Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-10-20-Speech-1-099"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20081020.14.1-099"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, honourable Members, I will start by trying to respond to Mrs Gebhardt's report, and will then turn to the oral question that you have very opportunely linked to the report. I am glad to see that Mr Deprez is also here.
We also do not consider it necessary to restrict Rome III solely to the law of the Member States. This is an important issue, because the Member States will want to continue to apply the divorce laws of third countries that share our democratic values: for example, if a German or French woman marries a Swiss man, it seems reasonable that it should also be possible to apply the rules we have set for ourselves to this marriage, or to this divorce.
Bear in mind, though, that the Commission agrees with Parliament on the need for Rome III to include an antidiscrimination clause, of course, which would allow any European judge to exclude foreign laws that are incompatible with the principle of equality between spouses. No doubt this antidiscrimination clause will still allow us to apply it, for example, to Switzerland/Member State or Norway/Member State marriages.
I will now turn to the question of how we can make Rome III a success, and I should once again like to thank Mrs Gebhardt and Mr Deprez for their oral question, pulling me up on the progress of Rome III. Obviously, I am with you in regretting the deadlock in the Council regarding the negotiations on Rome III. Last July, we had a debate between the justice ministers on the possibility of enhanced cooperation on Rome III and, at the end of July, nine Member States presented the Commission with a request for enhanced cooperation: that is more than a third of the Member States involved in the adoption of Rome III. It is therefore clear that the Commission needs to look into this request for enhanced cooperation, but, as you will understand, if we want this to be a success we will need to pay attention to the whole context.
I should now like to respond to three questions that you have asked the Commission. First of all, I can tell you that there are no plans to withdraw the Commission's initial 'Rome III' proposal. If the Commission agrees to present the Council with a proposal on enhanced cooperation within the sphere of 'Rome III', however, it may, in the interests of legal clarity, withdraw its initial proposal once the decision has been taken, in order to amend it, but that would only be if we really had the possibility of launching enhanced cooperation. In any event, withdrawal is not on the agenda.
I should like to take this opportunity to briefly recap the procedure followed by the enhanced cooperation mechanism. A request must first be submitted to the Commission by at least eight Member States, as occurred in this case. If the request meets the other criteria set out in the Treaty on European Union – if it complies with the rules on the single market – the Commission may submit the request to the Council. If it chooses not to do so, it must provide reasons for this. Enhanced cooperation must then be authorised by the Council, following consultation with or assent from Parliament, depending on the situation.
The request for enhanced cooperation does, of course, raise certain questions, in both legal and political respects. We need to face up to the need to continue with our joint action with regard to family law, as close as possible to the citizens, and to balance this need against the risk of fragmentation of the European area of justice that could result from a series of enhanced cooperation agreements. Before I make a statement, I should of course like to hear the views of the Members of Parliament, and I certainly want the Member States to clarify their position.
At any rate, I should like to assure the European Parliament that it is my intention – and not just my intention but also my desire – to move forwards with judicial cooperation on civil matters in Europe. Family law must not be the poor relation of civil law – that would be rather paradoxical given that the issues it covers are closest to people's daily lives. Fortunately, progress has been made with regard to the circulation of divorce decisions, parental responsibility and rights of access to children.
On that subject, I should also like to say that, now that we have the texts, I as Commissioner will need, with your help, to ensure that the rules are followed. I am thinking in particular of rights of access to children and custody, with regard to which the current situation in Europe is not entirely satisfactory.
In summary, we will indeed be able to come up with a legislative proposal on the applicable law on the subject. I would also add that we are simultaneously drafting a law applicable to matrimonial systems that could be adopted in early 2010.
That, Madam President, is where we stand with this issue. Of course, I cannot anticipate the result of the consultation we will very soon be conducting with the Member States. What I can say, though, is that the Commission wants to make real progress, whilst nevertheless once again ensuring that we can bring along the majority of Member States with us. That, in brief, is my point of view, but I hope, like you and like Parliament – though I will listen to you closely – that things will move forwards.
Many, many thanks, Mrs Gebhardt, for your report, which is quite remarkable, not least for your excellent degree of cooperation with the Commission on such a delicate and sensitive subject.
The Rome III proposal is, indeed, very close to our hearts, and not only for the Commission – I know that it is also of great interest to the European Parliament. I believe that it will be very important in supporting the free movement of people within the European Union.
I should just like, Madam President, to go over some of the data we have available: there are currently 2 200 000 weddings each year in the European Union, 350 000 of which are international marriages. That is already a considerable number and, clearly, it is a phenomenon that will increase. Around 170 000 divorces a year are affected by this proposal, which is around 19% of the total of some 875 000 divorces a year within the European Union. 20% – that is a significant figure!
That is why the Commission broadly shares your view, Mrs Gebhardt, regarding the importance of the Rome III proposal: it provides greater predictability and legal certainty for the couples concerned. As you pointed out, in the absence of a framework, either couples go 'forum shopping' or the dominant partner has the final say.
The Commission therefore broadly supports the European Parliament's report on the initial Rome III proposal, with certain reservations. The Commission supports Parliament's amendments aiming to ensure that spouses can make an enlightened choice. The Commission therefore agrees with Parliament on the need to tighten up the formal conditions for the conclusion of marriage contracts and to protect the weaker spouse, but we also need to take account of the differences in the legal systems of the Member States in this regard: as you have quite rightly emphasised, this is not a matter for harmonisation.
In a similar vein, the Commission welcomes Parliament's proposals aiming to improve the public's awareness of national and European laws concerning marriage and divorce contracts. There is one point on which we disagree: the Commission sees no need to include a new competence criterion based on the place where the marriage was celebrated, as the link between the place where the wedding takes place and the couple's situation when they separate may be very tenuous.
Nevertheless, the Commission endorses Parliament's amendment concerning the spouses' option of going to this court as a last resort, if it proves impossible to obtain a divorce from the court of habitual residence, but we see this more as an exceptional case.
The Commission would also prefer to leave it up to the Court of Justice to interpret the term 'habitual residence'. This term already appears in a number of instruments and has not, to date, been formally defined, but national judges do not seem to have had too many problems in applying it. We feel that, for the sake of respecting the diversity of the Member States' legal systems, we can put our trust in the Court of Justice."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples