Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation establishing a general framework for Community activities to facilitate the implementation of a European judicial area in civil matters"
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU programme, European judicial area, civil law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/77

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
establishing a general framework for Community activities to facilitate the implementation of a
European judicial area in civil matters’

(2002/C 36/16)

On 13 June 2001, the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing
the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 3 October 2001. The rapporteur was
Mr Ataı´de Ferreira.

At its 385th plenary session (meeting of 17 October 2001), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 92 votes to one with four abstentions.

1. Background to the proposed regulation aimed at
facilitating progress towards a European judicial area
in civil matters

area of judicial cooperation in civil matters for the period
2002-2006. Its objectives are:

1.1.

Legal basis

1.1.1.
One of the key objectives which the Maastricht
Treaty set the Union was to maintain and develop an area of
freedom, security and justice; the Amsterdam Treaty, with this
objective in mind, gave the Council the task of adopting
measures on judicial cooperation in civil matters under the
terms set out
in Articles 65 and 67 (Article 61 of the
consolidated Treaty).

1.1.2.
The Council and Commission have issued a number
of documents and declarations clarifying the sphere and scope
of this objective and the measures to implement it. The most
important of these were the December 1998 Action Plan on
the best way to implement the Amsterdam Treaty provisions
in this area (the Vienna Action Plan), the conclusions of the
October 1999 Tampere European Council and the successive
scoreboards assessing the progress in bringing about an area
of freedom, security and justice, the latest scoreboard being
dated May 2001 (COM(2001) 278 final).

in the
As the Commission correctly points out
1.1.3.
explanatory memorandum preceding its proposal for a regu-
lation, the overriding aims of these measures are ‘to create a
European judicial area in civil matters, where citizens have a
common sense of justice throughout the Union and where
justice is seen as facilitating the day-to-day life of people’, to
provide ‘legal certainty (...) to individuals and business’, and to
achieve ‘better compatibility and more convergence between
the legal systems’.

1.2. Aims of the regulation

1.2.1.
The present proposal for a regulation is designed to
establish the legal basis for financing activities in the policy

a)

to promote judicial cooperation;

b)

c)

d)

to improve mutual knowledge of
systems between the Member States;

legal and judicial

to ensure the sound implementation and application of
Community instruments in this area; and

to improve public access and information on moves
towards establishing an area of freedom and certainty,
particularly as regards access to justice, judicial cooper-
ation and the legal systems of the Member States.

1.2.2.
the regulation are:

Activities deemed to be eligible for funding under

a)

b)

c)

Commission actions aimed specifically at ensuring the
implementation and monitoring of Community instru-
ments for judicial cooperation in civil matters through
manuals, databases, publications and studies;

subsidies for the running costs of non-governmental,
non-profit organisations;

subsidies for co-financing specific projects with other
sources in the public and/or private sector.

1.3. The legal framework which warrants this regulation

1.3.1. With the above-mentioned legal basis, the proposal
for a regulation aims to establish the conditions for effective
implementation of a series of measures which have recently
been or are about to be adopted on either the Commission’s
or the Council’s initiative, as part of the new tasks and
responsibilities in judicial cooperation in civil matters, assigned
to the European Union under the Amsterdam Treaty.

C 36/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

1.3.2.
Of the legislative instruments already adopted in the
areas of civil law and civil procedure, all with the express
support of the ESC, the main ones are:

b) Draft programme of measures for implementation of the
principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and
commercial matters (8).

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000
on insolvency proceedings (1);

Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of the same date
on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of
parental responsibility for children of both spouses (2);

Council Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 of the same date on
the service in the Member States of judicial and extraju-
dicial documents in civil and commercial matters (3);

1.3.4.
However, various other areas of civil law and civil
procedure are being opened up to much-needed standardis-
ation with a view to ever greater cooperation in judicial
matters; some of
the main ones are mentioned in the
Commission Communication to the Council of 23 May
2001 (9) and — although not referred to in that communi-
cation — another no less important area concerns procedures
for overindebtedness and insolvency cases involving individ-
uals and families. This is a subject which the Committee started
to look at some time ago (10), and the Consumer Affairs
Council meeting in Luxembourg on 13 April 2000 also made
a point of stressing the importance of adopting a Community-
wide approach to this issue.

Council Regulation (EC) 44/2001 of 22 December 2000
on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgements in civil and commercial matters (4);

Also important here is the Communication from the
1.3.5.
Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on
‘European Contract Law’ (11).

Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on
cooperation between the courts of the Member States in
the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (5);

1.3.6.
The importance of establishing a European judicial
area, in terms of its civil and commercial aspects, has taken on
particular importance following the tragic events in the USA,
aimed at crime and terrorism prevention.

Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 estab-
lishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commer-
cial matters (6).

2. General comments

1.3.3.

The following are currently being adopted:

a)

Proposal for a Regulation on the mutual enforcement of
judgments on rights of access to children (7);

2.1.
The above demonstrates that there is a clear need to
establish a basis for planning and securing the means necessary
to ensure that legislative initiatives in this sphere are formalised
in a lasting, stable fashion, in such a way that they are properly
established and implemented and that all parties concerned
are aware of their existence.

(1) OJ L 160 of 30.6.2000; the ESC adopted its opinion on this
Regulation on 26.1.2000 (CES 79/2000). The rapporteur was
Mr Ravoet.

(2) Idem;

the ESC adopted its opinion on this Regulation on

20.10.1999 (CES 940/1999). The rapporteur was Mr Braghin.

(3) Idem;

the ESC adopted its opinion on this Regulation on
21.10.1999 (CES 947/1999). The rapporteur was Mr Herna´ndez-
Bataller.

(4) OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001; the ESC adopted its opinion on this
Regulation on 1.3.2000 (CES 233/2000). The rapporteur was
Mr Malosse.

(5) OJ L 174 of 27.6.2001;

the ESC adopted its opinion on
28.2.2001. The rapporteur was Mr Herna´ndez Bataller (opinion
CES 228/2001).

(6) OJ L 174 of 27.6.2001; the ESC adopted its opinion on 28.2.2001.

The rapporteur was Mr Retureau (Opinion CES 227/2001).

(7) OJ C 234 of 15.8.2000;

the ESC adopted its opinion on
19.10.2000 (CES 1190/2000). The rapporteur was Mr Retureau.

2.2.
Against this background, the ESC welcomes the pro-
posed regulation, as it aims to respond to these needs on a
solid, structured, well-planned and lasting basis, unlike pre-
vious isolated ad hoc initiatives such as those under the Grotius
Programme or the Grotius-Civil Law Programme.

2.3. Moreover, the Committee feels that — as the Com-
mission correctly points out — the regulation’s objectives

(8) OJ C 12 of 15.1.2001.
(9) COM(2001) 278 final.
(10) c.f.

Information Report CES 212/2000 fin for which the

rapporteur was Mr Manuel Ataı´de Ferreira.

(11) COM(2001) 398 final of 11.7.2001.

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/79

cannot be achieved by Member States and can be best achieved
at European level, thus complying with the principles of
subsidiarity and proportionality.

The Committee suggests that this paragraph reiterate the
definition of the target public set out in point 9.1.4 of the
Financial Statement.

2.4.
The above-mentioned Communication dated May of
this year could be criticised for not stressing more strongly the
need to standardise the legal institutions which are important
for the single market and the free movement of persons. For
example there is a need to push ahead with steps to adapt the
Geneva Conventions of 1930/31 (bills, promissory notes and
cheques) more closely to the Community judicial area, whose
sphere of application will necessarily be enlarged.

3. Specific comments

3.1. Conditions for supporting NGOs (Article 5)

3.1.1.
Paragraph 2 of this article raises specific difficulties
in that the required involvement of at least two-thirds of
all EU Member States necessitates the involvement of a
disproportionate number of all the Member States. Member
States have to be involved; even if the text were to be corrected
to take this into account by stipulating the involvement of ‘at
least two-thirds of the participating Member States’, the two-
thirds required (i.e. eight Member States) would still represent
a high number. The ESC proposes requiring the involvement
of ‘at least one-half of the participating Member States’.

Paragraph 3 of this article is also likely to over-
3.1.2.
restrict
this article, with a
the sphere of application of
detrimental impact which the Commission would certainly
not wish for in terms of the transparency of procedures and
the bodies it would wish to be involved. The Committee
therefore recommends the following alternative wording:

It still has to be made clear that social economy organisations
must be able to take part in the programme.

3.3. Minimum number of participating countries [Article 6(4)]

The requirement that at least three countries participate is
likely to place unwanted limitations on the submission of
this
projects. The Committee therefore recommends that
number be brought down to two, and that the level of funding
vary in line with the number of states participating in the
project being proposed.

3.4.

Level of Community financing [Article 7(3)]

Unlike the Grotius Programme which set an 80 % ceiling on
Community contributions to costs, the proposed regulation
sets this limit in principle at 50 % and does not stipulate any
criteria for cases warranting an exception to this rule. The ESC
feels that this ceiling is too low. If the ceiling is to remain
unchanged, criteria should be drawn up to define those cases
where this percentage may be exceeded. This is necessary in
order to ensure transparent procedures and prevent any
arbitrary decisions.

3.5.

Evaluation and selection criteria [Article 8(3)]

‘they must have as an objective to promote the develop-
ment of a judicial area in civil matters’.

Alongside the criteria set out in Article 8(3), the ESC deems it
appropriate to add the criterion that proposals should be in
line with the priorities referred to in Article 8(1).

3.2.

Submission of specific projects [Article 6(3)])

Under the proposed regulation:

‘Projects may be submitted by institutions and public or
private organisations, including professional organisations,
research institutes and legal and judicial training/further
training institutes for legal practitioners.’

It seems that universities would be excluded from the above
and that only legal professionals could benefit from training
programmes. The wording of Article 6(3) also runs counter to
the definition of the target public set out in point 9.1.4 of the
Financial Statement.

3.6.

Implementation and evaluation reports (Article 14)

As occurs in other similar cases, the ESC suggests that it be
stipulated that these reports be sent to it for information.

3.7. Assessment of budgetary appropriations

Given the sphere and scope of the proposed initiat-
3.7.1.
ives, the ESC fears that the overall allocation of EUR 15 million
is seriously inadequate.

C 36/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

3.7.2.
The ESC would query the distribution of the budget
between the proposed activities and in particular the fact that
two thirds of the overall amount (EUR 10 million) is to be
allocated to the Commission’s own activities (activities 1 to 3
in the table setting out commitment appropriations under
point 7.2 of the Financial Statement).

Since there is no guarantee that certain appropri-
3.7.3.
ations, particularly those earmarked for the Commission’s own
activities, will not run out in the course of the period under
consideration, the ESC fears that other appropriations might
be affected.

3.7.4.
The ESC would thus propose that the regulation set
a minimum percentage — 40 % — for appropriations to be
earmarked for other activities not directly launched by the
Commission.

4. Conclusions

demonstrate the need for a single European judicial area for
crime and terrorism prevention.

The ESC endorses the Proposal for a Council Regulation
4.2.
establishing a general framework for Community activities to
facilitate the implementation of a European judicial area in
civil matters, with the proviso set out above, i.e.:

a)

b)

the appropriations allocated to the programme should be
increased so that steps to create a European judicial area
can be truly effective, since over and above the subjects
referred to in the Communication there are other issues
deserving equally — if not more — urgent consideration
(see 1.3.4 and 2.4 above);

the conditions establishing the eligibility of bodies to
participate in the programme and its funding should be
re-examined particularly as regards:

— a reduction in the minimum number of participating

Member States (see 3.1.1 above);

— the minimum number of participating countries (see

3.3 above);

— the level of Community financing (see 3.4 above);

4.1.
The establishment of a civil and commercial judicial
area must be one of the great ambitions of the European
Union, taking particular account of recent tragic events which

— the minimum percentage to be earmarked for
activities not launched by the Commission (see 3.7.4
above).

Brussels, 17 October 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS