Communication from the Commission on the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice
Date: 2008-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU programme, European judicial area, forum, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal profession, legal system

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 4.2.2008 
COM(2008) 38 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION 

on the creation of a Forum for discussing EU justice policies and practice 

INTRODUCTION 

In  2004,  the  European  Council  adopted  the  Hague  Programme  on  strengthening 
freedom, security and justice in the European Union1 and called for the establishment 
of " a system providing for objective and impartial evaluation of the implementation 
of the EU policies in the field of justice while fully respecting the independence of 
the  judiciary".  This  was  endorsed  by  a  European  Parliament  recommendation  in 
February  20052.  The  Action  Plan  implementing  the  Hague  Programme3  noted  that 
this would reinforce mutual trust.  

A dialogue with interested parties is needed at all stages of justice policy design and 
implementation in order to review how to improve judicial co-operation and promote 
the  European area of justice,  to decide  what  measures should be adopted, to assess 
whether instruments adopted are correctly transposed and implemented and whether 
they are used appropriately and achieving their objective. More generally, we need to 
know whether the European area of justice is operating efficiently and if those using 
and working in it are satisfied. 

The  Commission  intends  to  establish  a  Justice  Forum  ("the  Forum")  providing  a 
permanent mechanism for consulting stakeholders, receiving feedback and reviewing 
EU justice policies and practice transparently and objectively. The Forum will take 
account  of  treaty-based  differences  in  policies  in  civil  and  criminal  matters.  It  will 
have  two  main  spheres  of  activity,  (1)  to  provide  the  Commission  with  specialist 
views on EU justice policy and legislation, and (2) to promote mutual trust between 
EU justice systems by improving mutual understanding of them.  

An  open  dialogue  between  all  actors  in  the  justice  systems  throughout  the  EU  will 
foster mutual trust in various ways. It will have an impact on the citizen who will be 
better  able  to  accept  and  respect  the  EU  justice  system  if  he  understands  how  and 
why it operates at the domestic level. There must be trust at the political level as EU 
instruments  are  to  be  implemented  through  national  legislation.  Finally,  not  only 
citizens,  but  also  practitioners,  in  particular  judges,  need  to  understand  and  accept 
them and therefore must be personally convinced of the need for them and of their 
effectiveness.  Lack  of  confidence  at  any  of  these  levels  means  the  system  will  not 
function properly.  

All  EU  citizens  are  entitled  to  expect  high  quality  justice  everywhere  within  its 
borders.  This  is  all  the  more  important  since  the  1999  Tampere  European  Council 
proclaimed that the principle of mutual recognition would be the "cornerstone of the 
area of freedom, security and justice". Thus judicial decisions are to circulate freely 
within  the  EU  rapidly  without  traditional  checks  and  safeguards.  However,  mutual 
recognition  can  only  operate  if  there  is  trust  between  Member  States.  The  Hague 

OJ 3.3.2005 C 53 p.1, para 3.2 
Recommendation of the European Parliament to the Council on the quality of criminal justice and the 
harmonisation of criminal law in the Member States: A6-0036/2005. 
OJ 12.08.2005 C198 p.1, para 4.1 

1. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

1 
2 

3 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

7. 

8. 

Programme stated that quality of justice is a key factor in strengthening mutual trust: 
"In an enlarged European Union, mutual confidence shall be based on the certainty 
that all European citizens have access to a judicial system meeting high standards of 
quality". 

A regular dialogue about policies and practice in the area of justice is of the utmost 
importance,  not  only  to  strengthen  mutual  trust,  improve  mutual  recognition  and 
access  to  justice,  but  also  more  generally  for  the  proper  operation  of  society  in  the 
wider  context.  One  aspect  to  be  considered  is  the  economic  impact  of  a  healthy 
justice system. The Lisbon Strategy4 aims for a vibrant European economy. There is 
a  link  between  good  justice  systems  and  dynamic  economies.  A  reliable  judicial 
climate is an asset in today's global competitive environment and the EU must match 
the efforts of the Member States in this regard. 

In  June  2006,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  Evaluation  of  EU 
policies  on  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice5  ("the  June  2006  Communication").  The 
Forum’s  activities  will  dovetail  with  the  mechanism  established  by  the  June  2006 
Communication  by  complementing 
information/stakeholder 
consultation, reporting and in-depth evaluation phases.  

the  gathering  of 

In September 2006, the Commission hosted an experts' meeting to assess strength of 
support for the Forum. Feedback suggested that stakeholders welcome the initiative 
and  agree  with  the  Commission  that  a  Justice  Forum  will  serve  to  promote  mutual 
trust on several levels. Practitioners and other experts considered it appropriate that 
their  views,  experience  and  expertise  be  taken  into  account  in  the  course  of 
designing, adopting and implementing EU legislation. 

2. 

THE AIMS OF THE FORUM  

2.1.  What is needed? 

9. 

10. 

11. 

Currently,  there  is  no  regular  dialogue  or  established  channel  of  communication 
between  EU  authorities  and  practitioners  to  discuss  either  the  rationale  behind  a 
proposal  for  legislation  or  the  impact  of  adopted  instruments  on  the  way  judicial 
cooperation functions on a day-to-day basis. Instruments adopted need to be assessed 
from the point of view of their effect on national systems.  

Practitioners who will come into contact and work with EU measures should have an 
input at an early stage. Once the measure is adopted, the extent to which it is used, 
whether it meets the objectives for which it was designed and the cost engendered in 
order  to  achieve  the  goal,  including  any  unforeseen  and  unintended  consequences, 
should be examined. 

The  Forum's  main  aims  will  be  to  improve  policy-making  in  the  areas  of  civil  and 
criminal  justice  by  providing  a  permanent  platform  for  dialogue  with  stakeholders 
and  reviewing  implementation  of  instruments  in  force  and  contributing  to  greater 
mutual trust at the European level. 

4 

5 

During the European Council in Lisbon (23/24 March 2000), Heads of State/Government launched the 
Lisbon Strategy aiming to make the EU the most competitive economy in the world and to achieve full 
employment by 2010. 
COM (2006) 332 final of 28.6.2006 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.1.  Contribution to the ex ante evaluation phase 

12. 

To date, the EU's policy orientations and legislative programme have been drawn up 
largely  without  input  from  practitioners  in  the  initial  phase.  Where  there  has  been 
time to present a Green Paper before drafting a proposal, the input from practitioners 
at that stage has been useful. The Forum will provide an opportunity for a dialogue at 
the  policy  design  stage.  Additionally,  the  Commission  is  committed  to  a  system  of 
Extended  Impact  Assessment  (including  an  examination  of  any  impact  on 
fundamental rights) prior to adopting a proposal. The Forum's practical expertise will 
be used to assist in the preparation of Extended Impact Assessments. 

2.1.2.  Reviewing the legal and practical implementation of instruments 

13. 

14. 

Most  instruments  adopted  in  the  area  of  criminal  and  civil  justice  require  the 
Commission  to  prepare  an  evaluation  report  on  their  application  in  domestic 
legislation. The Commission would be able to consult the Forum at this stage6.  

Consulting the Forum will be particularly apposite as far as practical implementation 
is concerned. In the civil field, implementation of instruments adopted under Title IV 
is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice  (ECJ)  pursuant  to 
Article 68 TEC. In addition to this, the monitoring mechanism under Article 226 of 
the EC Treaty enables the Commission to seize the ECJ if a Member State does not 
fulfil its obligations. For criminal justice, a mechanism established by a Joint Action 
in 19977 for the fight against organised crime has been used for 3 evaluation rounds: 
one on the practical operation of mutual legal assistance, one on anti-drug policy and 
one  on  exchanges  of  law  enforcement  information  within  the  Member  States  and 
with Europol. A 4th round, on the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant, 
began in 2006. The assessment is carried out by way of a questionnaire then a study 
visit  by  teams  of  experts  appointed  by  Member  States,  assisted  by  the  General 
Secretariat of the Council, with the Commission's involvement. The same method is 
used  in  the  peer  assessment  of  national  anti-terrorist  measures  set  up  further  to  the 
Conclusions of the extraordinary meeting of the 20 September 2001 JHA Council8. 
These evaluations lead to reports including recommendations to Member States but, 
with  the  exception  of  the  first  report  on  mutual  legal  assistance9,  they  remain 
confidential.  Additionally,  courts  in  the  Member  States  that  have  accepted  the 
jurisdiction of the ECJ in criminal matters have the option of referring a case to the 
ECJ for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 but this route remains limited. 

15. 

The Joint Action system is a lengthy, cumbersome process which is not justified for 
all  instruments  so  some  instruments  are  not  assessed  after  implementation.  The 
Forum  will  offer  a  framework  to  exchange  practical  information  on  the  concrete 
application  of  instruments  and  thus  enable  a  better  assessment  to  be  made  of  their 
impact on judicial cooperation.  

6 

7 
8 

9 

E.g. the Council Conclusions on the European Arrest Warrant in June 2005 called on the Commission 
to consult Member States before issuing the report in order to avoid any misunderstanding of national 
legislation. 
By Joint Action 97/827/JHA, adopted by the Council on 5 December 1997. 
Council  Decision  2002/996/JHA  of  28  November  2002  Establishing  a  Mechanism  for  Evaluating  the 
Legal Systems and Their Implementation at National Level in the Fight against Terrorism (JO L 349, 
12/24/2002) 
Final Report, Mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (2001/C 216/02) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.3.  Contribution to the assessment of global impact on national judicial systems and on 

the functioning of judicial cooperation of EU measures 

16. 

Evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  adopted  instruments  from  both  the  legislative 
and practical perspective is not sufficient if there is no examination of the impact of 
these  instruments  on  general  policy  objectives,  i.e.  on  the  functioning  of  the 
European judicial area as a whole. 

17. 

There  is  a  need  for  more  global  examination  of  the  impact  of  EU  policies  which 
should enable criteria to be drawn up so as to judge whether the measure has: 

–  achieved  its  specific  objective  (for  example,  the  European  Arrest  Warrant's 

objective was to simplify and expedite extradition within the EU), 

–  contributed to a global EU objective (e.g. facilitating and accelerating cooperation 
between  judicial  authorities,  increasing  the  efficiency  of  implementation  of 
judicial  decisions  within  the  EU,  improving  access  to  justice  for  EU  citizens, 
fighting organised crime and promoting mutual trust), 

–  had any unforeseen consequences (positive or negative), 

18. 

Where  appropriate,  a  cost-benefit  analysis,  taking  into  account  financial  and  non-
financial criteria, could be carried out. 

2.1.4.  Contribution to a dialogue on quality of justice with a view to strengthening mutual 

confidence 

19. 

20. 

The  Forum  will  provide  an  opportunity  for  discussion  and  dialogue  about  each 
other's justice systems and thus promote mutual trust by improving knowledge of the 
judicial systems in the EU. Representatives of national justice systems should meet 
each  other  regularly  in  order  to  discuss  these  issues  and  to  exchange  and,  where 
appropriate, devise best practice. 

In its 2005 Communication on Mutual Recognition and the strengthening of mutual 
trust within the EU10, the Commission described how it intended to promote mutual 
trust  by  way  of  a  series  of  flanking  measures  (reinforcing  evaluation  mechanisms, 
promoting networking among justice practitioners and developing judicial training). 
The  Forum  will  play  a  part  in  the  first  two  of  these  activities,  and  may  have  some 
impact  on  the  third.  Bringing  practitioners  into  contact  with  each  other  has  been 
shown  to  promote  mutual  trust.  These  flanking  measures  lead  to  a  better 
understanding not only of EU measures, but also of national systems. For example, 
in  the  context  of  the  Exchange  Programme  for  Judicial  Authorities11,  contacts 
developed  between  practitioners  which  facilitate  judicial  cooperation  in  concrete 
cases  and  enable  practitioners  to  identify  good  court  practices  (e.g.  in  relation  to 
court management, deadlines or victim support) and to improve their own practice as 
a  result.  Such  activities  should  be  used  in  a  more  systematic  way  so  as  to  amplify 
their effect. In the civil field Council Regulation (EC) N° 1206/2001 on co-operation 
between the courts of Member States in the taking of evidence is another important 
step forward in strengthening mutual trust between judicial authorities. The European 
Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  plays  an  important  role  in 
promoting exchange of good practice. 

10 
11 

COM(2005)195 of 19.5.2005 
In the 2007 Annual Work Programme 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.2.  Working effectively with the Council of Europe 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

There are several sectorial assessment and evaluation mechanisms under the Council 
of  Europe12  which  work  in  a  similar  way.  Most  relevant  for  building  mutual  trust 
within  the  EU  is  the  European  Commission  for  the  Efficiency  of  Justice  (CEPEJ) 
which aims to improve the quality of judicial systems of Council of Europe Member 
States.  The  CEPEJ's  key  task  is  to  ensure  proper  implementation  of  the  principles 
and  rules  on  efficiency  of  justice  in  Member  States.  The  2006  Report  for  the 
Evaluation of European judicial systems contains detailed data on the state of justice. 

It is essential for the EU to be consistent with the Council of Europe's activities and 
yet to avoid duplication of the CEPEJ's work. Cooperation between the Commission 
and the CEPEJ should continue and could include common initiatives to improve the 
quality of justice and reinforce mutual confidence. 

The  Forum  will  contribute  to  such  cooperation,  e.g.  by  making  use  of  CEPEJ's 
findings  and  working  in  a  constructive  manner  with  the  CEPEJ.  A  CEPEJ 
representative should be included in the Forum. 

It  is  important  to  take  into  account  the  specificities  of  implementing  the  mutual 
recognition  principle  and  the  goal  of  better  access  to  justice,  as  a  reflection  of  the 
high degree of integration that EU Member States want to achieve. Specific studies 
could  usefully  be  carried  out  using  the  CEPEJ's  work.  Issues  such  as  quality  of 
interpretation in court or court services from the point of view of users, adopting a 
"client approach", would lend themselves to such examination.  

3. 

THE FORUM'S ROLE  

3.1. 

Reviewing EU justice  

3.1.1.  The ex ante phase 

25. 

The  Forum  will  be  invited  to  comment,  to  advise  and  to  provide  expertise  at  the 
earliest possible stage of designing legislative programmes. Once a decision has been 
taken  that  action  at  EU  level  is  desirable  in  a  specific  area,  the  Forum  will  be 
consulted about the practical implications of each policy option, and may be asked to 
contribute specifically to drawing up the EIA for that measure. 

3.1.2.  Reviewing legal and practical implementation 

26. 

27. 

12 

For  criminal  justice,  the  Commission's  evaluation  work  focuses  essentially  on  the 
legal implementation of instruments. In practice, the impact of Commission reports is 
reduced by the Council’s failure to examine them fully and follow them up. This is 
exacerbated by a lack of remedy before the ECJ in the event of non-compliance.  

For  civil  justice,  studies  prepared  before  the  report  evaluating  the  application  of  a 
legislative  instrument  is  presented  could  give  a  useful  overview  of  the  current 
situation,  but  reports  are  not  requested  for  all  instruments  in  force  and  their 
periodicity does not enable the difficulties and problems related to the application of 
the instruments concerned to be taken into account. 

E.g. GRECO (Group of States against Corruption), MONEYVAL (Select Committee of experts on the 
evaluation  of  anti-money  laundering  measures)  which  were  modelled  on  the  FATF,  European 
Committee  for  the  Prevention  of  Torture  and  Inhuman  Treatment  or  Punishment  (CPT)  and  GRETA 
(established within the framework of the Convention on the fight against trafficking in human beings).  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
28. 

The Commission does not consider that it is necessary at this stage to present specific 
legislation in this area. Nevertheless, once the Forum is established, this need will be 
reconsidered and in particular, as far as criminal matters are concerned, the necessity 
to review the 1997 Joint Action will be examined. 

3.1.3.  Looking at how judicial cooperation operates as a whole 

29. 

30. 

As  the  Forum  will  largely  be  made  up  of  practitioners,  representatives  of  national 
justice administrations and academics, it will provide a different perspective and be 
able  to  offer  a  global  approach  to  judicial  cooperation  seen  as  a  whole,  where 
necessary, as well as more targeted examination of EU measures. 

The Forum will be used also at this stage of evaluation mechanism of the Directorate 
General Justice, Freedom and Security. The June 2006 Communication sets out the 
Directorate  General's  threefold  evaluation  mechanism  covering  all  its  policy  areas. 
The  first  step  involves  setting  up  a  system  of  information  gathering  and  sharing 
(using specially designed fact-sheets). Policy objectives and main instruments are to 
be covered. The second step is to review and analyse this information. The third step 
involves  targeted  evaluation13  of  specific  policy  areas  or  instruments.  The 
mechanism  is  intended  to  be  comprehensive  and  to  encompass  all  policies  handled 
by  Directorate  General  Justice,  Freedom  and  Security,  building  on  current  practice 
and  using  existing  data.  Views  of  Member  States  and  civil  society  are  to  be 
canvassed  and  taken  into  account.  The  Commission  seeks  to  avoid  duplication  of 
efforts at EU and national levels and is currently in discussions with the Council as to 
the  precise  mechanism  to  be  established  and  how  best  to  use  the  Contact  Points 
Network  set  up  under  the  Communication.  The  Forum's  work  will  feed  into  the 
general evaluation mechanism. It will provide the concrete expertise needed for the 
stakeholder  consultation14  and  for  the  in-depth  evaluation  phase15.  One  of  the 
Forum's roles will be to suggest areas where an in-depth study should be carried out 
and to supervise and manage such studies. 

3.1.4. 

Strengthening mutual trust 

31. 

4. 

4.1. 

32. 

By bringing professionals together regularly and promoting an exchange of views on 
the implementation of EU instruments, on EU justice policies and on their interaction 
with  national  justice  systems,  the  Forum  will  play  a  key  role  in  improving  mutual 
understanding, in gradually building up a common judicial culture and in promoting 
mutual trust. 

COMPOSITION AND WORKING METHODS OF THE FORUM 

Composition 

Information must be gathered from several sources: Member States, judicial bodies, 
practitioners,  specialist  non-governmental  organisations,  academics  and,  ideally, 
users of justice systems. Member States may send delegates to the Forum’s plenary 
sessions and specific working groups if they wish. Certain Member States’ delegates 
to  the  September  2006  experts'  meeting  made  it  clear  that  they  did  not  want  to  be 
involved  in  a  demanding  process.  Participation  in  the  Forum’s  activities  shall 

13 
14 
15 

Section 4.1 of the June 2006 Communication 
Section 4.1.1. of the June 2006 Communication 
Ibid. para. 32  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
33. 

34. 

35. 

36. 

therefore  be  at  Member  States'  discretion,  apart  from  the  plenary  to  which  it  is 
desirable that they send delegates.  

The  Commission  will  invite  a  representative  of  the  Council  of  Europe,  preferably 
from the CEPEJ, to participate in the Forum so as to follow each other’s work and 
collaborate to avoid duplication and promote complementarity. 
Eurojust  and  the  European  Judicial  Networks  (in  criminal16  and  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters17)  are  to  be  represented  as  well  as  relevant  professional 
European networks active in the justice field at EU level. The Commission values the 
input  of  networks  such  as  the  European  Network  of  the  Councils  for  the  Judiciary 
(ENCJ)18, the European Network of Presidents of Supreme Courts19, the Association 
of  the  Councils  of  State20,  the  European  Association  of  Administrative  Judges,  the 
Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)21,  the  European  Judges  and 
Prosecutors  Association22,  the  European  Criminal  Bar  Association  (ECBA)23, 
Eurojustice24 
the  European  Notarial  Network25,  PEOPIL  (the  Pan-European 
organisation  of  personal  injury  lawyers)26  and  the  European  Judicial  Training 
Network. The Commission will invite specialist non-governmental organisations that 
represent  users  of  the  system  (e.g.  MEDEL,  JUSTICE,  Amnesty  International, 
Victim  Support  Europe27)  to  attend  the  Forum.  Judicial  experts  from  candidate 
countries will be included.  

The  Commission  intends  to  involve  academic  networks  (European  Criminal  Law 
Academic  Network  ECLAN,  International  Association  of  Penal  Law  AIDP, 
Eurodefensor)  in  order  to  promote  a  scientific,  objective  approach  and  to  enable  a 
robust exchange of views by including experts whose views differ. The Commission 
also intends to include the ECJ and the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European 
Union in the most appropriate way. 

Depending on the subject under discussion, ad hoc members may be invited if they 
have  expertise  in  the  area  in  question.  Certain  national,  professional  organisations 
(e.g.  national  Bar  Associations)  have  shown  interest  in  specific  measures.  Their 
perspective is different from their European level counterparts and their input will be 
used on an ad hoc basis if they so wish. 

4.2.  Working methods of the Forum 

37. 

The Forum will meet regularly, several times a year. It will meet in plenary session 
once  a  year  and  as  sub-groups  which  will  meet  as  often  as  necessary28.  The 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 

http://www.ejn-crimjust.eu.int/ 
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/ 
http://195.55.151.16/encj/ 
http://www.uepcsj.org/uk/rpcsjue.php?nopage=187 
http://www.juradmin.eu 
http://www.ccbe.org/ 
http://www.amue-ejpa.org 
http://www.ecba.org/ 
http://www.eurojustice.org/ 
http://www.cnue.eu 
http://www.peopil.com 
http://www.euvictimservices.org/ 
The  cost  of  the  actions  referred  to  in  this  Communication  will  be  borne  by  the  relevant  financial 
instruments (in particular the Criminal Justice programme - Council Decision No 2007/126/JHA) under 
the existing envelopes. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
38. 

39. 

40. 

41. 

42. 

subgroups  are  to  be  constituted  on  the  basis  of  specific  fields  of  interest  or  issues 
identified  as  warranting  attention,  with  some  covering  civil  justice  and  others 
criminal  justice  matters  and  examining  particular  subjects,  such  as  access  to  legal 
aid,  user  satisfaction  with  the  Court  system  (e.g.  speed  and  fairness),  treatment  of 
victims, translation and interpretation services, hearing of the parties, respect of fair 
trial rights, rapid enforcement of claims and better access to justice for consumers.  

The  Forum  may  be  called  upon  to  assist  in  providing  an  external  assessment  in 
drafting  the  Commission's  Report  on  implementing  legislation  on  an  ad  hoc  basis. 
The Forum will take part in exercises designed to assess successful transposition (at 
the  end  of  the  transposition  deadline)  and  the  success  of  measures  at  a  later  date 
(such as 5 years after entry into force). 

Each  organisation  that  is  a  member  of  the  Forum  should  appoint  a  fixed  contact 
person who should endeavour to attend each session in order to allow continuity in 
the debate. If the contact persons meet regularly and get to know each other, this will 
facilitate continuity, freer exchanges and franker discussion.  

An important aspect of the Forum's work will be to identify best practice. Exchange 
of  best  practice  could  be  promoted  by  way  of  projects  under  the  EU  financial 
programmes.  

The Forum will be involved in selecting the winner of the "Crystal Scales of Justice" 
prize.  In  2005  the  Commission  and  the  Council  of  Europe  created  the  biennial 
European  "Crystal  Scales  of  Justice"  prize  for  innovative  practice  in  civil  justice 
organisation and procedure in the courts of Europe, so as to promote better operation 
of  the  public  system  of  civil  justice.  The  Commission  is  planning  to  institute  a 
complementary biennial prize for a transnational project designed to improve mutual 
knowledge  and  exchange  of  best  practice  in  the  area  of  criminal  justice.  The  prize 
would  be  awarded  in  the  years  in  which  the  civil  justice  prize  is  not  awarded. 
Eligible  projects  will  include  comparative  studies  and/or  concrete  cooperation 
projects  based  on  twinning  of  courts,  prosecution  offices,  Bars  or  prison/probation 
administrations.  

The Forum’s work will include examining the issue of statistics. Currently, there is 
lack of compatible statistics29 which makes it difficult to compare justice systems in 
a meaningful way, but improvements can be expected. In the criminal justice field, 
statistics are to be collected more systematically now that an EU experts group has 
been  set  up  for  that  purpose30.  The  Expert  group  on  the  policy  needs  of  data  on 
crime and criminal justice was established and met twice (April & December) during 
2007. Two subject specific sub-groups where established following discussions at the 
April meeting. The subjects covered were Human Trafficking & Money-laundering. 
It  has  been  decided  to  establish  an  Expert  Sub-group  focusing  on  criminal  justice 
statistics.  As  regards  the  civil  justice  side,  statistics  are  available  from  targeted 
studies and impact assessments. The Forum will assist the Commission in giving its 
opinion  on  these  statistics,  improving  statistical  methods  and  making  better  use  of 
available data. 

29 
30 

See CEPEJ report and SPACE statistics 
2006/581/EC: Commission Decision of 7 August 2006 setting up a group of experts on the policy needs 
for data on crime and criminal justice OJ L 234 , 29.08.2006 p 29 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
43. 

In  order  to  disseminate  the  findings  of  the  Forum  and  to  promote  dialogue  and 
consultation,  a  Website  will  be  set  up.  It  will  be  a  permanent  place  for  discussion 
between  Forum  members  and  will  facilitate  exchanges  with  interested  parties  and 
other citizens. Most of the Forum’s work and studies will be posted on the Website. 

44. 

The Commission will publish a Report of the Forum’s activities, to be submitted to 
the Council and the European Parliament on a regular basis. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The Forum will provide the Commission with a unique tool for understanding better 
the  impact  of  existing  EU  instruments,  the  need  for  new  instruments  and  more 
generally,  for  promoting  mutual  trust.  By  providing  a  place  where  different 
experiences and contrasting points of view can be compared on a regular basis, it will 
lead to greater mutual knowledge and understanding of other systems. The regularity 
of  the  meetings,  the  range  of  expertise  and  the  input  from  all  sectors  of  the  justice 
system  will  assist  in  establishing  the  systematic,  objective  and  impartial  evaluation 
announced in the Hague Programme. 

EN 

10 

   EN