Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, this report concerns the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents. At first sight, this may appear a rather trivial, even irrelevant matter. It is in fact the case, however, that a citizen’s attempt to gain his rights largely begins when he serves a partner, a contracting party, or an adversary with documents such as statements of claim, responses, enforceable judgements or notarial instruments in the course of disputes, that is to say civil litigation, specifically by means of a formal, legally enforceable service procedure. However, when this has to be done across borders, i.e. from one country to another, then this attempt to fight for one‘s rights often comes to grief at this very first hurdle, for the corresponding service procedures in different countries tend to be incomprehensible, complicated, and time-consuming, as well as costly, and are the source of a considerable number of errors. The fundamental agreements under international law- primarily the Hague Agreement of 1965 in our case – contain numerous national opt-outs, are confusing and difficult to grasp and to work with. In order to improve this situation, the Member States concluded an appropriate agreement as early as 1997, on which Parliament gave its position. However, this agreement was not ratified. The proposal that has now been put forward by the Commission takes its inspiration from this agreement. As such, the Commission is exercising its right of initiative in the Community sphere of judicial cooperation in civil matters, based on Article 61c EEC in accordance with the procedure of Article 67, that is a unanimous decision from the Council of Ministers following parliamentary hearing. The United Kingdom and Ireland have declared that they wish to play a full part in the activities of the Community in judicial cooperation in civil matters. So far, Denmark has not made known whether it is also interested in joining the process. The object of the directive is, as the title states, the service of documents in civil and commercial matters, i.e. specifically not in criminal matters. We are talking about one of several proposed measures in this field. The first thing to be said as far as content goes is that if we were to do no more than replace the Hague and other agreements with a uniform, self-contained legal act of the Community then this alone would represent a considerable step forwards. It will render the legal position more easily accessible, it will simplify it and make it easier to comprehend. The most essential points to note are that in future, the transmission of documents is to proceed in a decentralised manner, directly between so-called transmitting agencies and receiving agencies, thus avoiding the delays caused by involving other agencies in the individual countries concerned. In addition, so-called central points are to be established whose purpose it will be to provide assistance when problems arise. Standard forms will be produced at Community level, common instructions as to the use of languages and translations will be provided, and not forgetting binding deadlines. For all that the proposal may bring about a thoroughly remarkable improvement in the situation concerning cross-border lawsuits, still it does not go nearly far enough to my mind, particularly if a directive is to be proposed. A more suitable instrument, however, would be a regulation, for this would increase the binding nature of the legally relevant act and avoid possible sources of error. What is more, the proposal contains too many derogations and special provisions for national exemptions, a relic of the practices under international law agreements. It is hard to see why a procedure for the service of documents, which ought, after all, to be efficient and fast, needs to be associated with a whole host of national special regulations. After all, this is not about the integrity, which is in every sense worthy of protection, of substantive, national systems of laws, nor is it about the equally justifiable protection which a state would like to afford its citizens in disputes, rather it is about straightening and levelling out the paths pursued in cross-border civil disputes, making them shorter, better, and above all faster, and indeed why should they not be cheaper as well? For these reasons, we are proposing to you a series of deletions and amendments intended to eliminate special provisions of this kind or at least only to permit them in exceptional cases, as for example with Articles 2, 9, 12 and 15. Several other improvements have been ventured in addition, for example with regard to translations, language problems, costs and differences of opinion between the competent offices. I would like to thank the Members of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market and the Members of the Committee on Citizens‘ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs most warmly for their cooperation and the motions they have tabled. I am also in the Commission’s debt for the proposal it so rightly put forward which will bring about a considerable improvement in legal entitlement across national borders. However, the proposal does not go far enough. It is, as it were, a case of three steps forwards and then another one and a half steps back. The point of our motions is to ensure that when we take three steps forwards, we continue in that vein, and that retrograde steps – that is the exemption and special provisions – are dispensed with. Accordingly, I would ask you to give me your support and I would ask the Commission and Council of Ministers to adopt our proposals in the interests of improved legal entitlement for the citizens of our Union.

Political group: PPE-DE