Proposal for a COUNCIL DECISION on a joint Action adopted by the Council on the basis of Articlel K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, on a programme of incentives and exchanges for practitioners in the Justice area
Date: 1996-05-31
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, exchange of information, judicial cooperation, legal profession, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  31.05.1996 
COM(%)253  final 

96/0146 (CNS) 

Proposal  for  a 

mi  m m.  DECISION 

on  a Joint  Action  adopted  by  the  Council  on  the  basis  of  Article  K.3 of  the 
Treaty  on  European  Union, on a programme  of  incentives  and  exchanges  for 
practitioners  in the Justice area 

(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

INTRODUCTION 

4 

According to Article K. 1, the Member States see the strengthening of judicial  cooperation 
as a field  of common interest. The work that has been started  within the structures set up 
by Title VI of the Treaty on European Union are the practical  expression of this concern, 
in  both  the  civil  and  criminal  fields.  The  French  Presidency,  anxious  to  establish  a 
connection  between  the  practitioners  and  the  institutions  and  bodies  responsible  for 
training  judges,  has  initiated  consultation  alongside  the  work  of  the  groups,  with 
professionals  regularly  faced  with  questions  of judicial  cooperation.  This  initiative  has 
emerged  as a useful  and  fruitful  means of enriching  debate in the Council  and  has been 
continued.  Seminars  were thus  held  in Bordeaux  in  April  1995 on  questions  of judicial 
cooperation  in criminal  matters and  in Rome in December  1995 on civil  matters.  These 
seminars showed that the instruments of judicial cooperation, such as the relevant Council 
of  Europe  conventions,  are  no  longer  entirely  appropriate  to  the  situation  within  the 
Union.  The  Council  has  set  itself  the  task  of  improving  these  instruments.  As 
practitioners have found,  however,  it is not  only  the wording  of  a legal  text  which  may 
prove  an  obstacle  to  its  application;  there  are other  "cultural"  difficulties,  i.e.  a  patchy 
comprehension  of  the  language  and  legal  concepts,  a  poor  understanding  of  the  legal 
tradition  of  other  Union  Member  States,  and  generally  a  lack  of  familiarity  with  the 
cultures, procedures  and  legal  institutions  of the Union  States. 

This concern is not new: it was expressed by the Council  as far back as November 1993, 
and  can  be read between the lines of the framework  of  priorities being  considered  for  a 
programme  that  will  be  drawn  up to cover  several  years.  Parliament  is also aware  of it 
and  has  expressed  the  wish  that  part  of  the  budget  allocated  for  operational  costs 
connected with Title  VI activities should be devoted to a programme for  law enforcement 
officers which contributes to the pooling of knowledge  on their respective methods and 
definitions (e.g. comparison  of definitions of offences)  and techniques. The programme 
will also be geared  to foster  language  knowledge. 

Also, in the last few years a number of selective initiatives, originating from  such bodies 
as  the  Institut  des  Hautes  Etudes  sur  la  Justice  and  the  Ecole  Nationale  de  la 
Magistrature, or private associations such as NACRO (National  Association  for the Care 
and Resettlement of Offenders)  have enabled judges, lawyers and other legal  professionals 
to  meet  and  compare  practices,  improve their  mutual  comprehension  and  thus  facilitate 
contacts and cooperation in the management of the cases they deal with. Such experiences 
have shown  a certain  openness among these professionals,  which  should be encouraged. 
It is essential to respond to this demand. Improving judicial  cooperation need not depend 
exclusively  on  the  adoption  of  new  instruments  but  requires  an  attempt  to  improve 
awareness  of  rules  and  procedures  which  differ  despite  the  similarity  of  their  goals. 
Giving judges,  lawyers  and  other  legal  professionals  the  means  to do this  also  helps  to 
strengthen  citizens* confidence  in justice within  the European  Union. 

4 

SCOPE OF THE  PROPOSAL 

The object of the draft joint action  is to create a host structure,  i.e. an overall  framework 
for a programme for practitioners in the Justice area. The aim is neither to interfere  in the 
design  of  the  basic  training  of  these  professionals,  which  is  the  task  of  the  Member 
States, nor to fill potential  gaps in the knowledge and correct application  of  Community 
law,  a problem  which the  Commission  is considering  in  a different  context  since  it  set 
up  a  group  of  experts  on  training  and  information  for  the  legal  professions  in  the 
application  of Community  law  in  March  1995. 

Nor  is  the  aim  to  propose  direct,  concrete  measures  of  judicial  cooperation,  as  the 
Commission's  competence  in this  field  extends  only  to civil  matters. 

The  aim  is  to  support  the  initiatives  of  public  institutions  or  private  bodies  which  are 
using continuing training to make legal  practitioners more aware of the law, procedures, 
institutions and language of other Member States. It is also to use economies of scale and 
the cumulative effects  of the specific  projects to produce synergies at the Union level  so 
as to rationalize  Community  financing  under Article  K.8,  and to define  the  frameworks 
of  action  to  enable  the  strategy  developed  to  be  better  understood,  so  that  the 
Commission,  which  is responsible  for  the  implementation  of  the budget,  can  take  over 
the management.  It is in this sense that the proposed Joint Action will  confer  some real 
added value. 

CONTENTS 

Article  1 defines  the terms of the programme and lists the categories of activity  eligible 
for  financing.  The  attached  financial  statement  provides  for  a  package  estimated  at 
ECU 9 million  for  the  first  five  years,  it  being  understood  that  ECU  800 000 will  be 
allocated  to  this  programme  in  the  start-up  period  corresponding  to  the  1996  financial 
year. 

Paragraph  2 lists the types  of  practitioner  at whom  the programme  is aimed. 

Article 2 concerns training projects, first and foremost  linguistic. The emphasis is placed 
on legal terminology: basic language courses do not come under this programme.  On the 
other hand,  it is planned  to hold  intensive  and  specialized  residential  seminars for  small 
groups of  practitioners  who  already  have  a knowledge  of another  language. 

With  a  view  to  optimizing  the  impact  of  these  projects,  the  possibility  of  organizing 
exchanges  between  people  responsible  for  initial  and  continuing  training  is  also 
envisaged. 

Article  3 proposes the  organization  of  exchanges  and  internships  with  institutions  and 
practitioners  from  another  Member  State,  or  "study  trips"  on  particular  topics  to 
institutions and  practitioners  in  different  Member  States. 

Article 4 relates to the organization of symposia, conferences and seminars. For example, 
it  provides  for  the  possibility  of  a series  of  similar  conferences,  in  each  case  addressed 
to practitioners from  two Member  States, principally  to keep interpreting  costs down  At 
a few  large thematic  conferences  on topical  subjects  relating to judicial  cooperation,  the 
participation  of  specialists  from  other  professions  may  prove  desirable,  and  the  idea  of 
a multidisciplinary  conference  has therefore  been  taken  up. The third  indent  relates to a 
specific,  very  concrete  type  of  exercise,  where  the judges  from  different  countries  are 
given the same case to study. 

Article  5  envisages  studies  and  research  in  connection  with  the  other  projects  of  the 
programme: either preparatory  studies for conferences,  internships, etc. or the analysis of 
their results. The principal aim of the programme is not to carry out studies, the emphasis 
being  placed  on  the  operational,  practical  aspects.  The  underlying  idea  is  that  the 
programme,  rather  than  being  a  package  designed  to  finance,  isolated  projects,  forms  a 
whole  which  should  demonstrate  complementarity  between  the  projects,  a  progression 
from  one to the next. 

Article 6 deals with the circulation  of information,  both  on the programme projects and 
their results and on any type of development  in judicial  cooperation  which could  interest 
the practitioners.  The goal  is to constantly  update the information  and extend the  effects 
of  the  projects  and  the  programme  beyond  their  direct  beneficiaries.  To  this  end,  the 
programme  provides  for  the  distribution  of  a  periodical  and  for  the  establishment  of 
databases. 

Article  7 lays down  the general  criteria  for  assessing  requests.  Prime among these are: 
the connection  with the political  priorities  set by the Council, the work of 
the groups and  the Union's  progress to date  in the field of justice; 
the integration  of the project  in the overall  programme; 
the concrete,  practical  nature  of the  proposed  projects; 
the expected  efficiency  of the project;  hence the need for  preparation, the 
interest  in  frequently  associating  practitioners  from  different  disciplines 
(including, for example, those with  specialist experience such as liaison or 
contact judges)  and  bringing  in training  and  research  institutes. 

- 

Paragraph  3 is designed  to enable practitioners  from  applicant  or other countries to take 
part. 

Article  8 is  self-explanatory. 

Article  9 sets the  main  lines  of  the  limits  of  Community  financing.  With  a programme 
of  this  kind  that  aims  to  foster  knowledge,  provision  is  not  made  for  full  financing. 
Paragraph  3 aims to set a ceiling  for  the part  of the grant  affecting  certain  categories of 
cost,  thus  highlighting  the  operational  rather  than  administrative  nature  of  the  budget 
heading.  It  should  also  be  pointed  out  that  the  salary  costs  of  State  officials  are  not 
eligible expenditure under this programme.  The concrete  application  of these principles, 
which could vary  depending on the type of project,  will  be determined  by  implementing 
rules  adopted  in  accordance with  the  procedure  in  Article  10. 

Article 10 confers responsibility for implementing the budget on the Commission  It also 
provides  for  the  adoption  of  detailed  rules  on  such  matters  as  the  submission  of 
applications and the implementation of Article 9 in practice.  In addition, the Commission 
has the tasks of drawing up a coherent  and complete annual  programme and  conducting 
a  yearly  assessment  of  the  implementation  of  the  previous  year's  programme.  The 
objective is to centre the efforts,  to bring them into line with the Council's priorities, and 
to  ensure  that  the  programme  keeps  evolving.  The  Commission  will  consult  specialists 
from  the relevant circles. 

Article 11 defines (on the basis of Model  lia of the  1987 decision) the tasks and working 
methods of the Committee, composed  of representatives of the Member  States, to which 
the Commission  is to submit the implementing measures, the annual  programme and the 
report  on  the  previous year.  This Committee  is to be  consulted  on  any  draft  decisions 
on financing projects  which exceed  the threshold  given  in  Article  12(3).  In this case it 
will  operate in  accordance with  Model  I of the  1987 decision. 

Article  12 determines the Commission's  procedure for  examining  drafts,  and the role of 
the  Advisory  Committee  in this. 

Article  13 is  self-explanatory. 

Article  14  provides  for  monitoring  of  the  programme's  implementation  both  by 
Parliament  and  by  the  Council,  with  the  aim  of  preserving  the  greatest  possible 
conformity  with work that is either already  in progress or envisaged  for the future  in the 
field of judicial cooperation, and the closest faithfulness  to the policy pursued on training. 
An  initial  report  will  be  drawn  up  at  the  end  of  the  launching  phase,  which  will 
correspond  to  the  first  budgetary  year  and  during  which  the  models  suggested  for  a 
number  of pilot  projects  can be tested  on  a larger  scale. 

Article 15 stipulates that the current programme is to last for five years initially, although 
its development  will  depend  on annual  appropriations. 

COUNCIL  DECISION 
of... 
on  a Joint  Action  adopted  by  the Council  on  the  basis of  Article  K.3 of  the 
Treaty  on  European  Union, on  a programme  of  incentives  and  exchanges  for 
practitioners  in the Justice  area 

THE COUNCIL  OF  THE EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty  on European  Union, and in particular Articles K.3(2)(b) and 
K.8(2)  thereof, 

Having  regard  to the  proposal  from  the  Commission, 

Having  regard to the opinion  of the European  Parliament, 

Whereas  the  Member  States  consider  the  strengthening  of judicial  cooperation  to  be  a 
matter  of  common  interest; 

Whereas  setting  up  a  framework  for  projects  of  training,  information,  studies  and 
exchanges  for  law  enforcement  officers  will  contribute  to  improving  the  mutual 
understanding  of  legal  and judicial  systems  of the  Member  States,  to  highlighting  their 
points  of  convergence  and  to  lowering  the  barriers  to  judicial  cooperation  between 
Member  States; 

Whereas these objectives  can be more effectively  realized  at the Union  level than  at the 
level  of  each  Member  State,  because  of  the  expected  economies  of  scale  and  the 
cumulative  effects  of the  projects  envisaged; 

Whereas this joint  action is without  prejudice  to the Community's  powers in the field of 
vocational training and does not therefore adversely affect  the Community measures taken 
to implement  its policy  in that field, or the Leonardo da Vinci  Programme in  particular; 

Whereas  this joint  action  does  not  affect  the existing  rules  of  procedure  in  the  field  of 
judicial  cooperation, 

S 

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS: 

Article 1 

1. 

2. 

A programme  for  law enforcement  officers,  to be known as 'Grotius',  is hereby 
established for the period 1996-2000, in order to foster mutual knowledge of legal 
and judicial systems, and to facilitate judicial cooperation between Member States. 

For  the  purposes  of  this joint  action,  "practitioners  in  the  Justice  area" means 
judges  (including  liaison,  contact  and  other  judges),  advocates,  bailiffs, 
notaries/solicitors, researchers, investigators,  ministry officials,  court interpreters 
and other court  officials. 

3. 

The programme shall  comprise the following: 

- training 
- exchange and work-experience programmes 
- organization of meetings 
-  studies and research 
- distribution of information. 

Article 2 

Projects with the following  objectives  may be considered  under "training": 

fostering  of  foreign  language  knowledge,  in  particular a working  knowledge  of 
legal  language; 
knowledge  of  the legal  institutions  and procedures of  the other Member States, 
and how they  function; 
exchange  of  experience  between  those  responsible  for  the  training  of  legal 
practitioners,  and  between  institutions  responsible  for  basic  training  and  those 
responsible for continuing training; 
preparation  of  teaching  modules  for  training  projects,  of  exchanges  and 
internships, of conferences, or of seminars organized as part of the implementation 
of this programme. 

Article 3 

Projects  with  the  following  objectives  may  be  considered  under  "exchange  and 
work-experience  placement programmes": 

organization  of  work  experience  of  limited  duration  in  the  legal  institutions  or 
with legal  practitioners in Member States other than that of origin; 
organization of visits to legal  institutions or to legal  practitioners in a number of 
other Member States on specific themes. 

Article 4 

Projects  with  the  following  objectives  may  be  considered  under  "organization  of 
meetings": 

organization  of  bilateral  or  European  conferences  on  legal  topics  of  general 
interest; 
organization  of  multidisciplinary  conferences  on  topical  or  new  legal  subjects 
relating to judicial  cooperation; 
organization  of  seminars based  around case  studies on  sentencing,  in the course 
of which judges from different  Member States deliver a verdict on the same court 
case. 

- 

Article 5 

Projects with the following  objectives  may be considered  under "studies and research": 

preparatory analysis of subjects chosen for projects to be implemented within the 
framework  of this programme: 
analysis  of  reports  on  work  experience  or  meetings  organized  within  the 
framework  of this programme; 
coordination  of research on topics relating to judicial  cooperation. 

Article 6 

Projects  with  the  following  objectives  may  be  considered  under  "distribution  of 
information": 

hard-copy  or  on-line  distribution  of  information  on  legislative  amendments  or 
draft reforms,  in the original  or in translation; 
dissemination of information  on projects under Articles 2, 3 and 4, the results of 
meetings under Article 4  or the findings  of  research  carried  out under Article 5 
and the application  of this research: 
creation  of  databases  and/or  documentation  networks  including  lists  of articles, 
publications,  studies and legislation  in fields  relating to judicial  cooperation. 

- 

Article 7 

1. 

2. 

Projects financed  by the Community  must be of demonstrable  European interest 
and involve  more than one Member State. 

The selection  process projects  for which  finance  is  requested  shall  have regard, 
inter alia, to: 

the extent to which the subjects covered conform with work that is already 
in  progress  or  planned  for  the  future  under  the  Council's  action 
programmes in fields relating to judicial  cooperation; 

} 

the contribution  to the elaboration or implementation  of instruments under 
Title  VÏ of the  Treaty  on  European  Union; 
the extent  to which  the different  projects  complement  each  other; 
the  range of  professions  to which  they  are  addressed; 
the  involvement  of  institutions  such  as  judicial  training  institutes  and 
research  institutes; 
the operational  and  practical  nature  of the  projects, 
the degree  of preparation  of the participants; 
the possibility  of using the results of the project  to make further  progress 
in judicial  cooperation 

These projects  may associate practitioners from  the countries which  have applied 
for  membership  or  other  non-member  countries  where  this  would  contribute  to 
their  preparation  for  accession. 

Article 8 

The financing  decisions and the contracts arising from  them  shall provide for  monitoring 
and financial control  by the Commission  and audits by  the Court  of  Auditors. 

Article  9 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

All  types of  expenditure  which  are  directly  chargeable  to the  implementation  of 
the project  and which  have been  committed  within  a contractually  agreed  period 
shall  be eligible. 

The proportion  of financial support from  the Community  budget shall not exceed 
80% of the  cost  of the  project. 

Translation  and  interpreting  costs, computing  costs, and  expenditure  on  durables 
or consumables shall  not be taken into consideration  unless they are essential  for 
the realization  of the project,  and  shall  only  be financed  up to a limit  of  50% of 
the  grant  or  80%  in  cases  where  the  nature  of  the  project  makes  them 
indispensable. 

Expenditure  relating to premises, collective facilities,  and the salaries of  officials 
of the  State and public bodies  shall  be eligible  only  if  it corresponds  to postings 
and  tasks  which  have  no  national  purpose  or  function  but  are  specifically 
connected  with  the implementation  of the  project. 

Article  10 

1. 

The Commission  shall be responsible for  carrying  out the measures provided  for 
in this decision  and  shall  adopt  detailed  rules for  implementing  this joint  action, 
including  the  criteria  for  the eligibility  of costs. 

% 

2. 

3. 

It  shall  draw  up  each  year,  with  the  assistance  of  experts  from  the  relevant 
professional  circles, the guidelines  for the annual  programme implementing this 
joint  action  in  terms  of  the  thematic  priorities  and the  distribution  of  available 
appropriations between fields of activity. 

It  shall  undertake  each  year  an  assessment  of  the  measures  implementing  the 
programme for the previous year. 

Article 11 

1. 

2. 

The Commission shall be assisted by a Committee consisting of one representative 
from  each Member State of the Union and chaired by the Commission. 

The representative  of  the Commission  shall  submit to the  Committee  proposals 
for implementing rules, for guidelines for the annual programme and for project 
assessment.  The Committee shall deliver its opinion within a time limit which the 
Chairman  may  lay  down  according  to the  urgency  of  the  matter.  The opinion 
shall  be  delivered  by  the  majority  laid  down  in  the  second  paragraph  of 
Article K.4(3) of the Treaty in the case of decisions which the Council is required 
to adopt on a proposal  from the Commission.  The votes of the representatives of 
the Member States within the Committee shall be weighted in the manner set out 
in that Article.  The Chairman shall  not vote. 

The  Commission  shall  adopt  measures  which  apply  immediately.  However,  if 
these  measures  are not  in  accordance  with  the  opinion  of  the Committee,  they 
shall be communicated by the Commission to the Council forthwith.  In that event 
the Commission may defer application  of the measures which it has decided for 
a period not exceeding  one month from the date of  such communication. 

The Council, acting by a qualified  majority,  may take a different  decision within 
the time limit referred to in the previous subparagraph. 

Article  12 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

From  the  second  budgetary  year  onwards,  projects  for  which  financing  is 
requested shall be submitted to the Commission for scrutiny before 31 March of 
the financial  year to which they are to be charged. 

The  Commission  shall  examine  the  projects  that  are  submitted  to  it  with  the 
assistance of the experts referred to in Article  10(2). 

Individual  financing  decisions  shall  be  taken  by  the  Commission,  which  shall 
inform  accordingly  the Committee  referred to in Article  11(1). 

Where the financing  requested  exceeds  ECU  100 000,  the  representative  of the 
Commission  shall  submit  a draft to the Committee  referred  to in  Article  11(1). 
The Committee shall deliver its opinion on this draft within a time limit which the 

9 

Chairman may lay  down according to the urgency of the matter.  If necessary, a 
vote will  be taken  within the Committee.  The Chairman  shall  not vote. 

The opinion shall be recorded in the minutes; furthermore, each Member State has 
the right to ask that its position be recorded in the minutes. 

The  Commission  shall  take  full  account  of  the  opinion  delivered  by  the 
Committee.  It shall  inform  the Committee of how it has done so. 

Article  13 

1. 

Measures  incorporated  in  the  programme  and financed by  the  budget  of  the 
Communities  shall  be  managed  by  the  Commission  in  conformity  with  the 
Financial Regulation of 21 December  1977 applicable to the general budget of the 
European  Communities,  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  No  2335/95  of 
18 September  1995. 

2.  When  presenting  the  financing  proposals  referred  to  in  Article  12  and  the 
assessments provided for by Article  10, the Commission shall take account of the 
principles  of  sound  financial  management  and  in  particular  of  economy  and 
cost-effectiveness  as required by Article 2 of the Financial  Regulation. 

Article  14 

Each  year  the  Commission  shall  report  to  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the 
implementation  of the programme.  The first report shall  be presented at the end of the 
1996 budgetary year. 

Article 15 

This Joint Action  shall  enter into force  on the day of its adoption. 

It shall  have effect  for a period of five years, at the end of which  it may be extended. 

AO 

Financial  statement 

1 

TITLE  OF  OPERATION 

Joint  action  on  a programme  for  practitioners  in Justice area. 

2 

BUDGET  HEADING  INVOLVED 

B5-800: Cooperation  in the fields  of justice  and  home  affairs. 

Commitment  appropriations  entered  in  Chapter B0.40. 

3 

LEGAL  BASIS 

Article K.3(2)  of the Treaty  on  European  Union. 

4. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  OPERATION 

4.1 

General  objective 

The  objective  that  the  Union  set  itself  in  Article  B,  4th  indent  of  the  Union  Treaty  of 
developing close cooperation on justice and home affairs,  must start with projects to raise 
awareness and increase familiarity  with the laws, institutions and procedures of the other 
Member  States. 

In order to reinforce  their complementarity  and increase their positive effects,  it was felt 
necessary to establish an umbrella programme to give them a more coherent structure and 
to be able to finance  them  with  Community  funds. 

42 

Period  covered  and  arrangements  for  renewal  or  extension 

The duration of the scheme will depend on the authorization  of budgetary appropriations. 
After  an initial five-year period  it  could  be renewed  or  extended. 

5 

CLASSIFICATION  OF EXPENDITURE  OR  REVENUE 

NCE 
DA 

6 

TYPE  OF EXPENDITURE  OR  REVENUE 

Grants (of up to 80% maximum) for  co-financing  with  other  sources from  the public or 
private  sector. 

ii 

7. 

FINANCIAL  IMPACT 

7.1  Method of calculating total  cost of operation 

The grants will  cover the following  areas:  training in languages and in comparative law; 
work experience and visits abroad; organization of meetings; coordination of research on 
subjects relevant to judicial  cooperation; and dissemination of information on foreign law 
and judicial  cooperation. 

It is anticipated  that,  subject to the annual  budgetary  procedure,  an indicative  financial 
package  of  ECU 8.8  million  will  be  set  aside  for  this  programme  for  the  period 
1996-2000  in  accordance  with  the  timetable  shown  at  7.2.  The  annual  total  of 
ECU 2 million  once  the  scheme  is  up  and  running  is  based  on  the  estimates  and 
objectives below. 

For the first year,  however,  only  ECU 800 000  is  planned  as only  a limited  number of 
projects of limited  scope can be launched in what is left  of the year. 

Training (legal terminology  and comparative law) 

1 five-day intensive  residential  course  for  30 participants  (ECU 20  000)  from  the  15 
Member States.  20 000 x  15 = ECU 300 000. 

1 two-day  meeting  per year for those responsible  for training  practitioners of justice in 
the Member States: ECU  50 000. 

Exchange and work-experience programme 

3  series of five-day work-experience  periods in  each  Member  State  for  30 participants 
(ECU  15 000)  in each case: 3 x  15 x  15 000 = ECU 675 000. 

3  series  of  two-day  visits  for  6  participants  (ECU 2 000)  from  each  Member  State: 
3 x  15 x 2 000 = ECU 90 000. 

Meetings 

3  two-day  conferences  per  year  for  150 participants  (ECU  100 000):  3 x  100 000 = 
ECU 300 000. 

4  three-day  residential  seminars  for  40 participants  from  several  Member  States 
(ECU  55 000): 4 x  55 000 = ECU 220 000. 

6  four-day  residential  seminars  for  30 participants  from  two  Member  States 
(ECU 20 000): 6 x 20 000 = ECU  120 000. 

44 

Research 

2 studies lasting  about 4 months, to be carried out by one consultant  and two assistants 
(ECU 30 000): 2 x 30 000 = ECU 60 000. 

Documentation 

Bimonthly  publication: ECU 20 000. 

Establishment and stocking of  a database (or of  several  partial bases): ECU  150 000. 

7 2 

Breakdown of  costs 

(ECU million  at current prices) 

Area 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

n  + 5 
et  seq. 

Total 

Training 
Exchanges 
Meetings 
Research 
Documentation 

Total 

0.25 
0.25 
0.25 

0.05 

0.8 

0.35 
0.78 
0.64 
0.06 
0.17 

2 

0.35 
0.78 
0.64 
0.06 
0.17 

2 

0.35 
0.78 
0.64 
0.06 
0.17 

2 

0.35 
0.78 
0.64 
0.06 
0.17 

2 

1.65 
3.37 
2.81 
0.24 
0.73 

8.8 

7.3 

Schedule of appropriations 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

0.8 

2 

2 

2 

2 

(ECU  million) 

n  + 5 
et  seq. 

Total 

8.8 

0.4 

0.4 
1.3 

0.7, 
1.3 

0.7 
1.3 

0.7 
1.3 

0.7 

0.7 

Commitment 
appropriations 

Payment 
appropriations 

Year  n 
n+  1 
n + 2 
n + 3 
n + 4 
n + 5 et  seq. 

Total 

0.4 

1.7 

2 

2 

2 

43 

8. 

FRAUD  PREVENTION  MEASURES;  RESULTS  OF MEASURES  TAKEN 

Verification  of  grants,  receipt  of  payments  and  preparatory,  feasibility  and  assessment 
studies  is  carried  out  by  the  Commission  before  payment  is  made,  taking  into account 
contractual  obligations,  economic principles and principles of sound financial or general 
management.  Anti-fraud  provisions (checks, delivery  of reports, etc.) are included  in all 
the agreements or contracts concluded between the Commission and the recipients of the 
payments. 

9 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS  ANALYSIS 

9.1 

Specific  and quantifiable  objectives: target population 

9.1.1  Specific objectives: 

The specific  objectives  include the following: 

raising  operational  language  skills  and comprehension  of  other  Member  States' 
legal terminology  so that the target population can correctly draw up requests for 
cooperation  and respond rapidly  and efficiently  to such requests; 

promoting  awareness  of  the  convergence  of  EU  legal  systems  on  the  basis  of 
common values; 

familiarization  with other Member States' legal  institutions and the way in which 
these  institutions  operate,  by  arranging  work-experience  periods  and  exchange 
visits; 

establishment,  by this means,  of working relationships and mutual  trust between 
practitioners; 

joint discussions on matters such as ways of improving judicial cooperation or the 
presentation and assessment  of  methods used on an experimental  basis; 

comparison  of  socio-legal  trends  and  reciprocal  consultations  on  the  scope  for 
reform  in the administration  of justice; 

analysis and study  of ways to simplify  and improve judicial  cooperation,  on the 
basis of the reports submitted  on work-experience  periods and meetings; 

provision of information on possible ways of gaining familiarity with foreign legal 
systems; 

ongoing  exchange  of  information  on  trends  in  national  law  with  a bearing  on 
judicial  cooperation. 

H 

9.1.2  Target population 

The  target  population  comprises judges  (including  liaison,  contact  and  other judges), 
advocates, bailiffs,  notaries/solicitors, researchers, investigators,  ministry  officials,  court 
interpreters and other court  officials. 

The proposed measures should enable these various categories of person to draw on each 
other's specialized experience. 

9.2 

Reasons for the scheme 

9.2.1  Need for  Community budgetary assistance in the light of the subsidiarity principle 

Article K. 1 requires  Member  States to  regard  closer judicial  cooperation  as  an area of 
common interest.  Since  1995, however, the seminars held for those who regularly have 
to  deal  with  questions  of  judicial  cooperation  have  drawn  attention  to  two  kinds  of 
problem. 

On the one hand, certain instruments for judicial cooperation are not entirely appropriate 
to the situation in the Union.  On the other hand, practitioners point out that some of the 
obstacles to applying these instruments derive from  "cultural" difficulties,  i.e. inadequate 
understanding  of  legal  language  and concepts or a poor grasp  of the legal  traditions of 
other Member States, in short, a lack of familiarity with the legal culture, procedures and 
institutions of the Member States of the Union. 

These concerns are not new and the European Parliament is aware of them.  A number 
of  selective  initiatives,  originating  mainly  from  private  organizations,  have  revealed  a 
degree  of  openness among the practitioners concerned,  and this  should  be encouraged. 
The  aim  of  the  draft  Joint  Action  is  to  establish  a  framework,  i.e.  to  support  any 
initiatives taken by public or private bodies in order to make the practitioners of justice 
more aware of the laws, procedures,  institutions and languages of other Member States. 
Only if the initiative is taken at Union level  will  it be possible to make savings through 
the  cumulative  effects  of  individual  projects,  to  achieve  synergies  at  Union  level,  to 
rationalize the financing arrangements and to have an overview of the strategy developed. 

9.2.2  Choice of means 

The  proposal  opts  for  an  integrated  programme  with  the  emphasis  on  complementary 
projects,  with  a  view  to  facilitating  the  practical  and  operational  aspects  of  judicial 
cooperation  and  focusing  on  the  cultural  and  sociological  obstacles  to  satisfactory 
cooperation. 

Similar measures at national level have made many practitioners aware of these needs but 
are unable to provide a coordinated  response to these needs. 

Spin-off  from the programme is expected in several  areas.  In the first place it is hoped 
to  stimulate  the  interest  of  the  professionals  concerned  and  to  make  practitioners 
(irrespective  of  their duties or responsibilities)  aware of  the need  for  a more thorough 
understanding of each other's legal procedures, institutions and backgrounds.  They should 

4 S 

come to see the advantages of integrating the European dimension at every stage of their 
apprenticeship.  Secondly,  the exchange  of  know-how  between  practitioners  facing  the 
same  conflicts  and  problems  may  lead  them  to  see  that  what  they  have  in  common 
outweighs the  differences  between  them  and that these  differences  can  be overcome in 
an atmosphere of openness, frankness and mutual trust.  The dissemination of information 
on the various projects and the results they achieve and on developments in areas relevant 
to judicial  cooperation  should  make  for  a  "knock-on"  effect  between  those  who  have 
benefited  from the projects and those who have not yet had the opportunity. 

This  networking,  even  if  on  an  informal  basis,  should  in  its  turn  make  for  greater 
transparency, efficiency  and smoothness in the practical implementation of the procedures 
for  judicial  cooperation.  By  enabling  judges,  lawyers  and  other  court  officials  to 
cooperate in this way, the scheme will also help to strengthen public confidence in justice 
within the EU. 

9.2.3  Contingent factors 

The success  of the programme will  depend not only  on the commitment  shown by the 
organizers of specific  projects but also, to a considerable extent,  on the reception which 
it receives from  the judicial  authorities and the resources which they  make available to 
participants.  Initial  contacts would  seem to justify  a certain optimism.  The results will 
depend, however, on the follow-up to the programme.  In the management and planning 
of the annual programmes and in their assessment, the emphasis will be placed on setting 
up a dynamic  process rather than stringing together a number of individual  projects. 

9.3 

Follow-up  and assessment 

Initially, the only means available for measuring performance will be the output figures. 

As  mentioned  above  (point  7.1)  it  is  planned  to  organize  20  to  25  projects  per year, 
involving between 6 and  150 participants depending on the type of project (i.e. between 
2  500 and 3 000 participants in all).  These figures  must be taken as a rough guide only, 
however,  since the success of this or that project and the circumstances obtaining at the 
time  (e.g.  the  Council's  priorities)  could  mean that one  type  of  project  might be given 
temporary  preference  over another in the course of the programme. 

The  Commission  will  endeavour  gradually  to  develop,  on  the  basis  of  the  approval 
procedure, performance indicators whereby the spin-off from the programme can be more 
accurately  assessed: 

cost-benefit  analysis; 

stricter monitoring of selected  projects, taking account of experience gained; 

if appropriate, the use of  analytical  schemes for each category  of project; 

the knock-on effect from one project to another and the synergy between different 
types of project; 

A 6 

if  possible,  a system  for surveying  practical  aspects of judicial  cooperation. 

At the end of the programme there will be a follow-up and assessment report, which will 
be used to ascertain whether the programme should be renewed. 

The  proposed  Joint  Action  also  provides  for  consultations  between  the  professional 
interests  concerned  and  the  representatives  of  the  Member  States  on  the  projects,  for 
annual  programmes and reports and for an annual  report to Parliament  and the Council, 
thus ensuring transparent and effective  controls. 

10. 

ADMINISTRATIVE  EXPENDITURE  (part A of the budget) 

The necessary  human resources will  be mobilized  by the Commission's annual  decision 
on the allocation  of  resources,  account being taken of the  staff  numbers and additional 
amounts agreed by the budget authority. 

This  Joint  Action  will  involve  the  management  of  commitment  appropriations,  the 
preparation  of  annual  action  programmes,  and  the  devising  of  methods  to  assess  the 
effects  achieved  by  these  programmes.  All  of  these  tasks  will  be  new  to  the  Unit 
responsible for judicial  cooperation,  which is already very  short of  staff to deal with its 
ever-expanding responsibilities for planning, participation and negotiation within Council 
working parties and other international bodies.  Any internal reorganization of staff would 
therefore  seem  unrealistic.  Moreover,  the  specific  nature  of  the responsibilities  of the 
Task  Force  on  Justice  and  Home  Affairs  rules  out  any  redeployment  within  the 
Secretariat-General  to deal with these new tasks.  For this reason it is recommended that 
additional  resources be brought in. 

10.1  Effect  on number of posts 

Type  of  post 

Staff  required  for  management 
of joint  action 

of  which 

Period 

Permanent 
posts 

Temporary 
posts 

using  existing 
resources 
within  the DG 
or  department 
concerned 

using 
additional 
resources 

Officials  A 

or temp.  B 
C 
staff 

Other 
resources 

Total 

A 

1/2 
1/2 

2 

5 years 
beginning  in 
October  1996 

1 

1/2 
1/2 

2 

n 

10.2  Overall  financial  effect  of additional  human resources 

Officials 
Temporary  staff 

Amount 

900 000 

Total 

9 00  0 0° 

(ecus) 

Method  of  calculation 

1A +  1/2B +  1/2C 
(ECU  100.000 + 
ECU  45.000 + 
ECU  35.000)  x  5 years 

These amounts show  the  total  cost  of  the  extra posts  over  the  total  duration of the 
measure (if  the  latter  is  of  limited duration) or for  12 months (if  the  measure is  of 
unlimited duration). 

10.3 

Increase in other operating expenses as a result of the measure 

Budgetary  heading 

A  130 
Mission  expenses 

A2510 
Expenditure  on 
Committee  meetings 

Total 

Amount 

300 000 

104 250 

100 625 

504 875 

(ecus) 

Method  of  calculation 

Missions:  30 return  trips 
(ECU  2 000) x  5 years 

Advisory  Committee: 
15 persons x 2 meetings 
(ECU  695) x  5 years 

Experts:  5 experts x 
5  meetings  (ECU  805) x 
5 years 

These amounts correspond to total expenditure on the measure  (if the latter is of limited 
duration) or expenditure over a 12-month period (if the measure is of unlimited duration). 

ig 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 253  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

06 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-96-265-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-05202-7 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

/»5