WRITTEN QUESTION P-1476/01 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. Nec bis in idem double jeopardy rule.
Date: 2001-05-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: commercial law, criminal law, judicial cooperation, jurisdiction, legal process, right to justice

C 350 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

technology the office is bogged down in paper,
administration of justice and hence the right of citizens to obtain justice.

leading to delays which have an impact on the

Although the organisation of the courts and the modernisation of their bureaucratic machinery is under
the jurisdiction of national governments, can the Commission say:

1. whether it considers that the delays caused not least by failure to modernise procedures is having an
adverse impact on citizens who have to wait an inordinately long time to see the conclusion of cases
concerning them;

2.

in view of the unequal treatment and the failure to respect human rights to which citizens are
subjected because of delays in the organisational and technological changes in bureaucracy, does it not
consider it would be appropriate to call on governments, in the context of the co-operation envisaged
to achieve the objectives of the (cid:145)third pillar(cid:146), to make the necessary efforts to modernise legal offices
and make up for the delays which lead to the aforementioned unequal treatment?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member concerning the adverse impact on
citizens of delays in the administration of justice.

That being so, the Commission is aware that slow procedures and slow registration of cases is a major
impediment to access to justice, as are the complexity and cost of procedures.

Greater use of new information and communication technologies could at least partly remedy that
problem. In this context, for example, the recent Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 (1) to set
up a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters refers to the use of such new technologies
in order to facilitate its activities.

The Commission is also managing several research programmes in the field of new technologies. One of
them, the programme concerning information society technologies (IST programme), includes (cid:145)applications
relating to administration(cid:146), which could be suitable for the submission of proposals dealing with justice. A
project known as E-Court has been under way since 1 June 2001 and is aimed at using emerging
information and communication technologies to improve the output and efficiency of
law courts
throughout Europe.

(1) OJ L 174, 27.6.2001.

(2001/C 350 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1476/01

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject:

(cid:145)Nec bis in idem(cid:146) double jeopardy rule

(11 May 2001)

Is the Commission aware that proceedings brought in the English High Court by the Kuwait Investment
Office through their Spanish holding company Grupo Torra were dismissed in 1999 by an English judge
identical
after trial against my constituent, Carin Parker, and were not appealed against, and that
proceedings are being pursued by the Kuwait Investment Office in Spain?

Has the European Commission considered the problems of double jeopardy in cases where international
agencies by virtue of their financial resources can abuse national legal systems in order to obtain a legal
result which is most favourable to them?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/167

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The question asked leads to different solution depending on whether it is considered from a civil or from
a criminal point of view.

From the criminal point of view, it would first be necessary to examine whether the criminal pursuits
issued in the two Member States concern exactly the same case, in all of their components. It is very
possible that the two pursuits concern similar activities, taking place in two Member States at the same
time but with no real connections between their author. In this case, it is possible that pursuits would take
place in both Member States, but on different offences. If the offence is effectively the same, it will be up
to the person concerned to invoke the rule of (cid:145)non bis in idem(cid:146) before the pursuing authority or before the
court of the second Member State.

In order to escape these kind of difficulties, the Commission will issue a Communication before the end of
this year, on the rules of jurisdiction in criminal matters within the Union. At the same time, it will be the
responsibility of Eurojust, in its area of competence, to avoid that such situations of double pursuits will
occur.

As far as the question is related to civil and commercial proceedings, the crucial issue at stake is the force
of law that a judgment delivered in one Member State carries in another Member State.

the legal

issues raised are dealt with by the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and
At present,
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the Brussels I Regulation that enters into force
on 1 March 2002 is identical in substance in that respect). Article 26 of the Brussels Convention reads:

A judgment given in a Contracting State shall be recognized in the other Contracting States without
any special procedure being required.

Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may,
in accordance with the procedures provided for in sections 2 and 3 of this Title, apply for a decision
that the judgment be recognized.

If the outcome of proceedings in a court in a Contracting State depends on the determination of an
incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question.

Since both the United Kingdom and Spain are Contracting States, the judgment delivered in the United
Kingdom should be recognized in Spain (unless one of the exceptions laid down in Article 27 of the
Convention applies) with the obvious implications for the current proceedings in Spain. The case would
have to be dismissed if the same cause of action between the same parties has already been finally decided
by the British courts (not knowing the particulars of the case it is, of course, not possible to assess if the
subject matter of procedures in Spain and the United Kingdom is identical). The defendant can bring up
the final decision by the courts of another Contracting State as a defense in these new proceedings.

(2001/C 350 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1480/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Increased risk of fires in Greece

The prolonged drought in Greece is creating favourable conditions for outbreaks of forest fires and it is
expected that a high level of preparedness will be required to prevent and control them.

The report on the Community system of information on forest fires 1985-1997, published by the
the Greek emergency services were
Commission department
unprepared in certain respects to prevent and extinguish forest
fires (time between first alert and
intervention, average fire control time, average area burned in each fire, etc.). Furthermore, record damage
by fires was caused during the year 2000.

responsible for forests, revealed that