Multi-annual European e-Justice action plan 2009-2013
Date: 2009-03-21
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Internet, action programme, disclosure of information, electronic mail, information technology, internal border of the EU, judicial proceedings, new technology

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/1

IV

(Notices)

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS AND BODIES

COUNCIL

MULTI-ANNUAL EUROPEAN E-JUSTICE ACTION PLAN 2009-2013

(2009/C 75/01)

I. INTRODUCTION

1. In June 2007 the JHA Council decided that work should be
carried out with a view to developing at European level the
use of information and communication technologies (ICT)
in the field of justice, particularly by creating a European
portal.

2. The use of such new technologies would help to rationalise
and simplify judicial procedures. The use of an electronic
system in this area would reduce procedural deadlines and
operating costs, to the benefit of citizens, undertakings,
legal practitioners and the administration of justice. Access
to justice would thus be facilitated.

6. The European Parliament has also launched discussions on
e-Justice. An own-initiative report is due to be adopted
before the end of 2008.

the Commission's communication (3),

7. At its meeting on 5 and 6 June 2008, the Council invited
the Working Party on Legal Data Processing (e-Justice), in
to
the light of
examine aspects relating to the creation of a coordination
and management structure capable of developing multiple
projects on a large scale and within a reasonable timeframe
in the field of e-Justice, and to launch discussions on the
establishment of a multi-annual work programme.

8. At its meeting on 19 and 20 June 2008 the European
Council welcomed the initiative to ‘progressively establish a
uniform EU e-Justice portal by the end of 2009.’

3. According to studies carried out by the Commission (1),
about 10 million people
currently involved in
cross-border civil proceedings. This figure is destined to rise
as a result of the increase in the movement of persons
within the EU.

are

II. CONTEXT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF E-JUSTICE AT

EUROPEAN LEVEL

9. The development of e-Justice must be situated in a threefold

context:

4. Over the last 18 months the Council Working Party on
Legal Data Processing (e-Justice) has been carrying out
considerable work in response to the successive mandates
given to it by the Council. In this context, some Member
States have developed pilot projects, in particular the one
concerning the European e-Justice portal.

5. On 2 June 2008 the Commission published a communica-
the European Parliament and the
entitled
and

tion to the Council,
European Economic
‘Towards a European e-Justice Strategy’ (2).

Social Committee

(1) 10285/08 ADD 1 JURINFO 45 JAI 305 JUSTCIV 119 COPEN 118

CRIMORG 87.

1. e-Justice work already carried out

10. Work prior to that of the Working Party on e-Justice has
already been carried out in the European Union framework,
specifically to ensure access
to European information
(websites of the European institutions). More specific work
has been or is in the process of being carried out either in
the context of implementing instruments adopted by the
Council in civil law matters (European Judicial Network in
civil and commercial matters) or in criminal law matters
(e.g. the European Judicial Network in criminal law matters
or the interconnection of criminal records) or on the basis

(2) 10285/08 JURINFO 45 JAI 305 JUSTCIV 119 COPEN 118

(3) It should be noted that the European Parliament has launched discus-

CRIMORG 87.

sions on e-Justice.

C 75/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

of
initiatives of the legal professions (e.g. the European
network of registers of wills), and in yet another context,
such as, for instance, work on the networking of business
registers interconnected through EBR and land registers
interconnected through EULIS.

11. The inclusion of

these initiatives in the e-Justice multi-
annual programme must therefore take place in consulta-
tion with
their
are
implementation.

those who

responsible

for

2. The e-Government context

12. The European e-Justice system must be designed while
the

the independence of

respecting the principle of
judiciary.

18. Given the horizontal dimension of European e-Justice, the
Working Party on e-Justice will assume a coordinating role
in considering technical issues raised during discussions in
other subordinate Council bodies. Legislative work, on the
other hand, will be a matter for the competent Council
working parties such as, for instance, the Working Party on
Cooperation in Criminal Matters or the Committee on Civil
Law Matters.

19. A European system of e-Justice should be accessible to citi-
zens, businesses, legal practitioners and the judicial authori-
ties, which will make use of existing modern technologies.
Three criteria should be established:

13. However, from a technical viewpoint, e-Justice must take
into account the more general
framework of e-Govern-
ment (1). A solid body of expertise concerning projects
involving secure infrastructure and the authentication of
documents already exists and must be put to use. In full
cooperation with the Commission, the European interoper-
ability framework (EIF) developed within the
IDABC
programme (2) should be promoted. European work on
e-Signature and e-Identity (3) is particularly relevant in judi-
cial matters, where the authentication of acts is essential.

(a) A European dimension

20. European e-Justice is a step on the way to the creation of a
European judicial area, using information and communica-
tion technologies. The projects developed under European
e-Justice must therefore have the potential to involve all the
Member States of the European Union.

14. It

is

that

in this general

the multi-annual
context
programme should thus be defined. The latter must aim to
provide a response not only in the short term, but also in
the medium and long term, thus contributing, via the use
of ICT, towards the development of a European area of
freedom, security and justice.

3. A horizontal approach

15. E-Justice matters are not confined to certain legal fields.
They arise in many areas of civil, criminal and administra-
tive law. E-Justice therefore has horizontal relevance in the
context of European cross-border proceedings.

III. ACTION PLAN

1. Scope

16. The European dimension of the e-Justice project should be
highlighted. Thus, e-Justice should be renamed European
e-Justice.

17. The Member States naturally remain free, with due regard
for the powers laid down by the Treaties, to set up projects
among themselves that may concern e-Justice, but not
necessarily European e-Justice. However,
such projects
could also qualify for European status, and particularly
Community funding, under certain conditions.

(1) E-Government is defined as the application of ICT to all administrative

procedures.

(2) http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/ Preliminary Study on mutual recognition of
e-Signatures for e-Government applications (2007) and eID Interoper-
ability for PEGS (2007).

(3) Standardisation aspects of e-Signature (2007)

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/eeurope/i2010/docs/esigna-
tures/e_signatures_standardisation.pdf

(b) Support for the construction of the European judicial area

21. The projects must be of use in implementing the legislative
instruments already adopted by the European Community
and the European Union in the field of justice, without,
however, ruling out the other projects that contribute to
the creation of a European judicial area.

22. European e-Justice should also serve as a tool for use by
legal practitioners and judicial authorities by providing a
platform and individual
functionalities for effective and
secure exchanges of information.

(c) A construction at the service of European citizens

23. It is essential that European e-Justice should be developed
so as to be of direct service to European citizens, who
would benefit from its added value, specifically via the
portal. In the choice of the projects or in the order in
which they are implemented, it should be ensured that citi-
zens can rapidly reap the practical benefits of the e-Justice
tools. Thus, various projects ought to be launched as soon
in accordance with the annex and without
as possible,
prejudice to other projects that may be added following the
conditions set out in the current action plan.

24. All the projects enabling European citizens to become more
aware of their rights meet this objective. This must also be
the case for projects enabling them to make use of those
rights (legal aid, mediation, translation, etc.).

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/3

2. The functions of European e-Justice

25. The work carried out by the Working Party on e-Justice and
the Commission communication provide a clear definition
of
the future European e-Justice
system. The following three basic functions should be
established:

the functionalities of

(a) Access to information in the field of justice

33. It will also provide access to national functionalities by
interface, making

means of a user-friendly multilingual
them understandable to the European citizens.

34. The content of the functionalities accessible via the portal,
as well as its management, will obviously depend on the
choices by the Council regarding both the functions of the
its
European
management.

arrangements

e-Justice

and

the

for

26. This information concerns in particular European legisla-
tion and case law (1) as well as that of the Member States.

4. Technical aspects

27. European e-Justice will also provide access via interconnec-
tions to the information managed by the Member States in
the framework of the public administration of justice (for
instance, and without prejudice to the functioning rules of
this project,
the databases of
Member States' criminal records).

the interconnection of

35. The establishment of the European e-Justice system implies
resolving a number of horizontal technical issues that have
been identified, particularly in the report approved by the
Council of 5 June 2007 (3).

(b) Dematerialisation of proceedings

(a) A decentralised technical system

28. The dematerialisation of cross-border judicial and extrajudi-
cial proceedings (for example e-mediation)
involves elec-
tronic communication between a court and the parties to
the proceedings,
to implement
in particular
European instruments adopted by the Council (2).

in order

36. At their informal meeting in Dresden in January 2007, a
large majority of Ministers of Justice expressed the desire to
create a decentralised system at European level which inter-
linked the systems existing in the Member States.

(c) Communication between judicial authorities

(b) Standardisation of exchanges of information

29. Simplifying and encouraging communication between the
judicial authorities and the Member States, more specifically
in the framework of instruments adopted in the European
judicial area, is of particular importance (e.g. videoconferen-
cing or secure electronic networks).

3. The European e-Justice portal

30. The uniform European e-Justice portal, called for by the
European Council by the end of 2009, has been the focus
of considerable work within the Working Party on e-Justice.
A pilot project was also carried out by a group of Member
States as part of that work. The portal should follow on
from work to date on this pilot project.

31. The portal will provide access to the whole European
e-Justice system, i.e. to European and national information
websites and/or
the e-Justice portal
services. However,
cannot merely be a collection of links.

32. It will permit by means of a uniform authentication proce-
dure to open up for members of the legal professions the
various functionalities reserved for them, to which they will
have differentiated access rights. It should be advisable to
provide for
such a possibility for authentication for
non-professionals also.

37. The highest possible degree of compatibility between the
various technical and organisational measures selected for
the judicial system applications must be ensured, while
guaranteeing that
the Member States have maximum
flexibility. It is, however, necessary to reach agreement on
standardised communication formats and protocols in line
with relevant European or international standards, allowing
for interoperable, effective, secure and rapid exchanges at
the lowest possible cost.

(c) Authentication mechanisms

38. One of the essential conditions for the effective use of
e-Justice across national borders is the development of
uniform standards or interfaces for the use of authentica-
tion technologies and the components of electronic signa-
tures. This requirement is at the very least essential for any
European e-Justice functionalities going beyond merely
making legal
information available to the public. The
various legal requirements in force in the Member States, as
well as the technologies used by the latter, should therefore
continue to be examined. On the basis of the results and
experience obtained,
the introduction of an electronic
exchange of documents between Member States that is as
secure as possible from a legal viewpoint could be
determined.

(1) A link will be made to EUR-Lex and N-Lex.
(2) Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006; Regulation (EC) No 861/2007.

(3) Document 10393/07 JURINFO 21 of 5 June 2007.

C 75/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

(d) Security of the system and data protection

39. When European e-Justice services are created, enabling
information to be communicated between judicial authori-
ties or between the latter and citizens or members of the
legal professions, those data will have to be exchanged in a
secure environment. Here,
the preparatory work
carried out in the framework of the IDABC could be taken
into account.

too,

40. Furthermore, since such data are for the most part of a
personal nature within the meaning of European legislation,
compliance with the principles laid down by that legislation
will have to be ensured.

5. Linguistic aspects

41. The fact that twenty-three different languages are used in
the European Union institutions, and the concern that
European citizens should be able to enjoy user-friendly
access to the European e-Justice system, will mean that
measures focusing on translation and interpretation in judi-
cial matters will have to be considered.

42. In this regard, it would be an illusion to think that facili-
tating access for citizens to the European e-Justice website
of a Member State other than their own could be an
adequate solution: the language barrier would make such
access largely pointless.

43. One specific solution to this linguistic challenge could be to
use automated translation systems, particularly for
the
content of forms used in European instruments, and to
place national translation resources online.

44. Also, a working method needs devising which ensures
faithful translation, in the European Community's twenty-
three official languages, of the legal concepts which exist
within Member States' legal systems, taking into considera-
tion questions relating to semantics.

6. The need for a work infrastructure

45. All these aspects certainly make it necessary to lay down a
procedure for choosing the technical standards that could
be used to enable Member States' systems to be interoper-
is customary in the case of
able and to define, as
ICT-related projects, the separation between:

(a) the project management function, i.e. decision-making
regarding the structure and functioning of the European
e-Justice system and the projects to be developed. This
function may sometimes call for work of a legal nature,
as shown by the work carried out on the interconnec-
tion of criminal records;

(b) the project implementation function,

i.e. development
of
the various European e-Justice services such as
devising multilingual user interfaces, in close collabora-

tion with the Member States, and systems development.
Management will also comprise full maintenance of the
system.

46. Such a structure should no doubt be composed of ICT
experts, on the one hand, and have translation capabilities,
on the other hand. Several possibilities, not necessarily
mutually exclusive, are conceivable:

(a) one or more Member States offer to take responsibility
for managing such a structure, working in close consul-
tation with the other Member States within the frame-
work of the Working Party on e-Justice;

(b) this function is performed by the European Commis-
sion, according to arrangements as yet to be defined;

(c) a European agency is created. There are several possible
models for this, depending on the size and degree of
autonomy of the agency. However, this is an option
that is lengthy and complex to put into practice, and
could be considered only in the medium term, possibly
as and when work progressed.

7. Financing

47. The development of European e-Justice involves raising

considerable financial resources, intended mainly to:

(a) encourage the setting up of e-Justice systems at national

level to pave the way for European e-Justice;

(b) enable projects at European level

including the setting up and development of
European e-Justice portal.

to be developed,
the

48. Recourse could be had to the civil and criminal

justice
financial programmes
for up to EUR 45 million in
2008-2009. This amount would have to be increased
significantly over the coming years. The other amounts
available in the European Union budget that could be allo-
cated immediately to European e-Justice would also have to
be defined clearly.

49. In addition, as proposed by the Commission, a single hori-
zontal programme covering both civil and criminal
law
matters would have to be devised as soon as possible. The
budgetary resources would have to be increased consider-
ably in order to meet the costs of implementing European
e-Justice at both national and Community levels. It would
also be necessary for the selection criteria currently in force
in the civil and criminal justice programmes to be clarified
and harmonised in order to take account of the European
e-Justice criteria set out in section III of this document.

50. e-Justice related projects within the meaning of this action
plan which are not covered by paragraph 49 may be
funded under other existing Community programmes inas-
much as
the criteria laid down in those
programmes.

they meet

31.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/5

IV. THE PRESIDENCY'S PROPOSALS

(a) Management function

51. Drawing up a multi-annual action plan presupposes:

(a) determining, for the development of the e-Justice func-
tions, with due regard for the Financial Regulation
applicable to the general budget of
the European
Communities, the tasks to be carried out, defining their
priorities and, as far as possible, the deadlines to be
met. Some degree of flexibility is necessary, however, to
ensure suitable adaptability to developments taking
place in this sector;

(b) allocating the tasks among the Council, the Member
States, the European Commission and a structure for
developing/coordinating certain technical tasks which
should be determined. This allocation should also
concern the arrangements for selecting future projects;

(c) determining a method for rigorous monitoring and
assessment of the development of the action plan.

52. This means that the Council should take, acting with due
regard for each Institution's autonomy and in accordance
with Articles 5 and 7 of the EC Treaty, a number of deci-
sions on the issues dealt with in this document, and specifi-
cally:

(a) on the working structure to be set up at European
Union level to carry out the European e-Justice projects
and to supervise their implementation and progress;

(b) on assigning the tasks to the various players: Council,

European Commission, Member States.

53. In this respect, the Presidency would point out that the
limited experience of existing e-Justice systems (launch of
the website of the European Judicial Network in criminal
matters, interconnection of criminal records) shows that the
initiative of one or more Member States has often been
decisive in launching projects.

54. However, beyond a certain stage of development, the parti-
cipation of a larger number of Member States further
complicates the work. It then becomes necessary to give a
European dimension to the development, management and
progress of the project.

55. Moreover,

the various technical aspects examined above
clearly show that certain horizontal tasks would gain by
being managed at European level. Considerable economies
of scale could be expected as the number of the European
e-Justice services available increases.

1. For a European e-Justice

56. The Presidency proposes that the e-Justice programme be

named ‘European e-Justice’.

2. Towards the creation of a working structure

57. In the light of the developments set out in this action plan,
and in order to devise a multi-annual programme for devel-
oping European e-Justice, the Presidency proposes that the
following overall working structure be put in place:

58. Following the guidelines defined in the action plan the
Council would follow up implementation of
the multi-
annual programme. It would take all decisions necessary to
achieve the objectives set in this action plan. In particular, it
would be responsible, on the basis of the criteria defined in
section III and in close association with the Commission,
for establishing a list of new projects proposed by the
Council, by the Member States (point (c) below) or by the
Commission.

59. The Commission would undertake any study which it
considered appropriate either on its own initiative or at the
Council's request.

60. The Council would be able to determine the functional

specifications for the projects.

61. Regarding Community financing,

in
compliance with the procedures applicable, would take full
account of the guidelines and decisions adopted by the
Council.

the Commission,

(b) Implementation function

62. The European Commission would make available to the

Council an implementation structure responsible for:

(i) ensuring the technical conditions for the European
e-Justice system in accordance with the procedure laid
down in paragraph 58;

(ii) at the request of the Council, carrying out,

in close
association with the Member States and on the basis of
the Community financing available,
those European
e-Justice projects defined by the multi-annual action
programme, or any complementary projects;

(iii) developing a first version of

the European e-Justice
portal by the end of 2009, following the principles laid
down in the pilot project worked out by the Working
Party on e-Justice and acting on the decisions which
the Council is called upon to take. On the basis of that
first version,
further functionalities developed under
specific pilot projects would be phased in.

With a view to complementary use of Member States'
competences and those of the Commission, the latter
would set up a working party composed of technical
experts,
including those of Member States, which
would meet at regular intervals to follow up ongoing
projects and decide on the technical options to be
implemented.

The Commission would also keep the Council
informed of progress of work in hand and of matters
thereby
discussed by the working party of experts,
ensuring adequate follow-up by the Member States and
enabling them to secure the input of their methodolo-
gical and technological advances into the proceedings.

C 75/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

31.3.2009

(c) The Member States

the Community financing available,

63. Without prejudice to the rules in point (a) above, and
the
possibly via
Member States may propose and launch new Europe
e-Justice projects, in accordance with the technical specifica-
tions defined by the Council in close consultation with the
Commission,
specifically for compliance with technical
standards and the development of multilingual interfaces.

would,
if necessary, make any suggestions, which it
considers appropriate to improve its functioning, to the
Council.

3. A multi-annual programme

65. The annexed multi-annual programme will be regularly

updated as work progresses.

3. Review clause

V. CONCLUSIONS

64. The Working Party on e-Justice would assess the implemen-
tation structure's activities in the first half of 2010 and

66. Coreper/Council is asked to approve the European e-Justice

action plan.

ANNEX

ACTION PLAN

Annex to the multiannual European e-Justice action plan for 2009-2013

Introduction

Projects have been classified by type of project, in the following categories:

— support for instruments adopted to develop the European judicial area,

— interconnection of national registers,

— horizontal issue,

— exchange of best practice.

Project

Stage reached

Action to be taken

Responsibility for action

Timetable

Comments

Type of project

European e-Justice
portal

— a prototype portal estab-
lished by a group of
Member States

— DIM system elaborated
by certain Member States
in the framework of the
e-Justice Working Party

— authentication and iden-

tification

— Group of Member States
and the Commission

2009-2011

Reflections ongoing

Horizontal issues

Launching the portal in
2008, opening up the portal
to the public in December
2009 (see European Council
conclusions of 18 and
19 June 2008)

The accessible websites will
be determined on the basis
of the projects eligible and
the criteria laid down by the
Council

— the prototype was made
available to members of
the e-Justice Working
Party in April 2008

— security

— Commission

in

full

— multilingual

interface

and translation work

— technical standards

cooperation with the
group of Member States
participating in the pilot
project

The portal will be improved
and added to as the other
projects advance

— feasibility study by the

Commission

— paperless communication
between judicial authori-
ties via a secure network.
Work under way under
the IDABC programme
and in the e-Justice
Working Party

.

.

3
1
3
2
0
0
9

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

C

7
5
/
7

Project

Stage reached

Action to be taken

Responsibility for action

Timetable

Comments

Type of project

Interconnection of
criminal records

— as part of

the pilot

project, interconnection
in 2006 of the criminal
records of ES, BE, DE
and FR, extended in
January 2008 to CZ
and LU

— formulation of a refer-
ence implementation to
facilitate access of new
Member States to inter-
connection

Council (work on the ECRIS
draft followed up by the
COPEN Working Party) and
Commission (formulation of
the reference implementation
and EU co-financing)

— reference implementation

available in 2009

To date, work has been
followed up by the COPEN
Working Party

Interconnection of national
registers and support for
instruments adopted to
develop the European judicial
area

— this project

is currently

— establishment

of

EU

— co-financing underway

co-financing to prepare
for connection to
national criminal records

operational among
6 Member States;
14 Member States are
currently partners

— political agreement at the
June 2007 JHA Council
on the draft framework
decision on the organisa-
tion and content of the
exchange of information
extracted from criminal
records between Member
States

— general approach on the
draft Decision of the
Council on 24 October
2008 on ECRIS laying
down the basic features
of the format for the
electronic exchange of
information between the
27 Member States

C

7
5
/
8

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

European order for
payment procedure

— Regulation

of

30 December 2006,
making it possible to use
electronic methods

— continue discussions and
work on the prototype

— create dynamic forms

— Group of Member States

2009-2011

then Commission

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area

— prototype

automated

procedure devised by
certain Member States

— introduction
e-application

of

the

— Group of Member States

then Commission

— feasibility study launched
by the Commission

— Commission

.

.

3
1
3
2
0
0
9

Project

Stage reached

Action to be taken

Responsibility for action

Timetable

Comments

Type of project

Legal aid

Council Directive of
27 January 2003 to improve
access to justice in cross-
border disputes by estab-
lishing minimum common
rules relating to legal aid

— adding

information

Commission

2009-2013

relating to legal aid to
the portal

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area

obtain

— request

and
online legal aid:
launching a feasibility
study

European small
claims procedure

Regulation of 11 July 2007
— making it possible to use
electronic methods

— Commission to launch a

— Commission

2009-2013

feasibility study

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area

— create dynamic forms

— Group of Member States

and Commission

— introduction
e-application

of

the

— Group of Member States

and then the
Commission

Translation

EUROVOC pilot project

SYSTRAN automated trans-
lation system in use
since 1976

questionnaire distributed by
Austria

Work on semantic interoper-
ability and tables (as an aid
for comprehension)

— gradual

compilation of
comparative multilingual
vocabulary

— financing for legal trans-

lation tools in all
European language pairs

— interconnection of

legal

translators and inter-
preters databases

— creation of a legal glos-

sary

— elaboration of

tables of
semantic concordance in
different fields

— Commission
tions Office)

(Publica-

2009-2013

Horizontal issues

— Commission (Translation

2009-2013

Service)

— Group of Member States

2009-2013

then Commission

— Commission

Member States

— SEMIC-EU

and

2009-2013

.

.

3
1
3
2
0
0
9

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

C

7
5
/
9

Project

Stage reached

Action to be taken

Responsibility for action

Timetable

Comments

Type of project

Better use of video-
conferencing tech-
nology

— booklet prepared under
the Slovenian Presidency

— finalise and place booklet
online on the portal

— Commission in coopera-
tion with the Member
States

— 2008-2009

Involve both judicial
networks in the work

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area and
exchange of best practice

— user manual being drawn

— finalise the manual and

up

place online

— end 2009 at the latest

— circulation of a question-
naire on videoconferen-
cing equipment and the
legal conditions for its
use

— place online the updated
information on video-
conferencing equipment
in courts and the legal
conditions for its use

— Member States

— online

some

time

in

2009 at the latest

— Manager of the European
judicial network on civil
and commercial matters

— Manager of the European
criminal judicial network

— establishing a reservation
system: evaluation of its
feasibility and relevance

— devise an online reserva-

tion system

— Commission in coopera-
tion with the Member
States

— Launch in 2009

Mediation

Directive of 21 May 2008 to
be transposed by 21 May
2011

— adding

information

Commission

2011-2013

relating to mediation to
the portal

— launching
study

a

feasibility

The timetable depends on
the date on which the Direc-
tive is transposed

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area

Electronic signa-
ture (1)

— work begun (IDABC (2))

Commission

2009-2011

The project IDABC is being
carried out by DG SANCO

Horizontal issues

Service of judicial
and extrajudicial
documents (by elec-
tronic means)

Council Regulation of
29 May 2000 on the service
in the Member States of judi-
cial and extrajudicial docu-
ments in civil or commercial
matters

— feasibility study

Commission

2010-2011

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area

C

7
5
/
1
0

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

.

.

3
1
3
2
0
0
9

Project

Stage reached

Action to be taken

Responsibility for action

Timetable

Comments

Type of project

Online payment of
procedural costs

Enable procedural costs to
be paid online

Commence work

Member States

2011-2013

Interconnection of
insolvency registers

— a

prototype

covering
data from the insolvency
registers of certain
Member States

Group of Member States
then Commission

Continuation in 2009 at the
initiative of the Member
States. Incorporation in the
portal

— add data from the insol-
vency registers of other
Member States

— create

a multilingual

interface

— create

legal
a
semantic glossary

and

Support for instruments
adopted to develop the
European judicial area

Interconnection of national
registers

Interconnection of
land registers
(inegration of
EULIS)

— work
EULIS

undertaken

by

— 1st phase: link to EULIS

Commission

2009-2010

— 2nd phase: reflection on
the possibility for partial
integration of EULIS into
the portal

Authentication of the user
via the portal

Link with work in other
Council configurations

Interconnection of national
registers

— work undertaken by EBR — 1st phase: link to EBR

Commission

2009-2010

Link with work in other
Council configurations

Interconnection of national
registers

Interconnection of
commercial regis-
ters (integration of
EBR

Interconnection of
registers of wills

— 2nd phase: reflection on
the possibility for partial
integration of EBR into
the portal

Authentication of the user
via the portal

— determine the possibili-
ties for cooperation with
ENWRA (CNUE)

— feasibility study by the

Commission

— pilot

project:

effective
interconnection between
France and Belgium

JHA Council and ENWRA
(CNUE)

2011-2013

Link with the future instru-
ment on inheritances to be
presented by the Commis-
sion in 2009

Interconnection of national
registers

.

.

3
1
3
2
0
0
9

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

C

7
5
/
1
1

Project

Stage reached

Action to be taken

Responsibility for action

Timetable

Comments

Type of project

Training of legal
practitioners

— discussions

on
e-Learning under way in
the EJTN

— Justice Forum created by

the Commission

— development

e-Learning tools

of

— European

Judicial

2010-2012

Training Network

Exchange of best practice

— organisation de annual
meetings on e-Justice
topics in the Justice
Forum

— Commission

— discussion

of

various

— training in the use of

— Member

States

at

national practices in a
small working party

videoconferencing

national level and, if
appropriate, the
European Judicial
Training Network at
European level

(1) See also work undertaken in the field of authentication and identification as described under the project ‘e-Justice portal’.
(2) Whilst ensuring the autonomous nature of the European e-Justice.

C

7
5
/
1
2

E
N

O

f
f
i
c
i
a
l

J
o
u
r
n
a
l

o
f

t
h
e

E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
U
n
o
n

i

.

.

3
1
3
2
0
0
9