'Burgervriendelijke EU komt dichterbij' (en)

On the second day of the Justice and Home Affairs Council’s two-day informal meeting held on 20-21 January 2011 in Gödöllo, justice ministers discussed how to dismantle the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights.

At their first plenary session, Justice Ministers discussed cross-border issues, which despite the single market, still prevent EU citizens from exercising their rights in many situations of their lives, including married couples of different nationalities, inheritance in several countries, divorce, medical assistance or online shopping.

25 major obstacles

In October 2010, the Commission gathered EU citizens’ complaints and drafted a report which identified the 25 biggest obstacles, and proposed 25 short and medium-term measures for their elimination. The Hungarian Presidency initiated a debate between member states to find out whether they agreed with the Commission’s report, saw any other obstacle blocking EU citizens in exercising their rights, and to find out what the Council, more specifically the Justice and Home Affairs Council, could do in the subject.

The Hungarian Presidency recommended the entire Commission report for discussion at the ministerial meeting, despite the fact that some of the issues raised by the document are beyond the justice ministers’ competence. Nevertheless, the Presidency believes that justice ministers have to play a key role in promoting EU citizens’ rights. Subsequently, Minister for Public Administration and Justice Tibor Navracsics declared to the press that member states unanimously endorse the Commission’s proposals.

Regulation of inheritance matters

The Hungarian Presidency intends to put special emphasis on the issue of cross-border inheritance, since this is enlisted in the Presidency’s priorities. The EU is currently preparing regulations for inheritance of individuals.

Consequently, cross-border inheritance became an emphatic issue at the justice ministers’ meeting, since inheritance law is not compatible between specific member states. Presently, probate procedures have to be performed independently in each affected country and court orders issued in one country will not be accepted by the court of the other relevant member state. This is inconvenient, lengthy and costly for heirs.

Administrative difficulties

Mr Tibor Navracsics concluded the morning discussion by saying, “we have strengthened our commitment to our goal that the EU should not be an abstract aim but palpable reality for EU citizens. This can only be achieved by close cooperation between the EU’s institutions.

The most important obstacles blocking EU citizens in exercising their rights include administrative difficulties, which can be avoided by making procedures more simple and uniform, Mr Navracsics said.

Concerning legislation, we can achieve progress in several fields in the following six months. We trust that the Hungarian Presidency is capable of continuing all legislative processes started during the Belgian or the Spanish Presidency’s term, the minister added as a closing remark.

The Council and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

As an issue for the business lunch on 21 January, the Hungarian Presidency chose to discuss how the Council can ensure the execution of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU’s legislative processes, that is, what it has to do to make EU citizens’ rights more efficiently represented in the legislative process. In October 2010, the Commission made proposals and the Hungarian Presidency initiated an exchange of opinions in this respect. The debate could result in a decision to be made by the official meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 24 and 25 February 2010.

Following the “pleasant and remarkably fruitful” discussion, Mr Tibor Navracsics replied to press questions that ministers are now in accord that the Charter must be executed by exploiting existing EU institutions and procedures in the fullest possible way.

Cooperation in judicial training

The second plenary session will discuss cooperation in judicial training. This is a priority in the Trio Presidency’s programme. The underlying problem is the EU legislation is speeding up, while member state judges tend to know little about the EU’s legal sources and speak no foreign language, thus do not know the legal terminology of other member states. By virtue of a European Council resolution from 2009, half of the EU’s judges, prosecutors and lawyers should complete EU training or exchange education programmes by 2015. At the same time, of the EU’s approximately 160,000 judges and prosecutors fewer than 10,000 have completed such training in the past 10 years.

The Hungarian Presidency takes the view that there is no need for new institutions, but for cooperation among the existing national training institutions. The Presidency discussed with member states how best to improve cooperation in judicial training and whether professions should be involved in addition to judges and solicitors, whether there is a need for new training structures, and how training should be financed at European level.

The discussion was clearly dominated by the opinion that there is no need for new European training institutions. Many participants emphasised the vast differences between member states’ legal systems, which makes the operation of a central European institution more difficult. Some spoke highly of the existing European training forms, while others believed that the issue of further training should be left in the competence of existing national or professional institutions.

In the case of member states where continuing education for judges is performed by professional organisations without any government involvement, the participants did not support any government action in the continuing education process.

In the Commission’s representation, Director-General of DG Justice, Francoise Le Bail said at a press conference after the Council’s meeting that the Commission’s original proposals were in line with the member states’ pragmatic approach, namely: it was unnecessary to establish new institutions.

At their first plenary session, Justice Ministers discussed cross-border issues, which despite the single market, still prevent EU citizens from exercising their rights in many situations of their lives, including married couples of different nationalities, inheritance in several countries, divorce, medical assistance or online shopping.

25 major obstacles

In October 2010, the Commission gathered EU citizens’ complaints and drafted a report which identified the 25 biggest obstacles, and proposed 25 short and medium-term measures for their elimination. The Hungarian Presidency initiated a debate between member states to find out whether they agreed with the Commission’s report, saw any other obstacle blocking EU citizens in exercising their rights, and to find out what the Council, more specifically the Justice and Home Affairs Council, could do in the subject.

The Hungarian Presidency recommended the entire Commission report for discussion at the ministerial meeting, despite the fact that some of the issues raised by the document are beyond the justice ministers’ competence. Nevertheless, the Presidency believes that justice ministers have to play a key role in promoting EU citizens’ rights. Subsequently, Minister for Public Administration and Justice Tibor Navracsics declared to the press that member states unanimously endorse the Commission’s proposals.

Regulation of inheritance matters

The Hungarian Presidency intends to put special emphasis on the issue of cross-border inheritance, since this is enlisted in the Presidency’s priorities. The EU is currently preparing regulations for inheritance of individuals.

Consequently, cross-border inheritance became an emphatic issue at the justice ministers’ meeting, since inheritance law is not compatible between specific member states. Presently, probate procedures have to be performed independently in each affected country and court orders issued in one country will not be accepted by the court of the other relevant member state. This is inconvenient, lengthy and costly for heirs.

Administrative difficulties

Mr Tibor Navracsics concluded the morning discussion by saying, “we have strengthened our commitment to our goal that the EU should not be an abstract aim but palpable reality for EU citizens. This can only be achieved by close cooperation between the EU’s institutions.

The most important obstacles blocking EU citizens in exercising their rights include administrative difficulties, which can be avoided by making procedures more simple and uniform, Mr Navracsics said.

Concerning legislation, we can achieve progress in several fields in the following six months. We trust that the Hungarian Presidency is capable of continuing all legislative processes started during the Belgian or the Spanish Presidency’s term, the minister added as a closing remark.

The Council and the Charter of Fundamental Rights

As an issue for the business lunch on 21 January, the Hungarian Presidency chose to discuss how the Council can ensure the execution of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the EU’s legislative processes, that is, what it has to do to make EU citizens’ rights more efficiently represented in the legislative process. In October 2010, the Commission made proposals and the Hungarian Presidency initiated an exchange of opinions in this respect. The debate could result in a decision to be made by the official meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 24 and 25 February 2010.

Following the “pleasant and remarkably fruitful” discussion, Mr Tibor Navracsics replied to press questions that ministers are now in accord that the Charter must be executed by exploiting existing EU institutions and procedures in the fullest possible way.

Cooperation in judicial training

The second plenary session will discuss cooperation in judicial training. This is a priority in the Trio Presidency’s programme. The underlying problem is the EU legislation is speeding up, while member state judges tend to know little about the EU’s legal sources and speak no foreign language, thus do not know the legal terminology of other member states. By virtue of a European Council resolution from 2009, half of the EU’s judges, prosecutors and lawyers should complete EU training or exchange education programmes by 2015. At the same time, of the EU’s approximately 160,000 judges and prosecutors fewer than 10,000 have completed such training in the past 10 years.

The Hungarian Presidency takes the view that there is no need for new institutions, but for cooperation among the existing national training institutions. The Presidency discussed with member states how best to improve cooperation in judicial training and whether professions should be involved in addition to judges and solicitors, whether there is a need for new training structures, and how training should be financed at European level.

The discussion was clearly dominated by the opinion that there is no need for new European training institutions. Many participants emphasised the vast differences between member states’ legal systems, which makes the operation of a central European institution more difficult. Some spoke highly of the existing European training forms, while others believed that the issue of further training should be left in the competence of existing national or professional institutions.

In the case of member states where continuing education for judges is performed by professional organisations without any government involvement, the participants did not support any government action in the continuing education process.

In the Commission’s representation, Director-General of DG Justice, Francoise Le Bail said at a press conference after the Council’s meeting that the Commission’s original proposals were in line with the member states’ pragmatic approach, namely: it was unnecessary to establish new institutions.

Cooperation in judicial training

The second plenary session will discuss cooperation in judicial training. This is a priority in the Trio Presidency’s programme. The underlying problem is the EU legislation is speeding up, while member state judges tend to know little about the EU’s legal sources and speak no foreign language, thus do not know the legal terminology of other member states. By virtue of a European Council resolution from 2009, half of the EU’s judges, prosecutors and lawyers should complete EU training or exchange education programmes by 2015. At the same time, of the EU’s approximately 160,000 judges and prosecutors fewer than 10,000 have completed such training in the past 10 years.

The Hungarian Presidency takes the view that there is no need for new institutions, but for cooperation among the existing national training institutions. The Presidency discussed with member states how best to improve cooperation in judicial training and whether professions should be involved in addition to judges and solicitors, whether there is a need for new training structures, and how training should be financed at European level.

The discussion was clearly dominated by the opinion that there is no need for new European training institutions. Many participants emphasised the vast differences between member states’ legal systems, which makes the operation of a central European institution more difficult. Some spoke highly of the existing European training forms, while others believed that the issue of further training should be left in the competence of existing national or professional institutions.

In the case of member states where continuing education for judges is performed by professional organisations without any government involvement, the participants did not support any government action in the continuing education process.

In the Commission’s representation, Director-General of DG Justice, Francoise Le Bail said at a press conference after the Council’s meeting that the Commission’s original proposals were in line with the member states’ pragmatic approach, namely: it was unnecessary to establish new institutions.

In the Commission’s representation, Director-General of DG Justice, Francoise Le Bail said at a press conference after the Council’s meeting that the Commission’s original proposals were in line with the member states’ pragmatic approach, namely: it was unnecessary to establish new institutions.