Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on judicial training in the European Union
Date: 2006-06-29
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, application of EU law, continuing vocational training, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal profession, vocational training

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 29.06.2006 
COM(2006) 356 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on judicial training in the European Union 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

on judicial training in the European Union 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION: 

The  adoption  of  the  Amsterdam  Treaty  with  its  reference  to  the  new  objective  of 
creating  an  “area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice”  means  that  judicial  training  is  a 
new  task  for  the  Union.  Admittedly,  there  has  always  been  a  great  need  for 
high-level  training  for  the  practitioners  of  justice  in  the  EU  because  the  proper 
application of Community law depends heavily on the national judicial systems. The 
familiarity of judges, prosecutors and lawyers with this subject has, from the outset, 
been essential for the sound application of the Community legislation and full respect 
for  the  fundamental  freedoms  recognised  by  the  Treaty1.  But  justice,  which  was 
hitherto  only  a  means  of  enforcing  Community  law  in  the  Community,  became  an 
objective  in  its  own  right  under  the  Amsterdam  Treaty.  Improvement  of  judicial 
cooperation is now an objective to be met. Judicial training is an essential instrument 
to this end. 

After several years of development of the area of freedom, security and justice, this 
question has taken on particular significance. The adoption of a corpus of legislation 
that  has  become  substantial  and  must  now  be  implemented  by  the  practitioners  of 
justice,  coupled  with  the  development  of  the  mutual  recognition  principle,  which 
rests primarily on a high degree of mutual confidence between the Member States’ 
judicial systems, means that judicial training is now a major issue.  

The  Hague  programme  adopted  by  the  European  Council  in  November  20042 
stresses the need to strengthen mutual confidence, which requires “an explicit effort 
to  improve  mutual  understanding  among  judicial  authorities  and  different  legal 
systems".  As  in  December  2001,  when  the  Laeken  European  Council  called  for  “a 
European network to encourage the training of magistrates to be set up swiftly; this 
will help develop trust between those involved in judicial cooperation”3. the Hague 
programme considers that the Union must in particular seek support in the European 
Judicial Training Network. This communication is in response to the request that the 
Commission  “prepare  as  soon  as  possible  a  proposal  aimed  at  creating,  from  the 
existing structures, an effective European training network for judicial authorities for 
both civil and criminal matters, as  envisaged by Articles III-269 and III-270 of  the 
Constitutional  Treaty”,  included  in  the  Action  Plan  to  implement  the  Hague 
programme4. 

1 
2 
3 
4 

See COM(1993) 632 final. 
OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1. 
SN (2001) 1200. 
OJ C 198, 12.8.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4. 

5. 

It also underlines the close link between mutual confidence and the constitution of a 
"European legal culture", which training can help to strengthen. This European legal 
culture rests on a sense of belonging to a single area shared by practitioners of justice 
in  the  Member  States.  Apart  from  the  wealth  and  diversity  of  the  national  judicial 
systems,  a  significant  factor  in  this  area  is  the  presence  of  common  fundamental 
values embodied in instruments such as the Convention for the Protection of Human 
Rights  and  Fundamental  Freedoms  and  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the 
European  Union,  and  of  a  shared  legal  corpus  including  both  Community  law  and 
Union law. The development of the mutual recognition principle, which means that 
judgments given in one Member State can be enforced quickly and simply in any of 
the  other  Member  States,  requires  that  this  common  sense  of  belonging  be 
strengthened  and  consolidated.  The  principle  of  direct  contact  between  judicial 
authorities,  which  is  asserted  in  most  of  the  instruments  of  judicial  cooperation,  is 
another of its components. 

There  is  a  wide  range  of  judicial  professions.  This  communication  primarily 
addresses issues related to the training of judges and prosecutors who come under the 
direct authority  of  the Member  States  and  also, although this  is a  responsibility for 
the professions, the training of lawyers. It analyses the operation of legal training in 
the Member States and the way in which the European Union, particularly through 
financing programmes, has helped to develop it, before considering the components 
of a future European strategy on judicial training. 

2. 

JUDICIAL TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 

2.1. 

A situation that varies very widely between Member States 

6. 

7. 

8. 

Judicial  training  systems  are  closely  linked  to  judicial  organisation  in  the  Member 
States  and  vary  very  widely.  The  decisive  factor  is  the  machinery  through  which 
judges, prosecutors and lawyers are recruited. 

The initial training of the judges, and sometimes the prosecutors, varies in its level of 
detail according to whether they are recruited straight from university or after several 
years’ professional experience. Continuing training exists in virtually all the Member 
States, but is not equally highly developed.  

National training structures reflect differences between judicial systems. Depending 
on  the  systems,  judges,  lawyers  and  prosecutors  follow  either  the  same  basic 
curriculum  or  separate  curricula.  As  regards  judges  and  prosecutors,  depending  on 
the Member State, judicial training comes under the Ministry of Justice, the Higher 
Council of the Judiciary or Justice, or, as appropriate, under the Prosecutor-General, 
where there is strict separation between judges and prosecutors, or under specialised 
establishments.  In  several  Member  States5,  a  single  institution  is  responsible  for 
training  judges  and  prosecutors,  though  they  may  belong  to  separate  professional 
categories. Lawyers’ training is often organised direct by the bar, in many cases in 
conjunction with the universities.  

5 

Austria,  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Italy,  Portugal,  the  Netherlands, 
Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9. 

10. 

11. 

Likewise, the judges in the administrative courts, whether or not they belong to the 
same  professional  category  as  the  judges  in  the  ordinary  courts,  must  be  brought 
within  European  debate  on  training,  especially  in  view  of  their  essential  role  in 
matters  such  as  asylum  and  immigration.  Generally,  all  the  judges,  including  the 
specialised  courts  (military  judges,  neighbourhood  judges,  justices  of  the  peace, 
judges  in  commercial  courts,  etc.),  who  may  have  to  apply  European  law  are 
involved.  

Although the Commission does not have exhaustive information on this point, major 
differences  seem  to  exist  between  the  Member  States  in  the  duration  of  training. 
Only  continuing  training  is  in  this  respect  a  comparable  parameter,  given  the 
differences in recruitment systems. There are sometimes major inequalities in access 
to  training  as  between  judges,  prosecutors  and  lawyers.  In  budgetary  terms,  the 
training  of  judges  and  prosecutors  is  almost  always  financed  from  public  funds, 
whereas training for lawyers is financed by professional organisations.  

The  European  Union  has  no  grounds  for  interfering  in  the  organisation  of  national 
training systems, which reflect the Member States’ legal and judicial traditions. But 
strengthening  mutual  confidence  entails  developing  training  sufficiently  and 
devoting sufficient resources to it. Judges, lawyers and prosecutors must be able to 
receive training of an equivalent level and quality. The time devoted to training must 
be sufficient both to ensure high quality standards in the judicial system and to allow 
a  significant  European  component  to  be  developed  in  the  programmes.  European 
financing  can  be  used  only  by  way  of  addition  to  national  financing  and  cannot  be 
used  to  release  the  Member  States  from  their  responsibility  for  ensuring  an 
appropriate level of training of the judicial professions. 

2.2. 

The European aspects of judicial training 

12. 

The  wish  to  strengthen  judicial  training  has  been  clearly  affirmed  politically  on 
several  occasions,  and  financial  support  has  been  forthcoming.  In  addition  to 
European organisations involved in judicial training, national training structures have 
set up a network to meet the challenges involved in strengthening mutual confidence. 

2.2.1.  European support for judicial training 

13. 

After  a  first  debate  in  the  Council  prompted  by  Italy  in  19916,  France  presented  a 
legislative  initiative  in  November  20007.  This  proposal  was  not  adopted,  but  it 
enabled the Commission to take stock of the possible mechanisms for structuring the 
European Judicial Training Network8. It was also the source of Council conclusions 
in  June  2003  stressing  the  essential  character  of  training  for  the  success  of  the 
adoption of the area of freedom, security and justice and asking the Member States 
and the Commission to support the European Judicial Training Network. 

14. 

The  European  Parliament,  when  considering  the  French  initiative,  stressed  the 
importance  of  the  training  of  judicial  professionals  in  Community  and  Union  law9. 

6 
7 
8 
9 

Doc. 9090/91, 31.10.1991, JUR. 107, COURT 13. 
OJ C 18, 19.1.2001 p. 9. 
SEC(2002) 635. 
Report by Ms Evelyne Gebhardt, A5- 0276/2002 (OJ C 273 E, 14.11.2003, p. 999). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
More  recently,  in  its  recommendation  on  the  quality  of  criminal  justice  and  the 
harmonisation of criminal law in the Member States10, Parliament stressed “the key 
role  played  by  training  in  developing  a  common  legal  culture  and  a  culture  of 
fundamental  rights  within  the  Union,  in  particular  via  the  actions  of  the  European 
judicial training network”.  

In addition to political impetus, the development of training has been stimulated by 
financial support. Since 1996, when the first Grotius programme was set up “to foster 
mutual knowledge of legal and judicial systems and to facilitate judicial cooperation 
between Member States”11, the European Union has contributed to strengthening the 
training of legal practitioners through a series of general or sectoral programmes12.  

The  European  Parliament’s  wish  to  support  training  took  practical  form  in  the 
establishment of a pilot project to boost exchanges between judicial authorities. This 
programme continues in 2006 and was incorporated into the legislative proposals for 
the  framework  programme  on  fundamental  rights  and  justice  for  2007-201313  (see 
below). The civil justice and criminal justice aspects of this programme will further 
boost the resources devoted to judicial training. 

In 2005 Union financial support for judicial training enabled professionals to meet on 
numerous occasions.14 Nevertheless, the mechanism of the annual calls for proposals 
can have the effect that priority is given to financing specific projects that do not fall 
within a generally consistent pattern and can make it difficult to situate training in a 
long-term perspective.  

The  framework  programme  on  fundamental  rights  and  justice  must  therefore 
facilitate  an  increase  in  European  financing  devoted  to  judicial  training  and 
encourage closer correlation between the Union’s priorities and the training schemes 
organised,  thus  encouraging  projects  that  are  more  ambitious  and  coordinated  and 
that yield genuine European value added.  

In  addition  to  financial  tools,  the  mechanisms  set  up  by  the  Union  to  help 
cooperation,  such  as  the  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  Matters,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Eurojust  and  the  Judicial  Network  in  Criminal  Matters,  on  the  other,  can  play  an 
important  role  in  training  by  disseminating  information  on  the  Union’s  legal 
instruments or by organising local training activities. This role could be strengthened 
in the future. 

P6-TA(2005)0030 (OJ C 304E, 1.12.2005, p. 109). 
Joint action 96/636/JHA of 28 October 1996 (OJ L 287, 8.11.1996). 
See STOP programme (OJ L 322, 12.12.1996) and Falcone programme (OJ L 99, 31.03.1998) which 
were  merged  in  the  AGIS  programme  in  2002  (OJ  L  203,  1.8.2002);  in  civil  matters  (OJ  L  115, 
1.5.2001);  in  competition  law  (Decision  No  792/2004/EC  of  21  April  2004)  and,  since  2004,  the 
Hercules  programme  for  the  protection  of  the  financial  interests  of  the  Communities  (OJ  L  143, 
3.4.2004). For the record, Action Robert Schuman (OJ L 196, 14.7.1998). 
Commission  Communication  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  establishing  for  the  period 
2007-2013 a framework programme on fundamental rights and justice (OJ C 211, 30.8.2005, p. 6). 
In 2005, 1000 judges or prosecutors took part in training activities in another Member State under the 
EJTN. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

10 
11 
12 

13 

14 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.2.  Organisations with a European dimension involved in judicial training 

20. 

21. 

22. 

There are many institutions regularly organising training for practitioners of justice. 
Apart from the universities, there is the European Institute of Public Administration 
(EIPA) in Maastricht, which opened the European Centre for Judges and Lawyers in 
Luxembourg in 1992. And the European Law Academy (ERA), founded in Trier in 
1992, seeks to disseminate better familiarity with European law among lawyers and 
the legal professions. The EIPA and the ERA are supported by the European Union. 

In  2000  the  national  institutions  responsible  for  judicial  training  in  the  Member 
States  set  up  the  European  Judicial  Training  Network  (EJTN)  to  develop  their 
relations  and  coordinate  their  activities.  The  EJTN  brings  the  national  education 
institutions together within an association.15 Its aim is twofold: to promote a training 
programme  with  a  genuinely  European  dimension  and  to  develop  cooperation  as 
regards  analysis  of  training  needs  and  exchanges  of  experience  and  in  devising 
common programmes and tool, all for the benefit  of  members  of  European  judicial 
bodies. 

The  EJTN  is  a  valuable  tool  for  developing  judicial  training  and  coordinating  the 
activities  of  the  various  national  structures  in  the  filed  of  Union  law.  It  received 
operating  grants  from  the  Union  budget  in  2003  and  2005.  It  also  coordinates  an 
important  part  of  the  judges  exchange  programme  for  2005.  As  from  2007,  the 
Commission  proposes  that  it  be  allocated  an  annual  operating  grant  under  the 
framework  programme  on  fundamental  rights  and  justice  (specific  programme  on 
criminal justice).  

3. 

WHAT ACTION SHOULD EUROPE TAKE ON JUDICIAL TRAINING?  

3.1. 

Objectives and needs 

23. 

The  organisation  of  judicial  training  is  primarily  the  responsibility  of  the  Member 
States,  and  it  is  up  to  them  to  incorporate  the  European  dimension  fully  into  their 
national  activities.  The  needs  are  great.  In  criminal  matters,  special  attention  was 
drawn to them in the first evaluation exercise devoted to mutual judicial assistance in 
criminal matters.16 Eurojust and the Judicial Network in Civil Matters regularly came 
to the same conclusion. 

24. 

Priority should be given to three types of action: 

– 

improving  familiarity  with  Union  and  Community  legal  instruments,  in 
particular in areas where specific powers are entrusted to the national judges;17  

15 

16 
17 

23 Member States plus Bulgaria and Romania are represented. Contacts are ongoing with EE and CY. 
The ERA also takes part and the Lisbon Network, set up by the Council of Europe, is involved. 
OJ C 216, 1.8.2001, p. 14. 
That applies in specific areas such as competition (see in particular Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 on the 
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty, which confers 
power  on  the  national  courts  to  apply  these  articles)  but  also,  more  generally,  as  regards  civil  and 
criminal justice and especially for the implementation of mutual recognition. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29. 

– 

– 

improving  language  skills  so  that  judicial  authorities  can  communicate  with 
each other direct, as provided for in most instruments; 

developing familiarity with the legal and judicial systems of the Member States 
so  that  their  respective  needs  can  be  assessed  in  the  judicial  cooperation 
context. 

In  terms  of  method,  training  must  stress  the  practical  aspects  which  enable  the 
instruments  that  are  adopted  to  be  applied  correctly.  Apart  from  lectures  and 
seminars, methods allowing broader dissemination of the results of training must be 
developed.  More  training  courses  for  trainers  should  be  offered,  in  particular  to 
encourage  them  to  be  more  keenly  aware  of  the  European  dimension  of  judicial 
action  and  to  disseminate  such  awareness.  The  use  of  easily  accessible,  reusable 
training  tools,  in  particular  on-line,  must  be  sought,  particularly  regarding  Union 
instruments and information on the national legal systems to which practitioners need 
to  have  access.  In  this  connection,  close  cooperation  is  desirable  between  national 
training  bodies,  European  training  bodies  and  the  EJTN,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Eurojust  and  the  Judicial  Networks  in  Civil  and  Criminal  Matters,  on  the  other. 
Moreover,  the  introduction  of  a  multidisciplinary  element  in  compliance  with 
national traditions should facilitate exchanges of views and experience between, for 
example, judges, prosecutors, lawyers and police officers. 

The  principle  of  direct  communication  between  judicial  authorities  is  regularly 
hampered  by  practitioners’  inadequate  language  skills.  Resolute  action  is  needed 
here, targeting in particular those professionals who are directly involved in judicial 
cooperation. 

Exchanges  are  an  excellent  method  of  developing  common  benchmarks  while 
respecting national identities. They could be supplemented by periods of training of 
an appropriate duration at the Court of Justice and at Eurojust, with the details to be 
worked out with each of these institutions. 

The  Hague  programme  stresses  the  importance  of  incorporating  a  European 
component in national training programmes. Distinctions need to be made according 
to the level of development of initial training in each Member State. Generally, the 
purpose  of  initial  training  can  be  seen  in  particular  as  one  of  giving  future 
professionals  a  sense  of  belonging  to  the  same  area  of  law  and  values.  Continuing 
training, on the other hand, must enable already experienced professionals to feel at 
home with the legal instruments adopted in the European Union. It must first target 
professionals involved in judicial cooperation, without of course ruling out a broader 
knowledge-sharing objective.  

The point of strengthening the European component of national training is to achieve 
more widespread familiarity with Union mechanisms. There is also a need to develop 
a  more  fully  integrated  type  of  training,  conceived  and  implemented  at  European 
level.  The  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  Matters,  Eurojust,  the  Judicial  Network  in 
Criminal  Matters,  and,  if  it  wishes,  the  Court  of  Justice  should  be  associated  with 
designing training of this type, in conjunction with the EJTN, with institutions such 
as the ERA or the EIPA and with academic networks. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

Towards a European strategy of judicial training 

30. 

31. 

32. 

33. 

34. 

35. 

Strengthening  legal  training  involves  developing  closer  relations  between  national 
institutions,  organisations  operating  at  European  level  and  the  Union  institutions, 
particularly the Commission. 

At  this  stage,  without  ruling  out  the  possibility  of  a  specific  legislative  instrument, 
the  Commission  first  wishes  to  give  financial  support  to  the  training  of  legal 
professions  in  Union  and  Community  law  under  the  2007-2013  framework 
programme on fundamental rights and justice.  

In  its  implementation,  difficulties  identified  in  previous  programmes  must  be 
remedied. To ensure that financing for training is actually targeted on essential needs 
and  to  facilitate  medium-  and  long-term  activity  programming,  the  main  actors  in 
judicial  training  in  the  Member  States  and  at  European  level  will  be  consulted 
regularly  in  order  to  devise  a  European  strategy  of  multiannual  training  that  will 
subsequently be reflected in the annual programmes.  

Parallel to continuous support for European organisations such as the EIPA and the 
ERA,  the  EJTN  must  be  strengthened  to  improve  coordination  between  national 
entities  and  to  develop  strong  and  stable  relations  between  them.  Establishing  an 
annual  operating  grant  for  it  is  a  major  element,  though  actual  payment,  of  course, 
will  be  subject  to  the  conditions  laid  down  in  the  Financial  Regulation.  The  EJTN 
should also be able to become involved in devising fully European training schemes 
in conjunction with the other relevant bodies. It comprises the institutions competent 
for  training  judges,  prosecutors  being  included  only  where  they  are  classed  as 
judicial  officers.  Prosecutors  must  be  allowed  to  take  part  in  all  the  activities 
developed at European level and managed by the Network, subject to full respect for 
national traditions concerning the separation between judges and prosecutors. Many 
cooperation  mechanisms,  particularly  in  criminal  matters,  are  based  on  sound 
cooperation  between  the  Member  States’  prosecutors  and  between  them  and 
Eurojust. The question of the participation of the judges from administrative courts 
and  specialised  judges  more  generally  (for  example,  in  commercial  courts, 
employment courts and so on) must also be considered. 

Training  for  the  other  legal  professions,  and  particularly  lawyers,  whose  role  is 
decisive, must also be strengthened. Existing programmes already make it possible to 
finance  actions  of  interest  to  them.  The  future  framework  programme  on 
fundamental  rights  and  justice  must  provide  the  means  of  strengthening  them  in 
order  to  preserve  a  balance  between  judicial  authorities  and  the  other  legal 
professions.  

Financially  speaking,  there  will  have  to  be  a  degree  of  simplification  to  target 
European  financing  more  clearly  on  projects  that  make  it  possible  to  reach  out  to 
audiences  of  particular  importance  (judges,  prosecutors  and  lawyers).  Account  will 
be  taken  in  particular  of  the  pre-eminent  role  of  national  institutions  whose  direct 
involvement should make it possible to strengthen the European components in the 
national programmes. In addition, in order to facilitate the medium-term planning of 
activities, general partnership agreements could be put in place to stabilise relations 
with qualified institutions; calls for tender could also be issued on a one-off basis for 
certain larger-scale projects. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
36. 

4. 

37. 

38. 

Lastly, judicial training should become integrated into a broader international context 
and should be an area for cooperation beyond the borders of the Union. It should be 
able  to  be  extended  to  the  Council  of  Europe  (under  the  Lisbon  Network)  and, 
beyond that, to contribute to facilitating judicial cooperation with third countries and 
to strengthening the rule of law in the world. 

CONCLUSION: 

Judicial training is a vital issue for the establishment of the European judicial area in 
the years to come, as the Hague programme stated. Numerous actors will have to be 
mobilised  to  play  a  role  here,  with  a  star  role  for  the  framework  programme  on 
fundamental  rights  and  justice.  Concerning  the  strengthening  of  the  European 
Judicial  Training  Network  referred  to  expressly in the Hague programme, financial 
support  appears  the  most  appropriate  solution  in  the  current  situation.  A  different 
option  was  taken  in  police  matters,  where  the  Union  chose  a  European  agency 
structure  when  setting  up  CEPOL18.  Although  a  similar  solution  does  not  currently 
seem  necessary  in  judicial  matters.  The  question  of  developing  European  judicial 
training  structures  towards  other  forms  could  be  raised  again  when  the  framework 
programme on fundamental rights and justice comes to an end.  

The adoption of that programme will be an opportunity to highlight the importance 
attached  by  the  Union  to  training  for  the  judicial  professions  by  assuring  it  of 
increased  financial  support.  The  development  of  a  European  strategy  for  legal 
training  involving  national  and  European  players  should  enable  optimum  use  to  be 
made of the new resources. At the present stage of evolution of the European judicial 
area, training for practitioners is a crucial factor in making effective and visible to the 
people of Europe the progress achieved in establishing the area of freedom, security 
and justice.  

18 

Council  Decision  2005/681/JHA  of  20  September  2005  establishing  the  European  Police  College 
(CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA (OJ L 256, 1.10.2005, p. 63). 

EN 

9 

   EN