WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/01 by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission. Ban on payment for advocates' travelling time.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, allowances and expenses, competition law, freedom to provide services, lawyer

C 40 E/222

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

(cid:129) in view of the position of the European Parliament expressed in the McKenna report (A5-0219/2001)

adopted on 5 July 2001 and

(cid:129) the fact that in the 2001 budget heading B4-3301 makes provision for funding pilot projects for the
protection of coastlines with an appropriation of € 5 million for studies and assessments regarding
coastal erosion in European regions,

can the Commission supply information concerning the dates and procedures for the publication of calls
for tender to carry out these studies?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

The call for offers related to implementation of Budget Line 2001/ B4 3301 was published in the Official
Journal on 10 July 2001 with reference S130-088260. The deadline for submission of offers is 20 August
2001.

(2002/C 40 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2220/01

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Ban on payment for advocates(cid:146) travelling time

Under the Danish legal system, an advocate may be appointed to act in criminal cases. He is then paid
from the public purse for his services, the final amount of the fees depending on the outcome of the case.

The State often also covers the advocate(cid:146)s travel expenses and loss of earnings where he has to travel, but
in some cases the law provides that the State shall not pay for travelling time, see para. 336c(3) of the
Administration of Justice Act. In such cases a local advocate will be more competitive than an out-of-town
or foreign lawyer.

This can be circumvented by agreement between the client and his advocate from outside. For example, a
Danish lawyer with an office in London makes 12 journeys corresponding to 100 hours travel at
DKR 2 500 to act in a case in the High Court Eastern Division in Copenhagen. It is agreed that The
defendant or his family agree to pay the advocate KR 250 000 for his travel to the Court where the Court
has previously declined to bear the cost.

Paragraph 336c(5) of the Administration of Justice Act does however contain provisions which may be
interpreted as banning the defendant/accused from agreeing to cover his advocate(cid:146)s travelling time, even
where payment from the public purse is refused and regardless of whether the accused/defendant at any
point seeks to have this amount covered from public funds.

Under this arrangement the lawyer would be at a substantial disadvantage compared with a local lawyer.

The accused is also put at a disadvantage as his right to free choice of counsel is in fact removed if he
himself is not allowed to defray the cost of travelling time for the counsel he wishes to have appointed to
act for him in his criminal case.

Can this provision prohibiting a defendant/accused from agreeing with his advocate to cover the cost of
the lawyer(cid:146)s travelling time be regarded as complying with ordinary competition law and in particular the
Community(cid:146)s competition law and law of contract?

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/223

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2001)

The Commission feels that a general ban as briefly outlined by the honourable Member could in fact
well hinder or make more difficult the freedom to provide services by lawyers that is guaranteed by
Articles 49-55 of the EC Treaty.

the follow-up to its communication on an internal market strategy for services (1),

the
As part of
Commission is currently working on the first phase of this strategy, which involves identifying and
analysing thoroughly the barriers hindering the freedom to provide cross-border services between Member
States. This will be followed by a second phase in which the most suitable solutions to the problems
encountered will be proposed. In this regard, the Commission intends to examine the provisions of the
Danish code of civil and criminal procedure, to which the honourable Member refers, in order to be able
to decide whether such a provision is incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty with regard to the
freedom to provide services and, if necessary, to propose appropriate measures to deal with the problem.

(1) COM(2000) 888.

(2002/C 40 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2222/01

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Cuts in funds for nuclear fusion

According to a letter bearing the signatures of 1 450 scientists and researchers from all over Europe
addressed to the President of the European Parliament, Mrs N. Fontaine, Commissioner Philippe Busquin
and the Members of the European Parliament, the Commission has proposed cuts of € 150 million in
Community funding for research into nuclear fusion in the (cid:145)Sixth Framework Programme(cid:146). The amount
proposed in the programme is now € 700 million compared with € 850 million, the amount originally
proposed by Commissioner Busquin, as stated in Document SEC(2001) 385-5/3/2001.

This decision will hamper a number of projects,
((cid:146)International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor(cid:146)) and may prove fateful for the development of the technological capability in
Europe to produce a form of energy which is safe, environmentally friendly and (cid:129) according to the
current state of our knowledge (cid:129) inexhaustible.

including (cid:145)ITER(cid:146)

Will the Commission give the reasons for this decision? Has it considered the consequences of reducing
the funds necessary for the development of this new technology? How can this negative attitude be
squared with the public commitment of the countries of the European Union to contribute to reducing
environmental pollution?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2001)

As is emphasised in the letter to which the Honourable Member refers, the coordination of European
research on fusion energy and sustained human and financial commitments have ensured that Europe now
plays a leading role in such research, thanks in particular to the success of the Joint European Torus (JET)
project.

The proposal for a Euratom Framework Programme 2002-2006 (1) maintains the reactor guideline of the
current programme and, referring to progress in fusion research, includes the possibility of constructing in
Europe the (cid:145)International thermonuclear experimental reactor(cid:146) (ITER), the (cid:145)Next Step(cid:146) after JET towards the
reactor. The budget proposed by the Commission provides for a contribution of € 200 million towards the
construction of ITER, which, if it is approved, could begin towards 2005-2006. However, the execution of
a major project such as ITER means that choices have to be made. In its proposal, the Commission has
opted to give priority to its support for multilateral actions involving European research workers in joint