# C_2016208EN.01011701.xml

| 10.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 208/117 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 208/117

---

P7_TA(2013)0445

e-justice Action Plan 2014-2018

European Parliament resolution of 23 October 2013 on the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 (2013/2852(RSP))

(2016/C 208/10)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the European e-Justice Action Plan 2009-2013, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the European e-Justice Action Plan 2009-2013,

| — | having regard to the question to the Council on the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 (O-000111/2013 — B7-0521/2013), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the question to the Council on the e-Justice Action Plan 2014-2018 (O-000111/2013 — B7-0521/2013),

| — | having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

| A. | whereas the first multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan covered the 2009-2013 period and sought to make justice and the legal system more accessible to citizens, and to improve the mutual understanding of practitioners and administrations by providing electronic tools for information and cooperation; |
| --- | --- |

A.

whereas the first multiannual European e-Justice Action Plan covered the 2009-2013 period and sought to make justice and the legal system more accessible to citizens, and to improve the mutual understanding of practitioners and administrations by providing electronic tools for information and cooperation;

| B. | whereas the e-Justice Portal was launched in 2010; |
| --- | --- |

B.

whereas the e-Justice Portal was launched in 2010;

| C. | whereas the time has now come to decide on the e-Justice Action Plan for 2014-2018; |
| --- | --- |

C.

whereas the time has now come to decide on the e-Justice Action Plan for 2014-2018;

| D. | whereas the e-Justice Action Plan should be developed on an open-access basis and all Member States should be encouraged to participate; |
| --- | --- |

D.

whereas the e-Justice Action Plan should be developed on an open-access basis and all Member States should be encouraged to participate;

| E. | whereas awareness of EU civil justice instruments and cross-border procedures is relatively low, and whereas 73 % of citizens believe that additional measures are needed to help them access civil justice in other Member States (1); |
| --- | --- |

E.

whereas awareness of EU civil justice instruments and cross-border procedures is relatively low, and whereas 73 % of citizens believe that additional measures are needed to help them access civil justice in other Member States (1);

1

| 1. | Considers that e-Justice is a means of enabling greater access to legal and judicial information, and to judicial and administrative proceedings, for both citizens and practitioners; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Considers that e-Justice is a means of enabling greater access to legal and judicial information, and to judicial and administrative proceedings, for both citizens and practitioners;

| 2. | Considers that e-Justice has an important role to play in enhancing mutual trust and understanding and thus in underpinning the mutual recognition of judicial and administrative decisions, which is a major principle of the EU’s legal system; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Considers that e-Justice has an important role to play in enhancing mutual trust and understanding and thus in underpinning the mutual recognition of judicial and administrative decisions, which is a major principle of the EU’s legal system;

| 3. | Points out that e-Justice systems, by their very nature, tend to decrease the costs of judicial and administrative proceedings, in particular through automation of the exchange of information, the service of documents and the translation of certain procedural acts; considers that this is in the interest of all stakeholders in the judicial system; believes that, in view of cost-efficiency considerations, projects should remain voluntary; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Points out that e-Justice systems, by their very nature, tend to decrease the costs of judicial and administrative proceedings, in particular through automation of the exchange of information, the service of documents and the translation of certain procedural acts; considers that this is in the interest of all stakeholders in the judicial system; believes that, in view of cost-efficiency considerations, projects should remain voluntary;

| 4. | Welcomes the development of e-Justice tools to facilitate the use of certain EU instruments, such as the European Payment Order and the Small Claims Procedure, as well as information systems in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, notably the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) and the Schengen Information System (SIS) II; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Welcomes the development of e-Justice tools to facilitate the use of certain EU instruments, such as the European Payment Order and the Small Claims Procedure, as well as information systems in the area of Justice and Home Affairs, notably the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS) and the Schengen Information System (SIS) II;

| 5. | Notes the importance of e-Justice for the provision of multilingual standard forms and thus for the reduction of cross-border red tape; |
| --- | --- |

5.

Notes the importance of e-Justice for the provision of multilingual standard forms and thus for the reduction of cross-border red tape;

| 6. | Calls for the use of electronic applications, the electronic provision of documents, the use of video-conferencing and the interconnection of judicial and administrative registers to be increased in order to further reduce the cost of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

6.

Calls for the use of electronic applications, the electronic provision of documents, the use of video-conferencing and the interconnection of judicial and administrative registers to be increased in order to further reduce the cost of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings;

| 7. | Calls on the Member States and the Commission to continue working on electronic cooperation in the justice area, in particular by extending the applications available on the e-Justice Portal; considers that the necessary attention should be given to developing e-learning tools for the judiciary; |
| --- | --- |

7.

Calls on the Member States and the Commission to continue working on electronic cooperation in the justice area, in particular by extending the applications available on the e-Justice Portal; considers that the necessary attention should be given to developing e-learning tools for the judiciary;

| 8. | Points out that the EU’s Justice Programme 2014-2020 should allow for the funding of successful European and national e-Justice projects, which should have real European added value for citizens; believes that legislative work, e-Justice projects and financial programme planning should be streamlined; |
| --- | --- |

8.

Points out that the EU’s Justice Programme 2014-2020 should allow for the funding of successful European and national e-Justice projects, which should have real European added value for citizens; believes that legislative work, e-Justice projects and financial programme planning should be streamlined;

| 9. | Emphasises the importance of the e-Justice portal for the aim of building a true European judicial culture by hosting online tools for judicial training and serving as a knowledge management and interconnection instrument; |
| --- | --- |

9.

Emphasises the importance of the e-Justice portal for the aim of building a true European judicial culture by hosting online tools for judicial training and serving as a knowledge management and interconnection instrument;

| 10. | Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

---

(1)  European Commission, Special Eurobarometer 351 (Civil Justice), October 2010, Question 3.

1

Special Eurobarometer

---