decisions without taking into account these new provisions requiring litigants failed to continue their plan well beyond the statutory period, in flagrant disregard of the intentions of the legislature, and that, more than six years after the release orders?

To all the victims of this persecution, these injustices, express yourself. Join me on this blog.