Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the Communication to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee "Towards a European strategy on e-Justice" - Executive summary of the impact assessment COM(2008)329 final SEC(2008)1947
Date: 2008-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Economic Area, access to the courts, exchange of information, information system, information technology, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.05.2008 
SEC(2008)1944 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying document to the Communication to the Council, the European 
Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee "Towards a European 
strategy on e-Justice" 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

COM(2008)329 final 

SEC(2008)1947 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Executive Summary of the Impact assessment of the Communication to the Council, the 
European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee "Towards a 
European strategy on e-Justice" 

1. 

The political background 

In June 2007, the JHA Council (doc. 10393/07 JURINFO 21) has identified several priorities 
for the development of е-Justice in the European Union: 

- 

setting up a European interface (e-Justice portal); 

creating  the  conditions  for  networking  of  several  registers,  such  as  criminal  records, 

- 
insolvency registers, commercial and business registers and land registers; 

starting the preparations for the use of ICT for the European payment order procedure, 

- 
in conformity to Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006; 

improving  the  use  of  video-conference  technology  in  cross-border  proceedings,  in 

- 
particular concerning the taking of evidence 

- 

devising support tools for interpretation and translation. 

During  the  German,  the  Portuguese  and  the  (current)  Slovenian  Presidencies,  work  on  e-
justice has steadily progressed. 

Work done in this framework must: 

- ensure that priority be given to operational projects; 

-  give  preference  to  decentralized  structures,  while  providing  for  coordination  at  European 
level; 

- draw on existing legal instruments and employ IT tools to improve their effectiveness. 

The European Parliament has also expressed its support for the е-Justice project. 

A  number  of  initiatives  already  exist  at  European  and  national  level  in  this  field.  (Doc. 
6358/08, JURINFO 14). 

The  use  of  modem  information  technologies  has  consistently  been  encouraged  by  the 
Commission, both in the civil and in criminal field. Several instruments already adopted in the 
framework  of  the  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters  foresee  this  possibility,  such  as  the 
European  payment  order,  the  Regulation  on  the  taking  of  evidence  and  the  European  small 
claims  procedure.  Furthermore,  the  Commission  has  been  managing  since  2003,  in  close 
cooperation  with  the  Member  States,  the  "portal"  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil 
and commercial matters accessible to the citizens in 22 languages. The Commission has also 
designed and set up the European Judicial Atlas, an electronic tool at the disposal of judges 

EN 

2 

   EN 

and legal practitioners, which enable them to handle on-line cross-border proceedings. These 
two tools are undeniably precursory elements of a future European framework for e-justice. 

In the criminal field, the Commission is working on a tool aiming to permit the exchange of 
information  extracted  from  criminal  records  of  the  Member  States.  Eurojust  has  also 
developed secure communication systems with national authorities in particular under the E-
POC project. 

In coming years, е-Justice will offer many opportunities to make the European judicial area 
more concrete for citizens. In order to set up an overall strategy for this important issue the 
Commission would like to adopt in May a Communication on e-Justice. This Communication 
seeks to lay down objective criteria for identifying priorities, especially for future projects at 
European level, in order to attain concrete results within a reasonable time. 

2 

The definition of the problem 

As  the  demand  for  justice  increases  across  Europe  and  its  transnational  dimension  grows 
steadily,  because  of  enhanced  mobility  of  economic  operators  and  citizens,  the  traditional 
justice systems fail to provide adequate response to new needs. Transnational justice presents 
peculiar  features  and  poses  particular  challenges  which  require  adequate  and  innovative 
solutions. 

The main drawbacks of transnational justice can be summarised as follows: 

• 

• 

Information deficit about procedures applicable in other Member States; 

Language barriers; 

Difficulty  in  the  exchange  of  information  between  judicial  authorities  of  different 

• 
Member States;  

• 

• 

• 

Lack of trust between judicial authorities of different MS;  

Insufficient implementation of existing EU instruments; 

Problems related to the security and authentication of documents. 

The variety of existing national initiatives in this field, while signaling the importance of the 
phenomenon,  could  lead  to  the  adoption  of  different,  and  diverging  technical  solutions  at 
national  level.  Significant  problems  of  interoperability  may  therefore  ensue.  The  e-Justice 
initiative seeks to avert this risk by proposing a common approach to the issue. 

3. 

Objectives of the initiative 

The Communication aims at the following objectives: 

To promote an easier access to information, by making information accessible on-line 

• 
and by keeping it up-to-date. 

To speed up the procedures, in particular by streamlining recourse to videoconference 

• 
and by supporting the coordinated development of e-Justice. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

• 
To  improve  the  mutual  trust  between  judicial  authorities,  in  particular  by  removing 
obstacles  linked  to  multilingualism  and  by  providing  reliable  tools  to  ensure  security  and 
authentication of data. 

To  reinforce  the  mechanisms  of  cross-border  judicial  co-operation,  in  particular  by 

• 
devising practical tools and by facilitating the application of existing EU instruments. 

• 

To coordinate existing projects and to ensure their consistency. 

4. Policy options 

The  IA  report  explores  four  different  policy  options  to  address  the  problems,  including  a 
status quo option (option 1). 

a) 

+ 

- 

b) 

Option 1 Status quo: e-Justice left to MS - continuation of existing projects 

No resources needed 

Current problems unlikely to be solved - risk of divergent technical solutions 

Option 2 Support for transnational actions and promotion of exchange of 

best practices 

+ 

- 

c) 

National projects likely be boosted - Limited resources needed 

Limited ambition and problem-solving capacity 

Option 3 European e-Justice initiative: on the basis of four criteria, the strategy 

may  focus  on  the  following  actions:  use  of  videoconference;  creation  of  е-Justice  portal; 
improvement  of  translation  facilities  by  developing  automatic  on-line  translation  tools; 
improvement  of  communication  between  judicial  authorities;  increased  interconnection 
between  national  registers;  on-line  tools  for  European  procedures  (e.g.  European  Payment 
Order) 

+ 

Combines European dimension and national competence - allows 

economies of scale  

- 

d) 

Different projects require separate assessment of feasibility 

Option 4 Legislative action: horizontal instruments to impose common technical 

and legal standards for e- Justice 

+ 

- 

Maximum effectiveness of common solutions 

Legal basis, political sensitivity of the field 

5. Preferred option 

The Option 3 - which incorporates elements of option 2 - is the preferred policy option. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

Why? 

• It fosters the development of concrete projects improving judicial co-operation (translations, 
videoconference, etc.) 

It  encourages  е-Justice  initiative  at  national  level,  in  conformity  to  the  principle  of 
• 
subsidiarity,  while  ensuring  consistency  at  European  level  through  the  exchange  of  best 
practices. 

It avoids risks of divergent technical solutions, while stopping short of imposing single 

• 
standards. 

It  permits  economies  of  scale  and  cost  savings  for  national  administrations  and 

• 
citizens, without creating an excessive financial burden for the EU and for MS. 

It provides the basis for a pivotal role of EU institutions, while avoiding the (legal and 

• 
political) pitfalls of legislative action. 

6. 

Who is affected? 

The Member States, with whom lies the primary responsibility for providing effective 

• 
and trustworthy justice systems. 

• 

The European Commission, in its role of guardian of the treaties. 

The  judicial  authorities  of  Member  States,  which  need  more  sophisticated  tools  to 

• 
communicate, especially in cross-border cases. 

The legal professions, citizens and businesses, who all advocate better use of IT tools 

• 
with a view to achieving more satisfactory responses to their 'justice' needs. 

7. 

Who was consulted? 

The  IA  report  has  been  prepared  taking  into  account  the  reactions  of  the  Member  States, 
judicial  authorities,  legal  professions,  citizens  and  business.  All  these  actors  have  been 
consulted, directly or indirectly, prior to the drafting of this IA. 

The result of a Eurobarometer on civil justice has been used to measure the needs of citizens 
in relation with civil justice. The views of the legal practitioners have been gathered through a 
questionnaire disseminated by the judicial network in civil matters and the judicial network in 
criminal matters. The views of the judicial authorities of Member States have been gathered 
through questionnaires on the use of ICT in Member States' judicial systems, on insolvency 
registers and on videoconferencing disseminated by the Council. 

As concerns the internal consultation, the author DG has developed close contacts with DG 
DIGIT, DGT, ENTR, INFSO, MARKT, TREN; OLAF; OPOCE and SG. 

EN 

5 

   EN