Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-13-Speech-2-189"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010313.13.2-189"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, it was not by chance that the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market approved – with only one vote against – this report on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany with a view to the adoption of a Council regulation on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters. It approved it not because of any bias against the use of government or State initiatives when it comes to creating a European area of justice, as anyone not quite paying attention might imagine given what happened this morning. Quite the contrary – I believe that apart from the areas of immigration and asylum, that is, ultimately, apart from the area of the free movement of persons, initiatives like this one are, of course, welcome.
What such initiatives cannot do, and this is what concerns Parliament, is to make up for the inconsistencies between the Member States which lead to such a legislative mire, with each Member State doing its own thing with initiatives to suit its own taste, without a genuine Community vision and ignoring their joint responsibility. They are also overlooking the need for a serious and coherent body of legislation, which the Commission is proving it is possible to achieve – and I am looking at Commissioner Vitorino now – in one of the most sensitive areas. That area is a model for coexistence in Europe and the fundamental freedoms associated with it, in this case freedom of the individual.
Having said that, with particular reference to the area covered by this report, in which the proper functioning of the single market implies a strengthening of the European social area, anything new – even in the Member States – which helps to eliminate and reduce cross-border disputes and litigation is, of course, to be welcomed, and I believe that tomorrow's vote will reflect that.
What is the ultimate aim of this German initiative? It involves giving a court in any Member State the ability, during any legal proceedings concerning certain civil and commercial matters that have taken place in another Member State, to use its best endeavours to obtain evidence essential for progressing the main proceedings in the court of the requesting country. Up to now, international cooperation on the taking of evidence has been governed by the Hague Convention of 1970, the scope of which is limited since it only applies to those Member States that have ratified the Convention. As far as I know, only eleven Member States have done so.
This means that without a legal instrument covering the Union's 15 Member States and those that may join subsequently, not all members of the public taking legal action through the courts will have the same legal remedies; it will depend on whether or not their country or the requested country has ratified the Convention. Under this new regulation, all courts will be covered by the same law, and all EU citizens will benefit from the same protection given that this Community instrument will facilitate direct contact between courts in different countries. Ultimately, this will remove obstacles to the creation of a European legal area, either by creating a standard European form to be used by the courts in the requesting States in the language of the requested courts, so as to facilitate communication between the two, or by creating a central authority in each country which will receive and forward requests originating from another State for the taking of evidence from a national court, or by establishing the principle that the entire request must be responded to, and obliging requested European courts to execute this request within six months, at the end of which, if they have not complied, they will have to provide an explanation to the requesting court.
The amendments that I have made to this initiative by the Federal Republic of Germany include imposing a duty on the central authorities to produce legal guidance on the official languages recognised by each court in each of the Member States and a duty to provide information on accredited legal translation agencies.
Lastly, in view of these innovative arrangements, which will greatly speed up the proceedings of courts in all the Member States, which seems to me to be one of the key aims of the German initiative, I have proposed that only in exceptional circumstances should the direct contact between courts envisaged in the regulation be superseded by traditional consular channels, which I believe are inevitably cumbersome, bureaucratic, somewhat remote from events and in many ways responsible for the delays in litigation in cross-border disputes or proceedings.
Some Members from other groups did not fully grasp this last point and therefore voted against this amendment. The objective, as I saw it, was merely to emphasise a certain concept of Europe which I espouse: a Community with its own law, but more than just a diplomatic Community or one based on international law. I have therefore tabled this amendment again in the hope that the majority of Members will now understand this point of detail, which is, in fact, more than just a detail."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples