31.3.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/1

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.

3.

According to studies carried out by the Commission (1), about 10 million people are 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.

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 communication to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee entitled ‘Towards a European e-Justice Strategy’ (2).

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.

7.

At its meeting on 5 and 6 June 2008, the Council invited the Working Party on Legal Data Processing (e-Justice), in the light of the Commission's communication (3), to 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.’

9.

The development of e-Justice must be situated in a threefold context:

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 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 consultation with those who are responsible for their implementation.

12.

The European e-Justice system must be designed while respecting the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

13.

However, from a technical viewpoint, e-Justice must take into account the more general framework of e-Government (4). 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 interoperability framework (EIF) developed within the IDABC programme (5) should be promoted. European work on e-Signature and e-Identity (6) is particularly relevant in judicial matters, where the authentication of acts is essential.

14.

It is in this general context that the multi-annual 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.

15.

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

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.

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 citizens, businesses, legal practitioners and the judicial authorities, which will make use of existing modern technologies. Three criteria should be established:

20.

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

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.

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 citizens can rapidly reap the practical benefits of the e-Justice tools. Thus, various projects ought to be launched as soon as possible, in accordance with the annex and without 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.).

25.

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

26.

This information concerns in particular European legislation and case law (7) as well as that of the Member States.

27.

European e-Justice will also provide access via interconnections 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 interconnection of the databases of Member States' criminal records).

28.

The dematerialisation of cross-border judicial and extrajudicial proceedings (for example e-mediation) involves electronic communication between a court and the parties to the proceedings, in particular in order to implement European instruments adopted by the Council (8).

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. videoconferencing or secure electronic networks).

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 services. However, the e-Justice portal cannot merely be a collection of links.

32.

It will permit by means of a uniform authentication procedure 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.

33.

It will also provide access to national functionalities by means of a user-friendly multilingual interface, making 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 European e-Justice and the arrangements for its management.

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 (9).

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 interlinked the systems existing in the Member States.

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.

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 authentication technologies and the components of electronic signatures. 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.

39.

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

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.

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 judicial matters will have to be considered.

42.

In this regard, it would be an illusion to think that facilitating 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 consideration questions relating to semantics.

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 interoperable and to define, as is customary in the case of ICT-related projects, the separation between:

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:

47.

The development of European e-Justice involves raising considerable financial resources, intended mainly to:

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 allocated immediately to European e-Justice would also have to be defined clearly.

49.

In addition, as proposed by the Commission, a single horizontal 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 considerably 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 inasmuch as they meet the criteria laid down in those programmes.

51.

Drawing up a multi-annual action plan presupposes:

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 decisions on the issues dealt with in this document, and specifically:

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 participation 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.

56.

The Presidency proposes that the e-Justice programme be named ‘European e-Justice’.

57.

In the light of the developments set out in this action plan, and in order to devise a multi-annual programme for developing 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, the Commission, in compliance with the procedures applicable, would take full account of the guidelines and decisions adopted by the Council.

62.

The European Commission would make available to the Council an implementation structure responsible for:

63.

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

64.

The Working Party on e-Justice would assess the implementation structure's activities in the first half of 2010 and would, if necessary, make any suggestions, which it considers appropriate to improve its functioning, to the Council.

65.

The annexed multi-annual programme will be regularly updated as work progresses.

66.

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