Mr President, Commissioner, this proposal for a directive, with regard to which I am the rapporteur, seeks to establish minimum common rules to guarantee the provision of genuine financial assistance to citizens who are unable to bear the costs of legal proceedings in which they are involved. This initiative slots perfectly into the project of creating an area of freedom, security and justice within Union territory, within which all the citizens are guaranteed respect for their fundamental rights, irrespective of their financial situation. The original legal basis is Title IV, Article 61 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which stipulates that the Council, in order to establish progressively an area of freedom, security and justice, shall adopt measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters. The Tampere European Council responded to this call by establishing minimum standards for cross-border access to justice, and we would emphasise this. The Commission has taken a more courageous step, proposing to extend the provision of aid to internal cases as well. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs has risen to the challenge, appropriating the Commission’s debate on the scope of the directive. Therefore, other internal cases are to be covered by the directive as well as cross-border cases. Thus, the legal basis must be extended and is no longer to be found solely in Article 61 of the Treaty but in Article 65 too. Moreover, the extension of the scope of the directive is also based on the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 47(3), to be specific, which provides that legal aid is to be made available to those who lack sufficient resources to secure equal access to justice. This is the first time we have pledged to provide this kind of aid at Community level. It also gives us a welcome opportunity to invite those Member States – and there are a considerable number of them – which already provide guaranteed, appropriate legal aid for their citizens internally, to start to harmonise their laws in the field. The report, which was adopted unanimously by the Parliamentary committee responsible, goes even further. Indeed, it proposes to extend the aid provided during the actual legal proceedings to the pre-litigation stage too, given that effective mediation, an attempt to achieve reconciliation between the parties can often even obviate the need for actual legal proceedings, reducing, therefore, or eliminating all the inconvenience for the citizens concerned and, most importantly, reducing the costs involved. This two-fold approach could – it is true – lead to an increase in the costs sustained by the Member States. However, the political and social importance of a directive of this nature would – and, indeed, does – justify Parliament’s appeal to the Council to take this step. Here, we have the primary task of identifying the political objectives which will further the genuine development of the Europe of the citizens, the Europe of equality of justice for all. I would like to end by focusing on a last minute and, therefore, somewhat disconcerting action of the Council, which has sent a new text – albeit only informally for our information – which clearly seeks to stress the contents of Article 1, which restricts the scope of the directive purely to cross-border cases. In other words, the Council is – or seems to be – attempting to cast doubt upon the entire process, to stop it in its tracks and to go back to the drawing board. Irrespective of the content of this proposal, which runs counter to the unanimous vote of the Parliamentary committee, this is a serious violation of form and procedure. The Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights has decided, on the basis of a specific vote, to complete the entire process up until the adoption or, at any rate, tabling in plenary of the report based on the text prepared by the Commission, in accordance with the most basic rules of the consultation procedure. If Parliament were to accept the Council’s termination of the process or a proposal for referral back to committee, this would have major consequences in terms of interinstitutional legal relations and also in terms of the consultation procedure, and would be a serious violation of the provisions of the Treaty. The prerogatives of the European Parliament would be undermined and a highly disturbing precedent would be set for the future. Therefore, the process of examining this report must be brought to its normal conclusion; in other words, the report must be put to the vote in Parliament. That is the opinion of the Parliamentary committee. I would like to end by calling directly upon the Commission, if I may, in the person of Commissioner Vitorino, to give its opinion. IN THE CHAIR: MR ONESTAVice-President

Political group: PPE-DE