Procedure completed
Next event: Amendments tabled in committee 2013/03/04 more...
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading 2013/04/30
- Amendments tabled in committee 2013/04/09
- Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading 2013/04/25
- Debate in Parliament 2013/06/10
- Text adopted by Parliament, single reading 2013/06/11
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Opinion | IMCO | MAYER Hans-Peter (EPP) | |
Lead | JURI | ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (EPP) | |
Opinion | LIBE |
Legal Basis RoP 048
Activites
- 2013/06/11 Text adopted by Parliament, single reading
-
2013/06/10
Debate in Parliament
-
2013/04/30
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
-
A7-0161/2013
summary
The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the own-initiative report by Tadeusz ZWIEFKA (EPP, PL) on improving access to justice: legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes. Application of Directive 2003/8/EC: Members congratulate the Commission on the submission of its report on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC on improving access to justice in cross-border civil and commercial disputes. They note with satisfaction that all Member States have transposed the directive, even though the interpretation of the scope of the directive on certain points differs among the Member States. They regret that the Commission does not specifically address the European procedures to which the Legal Aid Directive is also applicable, such as the European Small Claims Procedure. Public awareness: Members regret the fact that relatively few citizens and practitioners seem to be aware of the rights conferred by the directive. They call on the Commission and the Member States to : (i) take measures to increase awareness of the right to cross-border legal aid in civil and commercial matters; (ii) launch an effective information campaign in order to reach a large number of potential beneficiaries as well as legal practitioners. Ensuring competent legal support: the report considers that databases of legal professionals with the sufficient linguistic and comparative law skills to act in cross-border legal aid cases should be established, thus ensuring that legal professionals are appointed who are able to act in such cases. They suggest that special training schemes to provide legal practitioners with cross-border competency would be desirable, with a focus on language courses and comparative law. The commission is urge to support specific training for lawyers providing legal aid. Facilitating the operation of the directive for citizens: in this respect, the report makes the following recommendations: it would be advisable to designate a single authority with responsibility for cross-border legal aid and with a central office in each Member State for receiving and transmitting legal aid applications; applicants should be given the choice of applying for legal aid in their Member State of residence or in the Member State where the Court is sitting or the decision is being enforced. Under such arrangements, the authorities of each Member State would then be able to apply their own criteria when deciding on the application; any decision of the authorities of the Member State of residence granting legal aid, as evidenced by a common certificate, should also have effect in the Member State where the Court is sitting or the decision is being enforced; the costs covered by legal aid should also include the costs of, and associated with, any obligatory appearance before a judge or other authority assessing the application. Moreover, particular attention should be paid to the most vulnerable groups. The Commission is invited to submit a proposal for an amendment of the directive along the above lines, with a view to establishing common higher standards for cross-border legal aid. International aspects of legal aid: the report calls on those Member States that have not yet signed and/or ratified the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Access to Justice to proceed to do so, as it improves citizens’ access to justice outside the European Union.
-
A7-0161/2013
summary
-
2013/04/25
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
- 2013/04/09 Amendments tabled in committee
- 2013/03/04 Amendments tabled in committee
- 2013/01/30 Committee draft report
-
2012/05/24
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2012/02/23
Non-legislative basic document
-
COM(2012)0071
summary
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 – 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, REDING Viviane
-
COM(2012)0071
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2012)0071
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE506.178
- Committee draft report: PE504.231
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A7-0161/2013
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE508.232
- Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T7-0240/2013
Amendments | Dossier |
21 |
2012/2101(INI)
2013/02/28
IMCO
21 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph - 1 (new) -1. Regrets that the first Commission report on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC was not requested until 2010 and not forwarded to Parliament until 2012 and that the shortcomings of the directive have therefore not been analysed until 10 years after its entry into force;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph a (new) 5.
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Regards it as less than user-friendly that neither the website of the European Judicial Atlas in civil matters nor the e- Justice portal provide an option for downloading, as Word documents, or properly printing out the necessary forms under European procedures for legal aid or other purposes; calls on the Commission to remedy this state of affairs immediately;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Takes the view that in order to establish the economic criteria for granting legal aid, more consideration needs to be given to the differing cost of living in the various Member States
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. With regard to the economic criteria that need to be met in order to receive legal aid, emphasises the need for improvements and clarifications to be made so as to prevent unfortunate differences of interpretation, such as when the Member State of origin confirms eligibility for aid, but the competent court denies it, or vice versa, or when an applicant resident in another Member State submits supporting documents to demonstrate his or her financial situation that are difficult for the state providing the legal aid to assess;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Considers that the scope of the directive must be extended to expenses incurred by consumers prior to the award of legal aid and considered necessary to support their claims effectively, for example travel expenses for attendance at hearings before the relevant courts.
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 8 8.
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to
Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 9 a (new) 9a. Takes the view that, in particular because the internal market is constantly growing, Member States must make efforts to resolve court disputes, including - therefore - in cases involving EU legal aid, by using cost-cutting, modern communications tools; proposes that the Commission provide financial backing and encouragement for this;
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 10. Calls on the Commission to submit a revised proposal to remedy the shortcomings, inadequate interpretations and situations not covered which it refers to in its report (COM(2012) 71 final), particularly in relation to the economic criteria for granting legal aid and the thresholds set by the Member States, and to bring about further harmonisation of the Member States’ legislation in order to prevent further misunderstandings and legal loopholes.
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission furthermore to ensure that those Member States which, after almost 10 years, have still not fully transposed the provisions do so without delay;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph - 1 a (new) -1a. Regrets that the Commission does not specifically address the European procedures to which the Legal Aid Directive is also applicable, such as the European Small Claims Procedure, for instance, despite the fact that in that connection the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2010 could certainly have been examined;
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 a (new) 10a. Calls on the Commission to consider bringing forward a proposal on providing legal aid in cross-border criminal cases;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 10 b (new) 10b. Calls on the Member States that have not yet signed or ratified the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on International Access to Justice to do so;
Amendment 3 #
2. Considers that other European procedures too, such as the European Small Claims Procedure and the European Order for Payment Procedure, are not well known and will not achieve a high profile if the current information policy continues to be pursued; calls on the Commission and the Member States to provide clear, accessible information on preliminary legal aid and on the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution;
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls for the establishment of an EU- wide pool
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Calls for the establishment of a
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to take steps to improve information on the right to legal aid in cross-border disputes and to raise awareness about and promote the use of that information among the public and those in the legal profession;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 b (new) 3b. Calls on the Commission and the Member States to pay particular attention to the most vulnerable groups – such as victims of gender violence, minors, disabled people and immigrants – to ensure that their needs are taken into account;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it advisable to designate a single authority with responsibility for cross-border legal aid and a central office in each Member State to receive and transmit legal aid applications;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Points out that, in a further report, the number and subject areas of cases should be included, broken down by country, in order to obtain a more detailed and more accurate overview of how the instrument is being used;
source: PE-506.151
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
activities/3/date |
Old
2013-06-04T00:00:00New
2013-03-04T00:00:00 |
activities/3/docs |
|
activities/3/type |
Old
Vote in plenary scheduledNew
Amendments tabled in committee |
activities/7/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/8/date |
Old
2013-03-04T00:00:00New
2013-06-11T00:00:00 |
activities/8/docs/0/title |
Old
PE506.178New
T7-0240/2013 |
activities/8/docs/0/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/8/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE506.178New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2013-240 |
activities/8/type |
Old
Amendments tabled in committeeNew
Text adopted by Parliament, single reading |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Procedure completed |
activities/6/docs/0/text |
|
activities/7/type |
Old
Vote scheduledNew
Vote in plenary scheduled |
activities/8/type |
Old
Debate scheduledNew
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading |
activities/6/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2013-161&language=EN
|
activities/7 |
|
activities/8/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate scheduled |
activities/6 |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/5/date |
Old
2013-05-23T00:00:00New
2013-06-10T00:00:00 |
activities/5/date |
Old
2013-05-20T00:00:00New
2013-05-23T00:00:00 |
activities/4/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE508.232
|
activities/4 |
|
activities/3/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE506.178
|
activities/4 |
|
activities/3/date |
Old
2013-02-28T00:00:00New
2013-03-04T00:00:00 |
activities/3 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. New
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. |
activities/2/docs/0/url |
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE504.231
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/0 |
|
activities/0/body |
Old
EPNew
EC |
activities/0/commission |
|
activities/0/date |
Old
2012-05-16T00:00:00New
2012-02-23T00:00:00 |
activities/0/docs |
|
activities/0/type |
Old
EP officialisationNew
Non-legislative basic document |
activities/1 |
|
activities/1/docs/0/url |
Old
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2012&nu_doc=71New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/registre/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2012/0071/COM_COM(2012)0071_EN.pdf |
activities/3/committees/0/date |
2012-10-10T00:00:00
|
activities/3/committees/0/rapporteur |
|
committees/0/date |
2012-10-10T00:00:00
|
committees/0/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents a report on its assessment of the application of the Directive 2003/8/EC on access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid. The report covers the period of 30 April 2004 to 31 December 2010. Transposition: all Member States bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all provisions of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the provisions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid. Practical application: during the period 2004-2009 the number of persons benefitting from cross border legal aid has increased only to a limited extent. According to the data available, the total number of cross-border legal aid applications processed by any Member State only twice reached 10029. A Eurobarometer report shows that awareness of cross-border legal aid in civil and commercial matters amounts to 12% in respondents in the EU27. The report also states that the situation may also be explained by the lack of knowledge of the instrument among legal professionals, and the restricted scope of the Directive, which is limited to civil and commercial matters. The report also observes that differences in interpretation were noted as regards: · the definition of the scope of the Directive, i.e. civil and commercial cases; · the conditions for the grant of legal aid: differences in the cost of living between Member States were taken into consideration by the Directive but there are no objective criteria specifying the way in which these differences should be taken into account; · costs covered by the Directive: arrangements for the choice and designation of a legal advisor differ significantly between Member States. Points of reflection Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: the report notes that there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but the competent court deprives him of it. Two solutions could be considered: · taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or · harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: the report observes that since travelling costs lie outside the scope of the Directive, an applicant may be deprived of legal aid, even if he is entitled to it in his Member State of residence. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: this could be through measures such as: (i) the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, (ii) the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue of what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive provides two ways of submitting the application for legal aid, and the report notes that this may create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded, or vice versa. Conclusions: the Commission notes the insufficient knowledge about the provisions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, and encourages efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive, and will step up its own efforts in this regard. Further to the points of reflection, the Commission will take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Lastly, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the EU to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the EU is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. New
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. |
activities/1/type |
Old
Follow-up documentNew
Non-legislative basic document |
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. New
The Commission presents a report on its assessment of the application of the Directive 2003/8/EC on access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid. The report covers the period of 30 April 2004 to 31 December 2010. Transposition: all Member States bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all provisions of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the provisions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid. Practical application: during the period 2004-2009 the number of persons benefitting from cross border legal aid has increased only to a limited extent. According to the data available, the total number of cross-border legal aid applications processed by any Member State only twice reached 10029. A Eurobarometer report shows that awareness of cross-border legal aid in civil and commercial matters amounts to 12% in respondents in the EU27. The report also states that the situation may also be explained by the lack of knowledge of the instrument among legal professionals, and the restricted scope of the Directive, which is limited to civil and commercial matters. The report also observes that differences in interpretation were noted as regards: · the definition of the scope of the Directive, i.e. civil and commercial cases; · the conditions for the grant of legal aid: differences in the cost of living between Member States were taken into consideration by the Directive but there are no objective criteria specifying the way in which these differences should be taken into account; · costs covered by the Directive: arrangements for the choice and designation of a legal advisor differ significantly between Member States. Points of reflection Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: the report notes that there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but the competent court deprives him of it. Two solutions could be considered: · taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or · harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: the report observes that since travelling costs lie outside the scope of the Directive, an applicant may be deprived of legal aid, even if he is entitled to it in his Member State of residence. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: this could be through measures such as: (i) the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, (ii) the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue of what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive provides two ways of submitting the application for legal aid, and the report notes that this may create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded, or vice versa. Conclusions: the Commission notes the insufficient knowledge about the provisions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, and encourages efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive, and will step up its own efforts in this regard. Further to the points of reflection, the Commission will take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Lastly, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the EU to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the EU is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. |
activities/1/type |
Old
Non-legislative basic documentNew
Follow-up document |
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents a report on its assessment of the application of the Directive 2003/8/EC on access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid. The report covers the period of 30 April 2004 to 31 December 2010. Transposition: all Member States bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all provisions of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the provisions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid. Practical application: during the period 2004-2009 the number of persons benefitting from cross border legal aid has increased only to a limited extent. According to the data available, the total number of cross-border legal aid applications processed by any Member State only twice reached 10029. A Eurobarometer report shows that awareness of cross-border legal aid in civil and commercial matters amounts to 12% in respondents in the EU27. The report also states that the situation may also be explained by the lack of knowledge of the instrument among legal professionals, and the restricted scope of the Directive, which is limited to civil and commercial matters. The report also observes that differences in interpretation were noted as regards: · the definition of the scope of the Directive, i.e. civil and commercial cases; · the conditions for the grant of legal aid: differences in the cost of living between Member States were taken into consideration by the Directive but there are no objective criteria specifying the way in which these differences should be taken into account; · costs covered by the Directive: arrangements for the choice and designation of a legal advisor differ significantly between Member States. Points of reflection Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: the report notes that there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but the competent court deprives him of it. Two solutions could be considered: · taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or · harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: the report observes that since travelling costs lie outside the scope of the Directive, an applicant may be deprived of legal aid, even if he is entitled to it in his Member State of residence. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: this could be through measures such as: (i) the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, (ii) the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue of what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive provides two ways of submitting the application for legal aid, and the report notes that this may create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded, or vice versa. Conclusions: the Commission notes the insufficient knowledge about the provisions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, and encourages efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive, and will step up its own efforts in this regard. Further to the points of reflection, the Commission will take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Lastly, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the EU to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the EU is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. New
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. |
activities/1/type |
Old
Follow-up documentNew
Non-legislative basic document |
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. New
The Commission presents a report on its assessment of the application of the Directive 2003/8/EC on access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid. The report covers the period of 30 April 2004 to 31 December 2010. Transposition: all Member States bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all provisions of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the provisions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid. Practical application: during the period 2004-2009 the number of persons benefitting from cross border legal aid has increased only to a limited extent. According to the data available, the total number of cross-border legal aid applications processed by any Member State only twice reached 10029. A Eurobarometer report shows that awareness of cross-border legal aid in civil and commercial matters amounts to 12% in respondents in the EU27. The report also states that the situation may also be explained by the lack of knowledge of the instrument among legal professionals, and the restricted scope of the Directive, which is limited to civil and commercial matters. The report also observes that differences in interpretation were noted as regards: · the definition of the scope of the Directive, i.e. civil and commercial cases; · the conditions for the grant of legal aid: differences in the cost of living between Member States were taken into consideration by the Directive but there are no objective criteria specifying the way in which these differences should be taken into account; · costs covered by the Directive: arrangements for the choice and designation of a legal advisor differ significantly between Member States. Points of reflection Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: the report notes that there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but the competent court deprives him of it. Two solutions could be considered: · taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or · harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: the report observes that since travelling costs lie outside the scope of the Directive, an applicant may be deprived of legal aid, even if he is entitled to it in his Member State of residence. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: this could be through measures such as: (i) the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, (ii) the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue of what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive provides two ways of submitting the application for legal aid, and the report notes that this may create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded, or vice versa. Conclusions: the Commission notes the insufficient knowledge about the provisions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, and encourages efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive, and will step up its own efforts in this regard. Further to the points of reflection, the Commission will take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Lastly, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the EU to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the EU is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. |
activities/1/type |
Old
Non-legislative basic documentNew
Follow-up document |
procedure/legal_basis |
|
activities/1/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
The Commission presents a report on its assessment of the application of the Directive 2003/8/EC on access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid. The report covers the period of 30 April 2004 to 31 December 2010. Transposition: all Member States bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all provisions of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the provisions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid. Practical application: during the period 2004-2009 the number of persons benefitting from cross border legal aid has increased only to a limited extent. According to the data available, the total number of cross-border legal aid applications processed by any Member State only twice reached 10029. A Eurobarometer report shows that awareness of cross-border legal aid in civil and commercial matters amounts to 12% in respondents in the EU27. The report also states that the situation may also be explained by the lack of knowledge of the instrument among legal professionals, and the restricted scope of the Directive, which is limited to civil and commercial matters. The report also observes that differences in interpretation were noted as regards: · the definition of the scope of the Directive, i.e. civil and commercial cases; · the conditions for the grant of legal aid: differences in the cost of living between Member States were taken into consideration by the Directive but there are no objective criteria specifying the way in which these differences should be taken into account; · costs covered by the Directive: arrangements for the choice and designation of a legal advisor differ significantly between Member States. Points of reflection Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: the report notes that there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but the competent court deprives him of it. Two solutions could be considered: · taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or · harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: the report observes that since travelling costs lie outside the scope of the Directive, an applicant may be deprived of legal aid, even if he is entitled to it in his Member State of residence. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: this could be through measures such as: (i) the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, (ii) the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue of what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive provides two ways of submitting the application for legal aid, and the report notes that this may create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded, or vice versa. Conclusions: the Commission notes the insufficient knowledge about the provisions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, and encourages efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive, and will step up its own efforts in this regard. Further to the points of reflection, the Commission will take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Lastly, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the EU to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the EU is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. New
PURPOSE: to present the evaluation, by the Commission, on the application of Directive 2003/8/EC to improve access to justice in cross border disputes. BACKGROUND: Directive 2003/8/EC aims to improve access to justice in cross border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes. It seeks to promote the application of legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes for persons who lack sufficient resources and where aid is necessary to secure effective access to justice. The Directive entered into application on 30 November 2004. After 5 years of the application of the Directive, the Commission decided to launch its evaluation. The Commission launched a study in 2010 in order to be provided with input to assess in detail the transposition and the application of the Directive. In addition, the application of the Directive was discussed with the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters in its meetings in 2006 and 2010. Furthermore, the Commission has accommodated letters, complaints and petitions concerning the Directive in its assessment. This report presents the Commission assessment of the application of the Directive for the period of 30 April 2004 31 December 2010. CONTENT: the report concludes that all the Member States which are bound by the Directive have transposed the right to legal aid in cross border cases in civil and commercial matters, although it can be observed that not all the application modalities of the Directive have been perfectly implemented. These difficulties are explained principally by the fact that the dispositions of the Directive are sometimes different from national provisions concerning legal aid and the lack of the ECJ case law did not yet add to the uniformity of application. The report underlined, however, that there has been only one case before the European Court of Justice concerning cross-border legal aid which may prove that the practical application of the Directive is satisfactory. Possible improvements: the Commission considers that the implementation of the Directive can be improved firstly on the basis of current provisions, notably as regards the following: Economic criteria to benefit from legal aid: it appears that there is a need to have further clarification on the issue of economic criteria to grant legal aid. This is important as there are cases where the claimant obtains from the court of his domicile a confirmation that under national rules he would be eligible for legal aid but he is deprived of it by the competent court. From this perspective two solutions could be considered: (i) taking into account the difference in the cost of living between Member States, the eligibility and the amount of legal aid could be calculated on the basis of a common and objective criteria or on the basis of the criteria applied in the usual place of residence of the person applying for legal aid, or; (ii) harmonisation of the economic level or mutual recognition of thresholds. Costs not covered currently: an interesting situation which is not covered by the Directive arises when travelling costs are to be incurred for the hearing before the judge who is to decide whether or not legal aid should be granted. Should the applicant have not sufficient financial resources to cover these expenses, he may be deprived of the possibility to obtain legal aid by the competent court. Facilitation of relationship between legal professionals and beneficiaries: a second point to tackle could be the facilitation of relationships between professionals and beneficiaries in another Member State through measures such as: the designation of a professional who speaks the language of the beneficiary, the assistance of a translator, or even the designation of a second professional from the State of the legal aid recipient, who would serve as a link and, for example, conduct correspondence with the legal professional based in another State. Clarity as to the whereabouts of the competent authority: it appears to be advisable to designate a single receiving and transmitting authority in each Member State in order to facilitate the implementation of the Directive. This is particularly important in the situation when the legal aid application is submitted directly to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting or where the decision is to be enforced. As the Directive does not regulate the issue what happens if the application is submitted to the incorrect receiving agency, discrepancies in such situation may arise. Scrutiny of the same application by two authorities with two possibly different results: the Directive foresees two ways of submitting the application for legal aid: either to the competent authority of the Member State in which the applicant is domiciled or to the competent authority of the Member State in which the court is sitting. In addition, the Directive foresees the possibility to refuse to transmit the application if the transmitting authority decides that the application is unfounded or outside the scope of the Directive. Such a situation may potentially create confusion as it is possible that the receiving authority may reject the application although the transmitting authority would consider it as founded. It is also possible that the applicant, whose application was rejected by the transmitted authority, will resend the application to the receiving authority directly which would create unnecessary burden as the same application would have to be considered twice, most likely with the same negative result. Increase awareness about the Directive: the Commission observes the insufficient knowledge about the dispositions of the Directive among citizens, legal professionals and national legal boards, as evidenced by the survey: only 15% of citizens are aware of the Directive and 30 % of barristers know about the Directive's advantages. The main point of improvement for the Member States is an efficient and active promotion of the Directive through providing the general public and professionals with information on the various systems of legal aid under the Directive. Furthermore, the Commission will step up its efforts to increase awareness about the provisions of this Directive. The Commission also will analyse the findings of the conformity checks and follow up them as appropriate. Further to the points of reflection presented above, the Commission will also take into account the reactions to this Report in its considerations for actions, as appropriate. Finally, as regards the legal aid policy with third countries, the Commission will consider the accession of the European Union to the 1980 Hague Convention on Access to Justice, particularly as the European Union is a member of the Hague Conference. Such a step could be desirable as it would enable the uniform application of the Convention through the Union and could attract the accession of other states. |
activities/1/type |
Old
Follow-up documentNew
Non-legislative basic document |
activities/1/docs/0/text |
|
activities/1/type |
Old
Non-legislative basic documentNew
Follow-up document |
activities/3/committees/1/date |
2012-05-30T00:00:00
|
activities/3/committees/1/rapporteur |
|
committees/1/date |
2012-05-30T00:00:00
|
committees/1/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/commission/0 |
|
activities/3 |
|
other/0 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
JURI/7/09608
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|