Duitse minister van Justitie spreekt de Commissie Juridische Zaken toe over de plannen van het Duits voorzitterschap (en)
Check against delivery
Dear Mr. Chairman,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to present to you today the legal policy priorities of the German Council Presidency. I see many familiar faces here today, and it is a pleasure to see you again so soon after our recent meeting in Berlin.
For you, ladies and gentlemen, today's meeting is certainly nothing out of the ordinary. Every six months, a minister appears here to present his or her programme to you. However, from the perspective of the respective government, the situation is quite different - at least it is for me. The Presidency is a tremendous challenge, and it provides a country with the opportunity to take the lead in advancing our collective development and, at the same time, to set its own policy priorities.
The Union now has 27 members. With a six-month rotation period, my country would not assume the Presidency again until the year 2020. This numerical projection demonstrates that when the EU Presidency falls within the career of a national politician, it is quite a special occurrence. And this special occurrence motivates me to tackle this responsibility with the utmost commitment.
For the first time, we now have a Trio Presidency. Therefore, in the run-up to our Presidency, I closely coordinated our programme with my colleagues from Slovenia and Portugal. I am confident that this will enable us to accomplish our work with greater continuity and efficiency. Some of the projects that make headway during the upcoming five months will then be concluded during the subsequent Presidencies.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have set three goals in the area of legal policy:
-
-to strengthen citizens' rights,
-
-to increase legal certainty for citizens and the business sector, and
-
-to strengthen the justice system and practical cooperation.
Europe must be an area of freedom, security and justice. This is what our European treaties say; this is what our citizens expect; and this is what our political endeavours strive to achieve.
We have already made good progress in harmonising criminal law provisions and enhancing cooperation between security authorities, for example through the European arrest warrant. But we must not forget the other side of the coin. For this reason, we must work more intensively to strengthen citizens' rights.
Today, citizens and companies increasingly take advantage of the freedoms offered by a Europe without internal borders, and this is a positive development. But of course this also raises new issues of a legal nature. The law must keep pace with these changing circumstances. Therefore, we need greater legal certainty with respect to cross-border activities.
The more diverse these cross-border activities of citizens and the business sector become and the more porous the Union's internal borders, the greater is the necessity of closer practical cooperation between the judicial authorities of the Member States. Only in this way will we be able to ensure that national justice systems remain the guarantors of law and justice in a unified Europe.
Ladies and gentlemen, your Committee is a crucial partner for the Presidency, particularly with respect to the enhancement of legal certainty. I would therefore like to present to you several dossiers that are especially important to us.
I would like to focus first of all on the Rome I and Rome II Regulations. With increasing frequency, courts are called upon to adjudicate private legal disputes with a cross-border dimension _ for instance, because a citizen from one country is involved in a traffic accident in another Member State, or because a person enters into a contract abroad which he or she subsequently wishes to terminate in his or her home country.
In these cases, everyone must know: Which law will apply to my case if a dispute arises? In order to achieve this, we need uniform rules for all Member States that determine which national law should apply in cross-border legal cases.
During our Council Presidency, we would like to cooperate with you to complete work on the Regulation that seeks to clarify these issues with respect to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The Council is currently deliberating on the amendments adopted by the Parliament on 18 January 2007. Should a conciliation procedure prove to be unavoidable, I am confident that we will reach a compromise quickly, because all parties involved are in basic agreement: We want Rome II to become law, and we want this to occur as soon as possible.
However, we have not made as much progress on the Rome I Regulation, which determines the law applicable to contractual obligations. Here we hope at least to succeed in reaching political agreement within the Council during our Presidency.
We will also strive to achieve political agreement on the Rome III Regulation, which is intended to determine the applicable law and jurisdiction in matters of divorce involving binational marriages. In this way, we are responding to the increasing number of cross-border relationships.
Equally as important as the question of the applicable law is the question: How do I effectively assert my rights? We need to ensure, also in cross-border cases, that legal claims can be asserted in a speedy and efficient manner. Together we have completed the first step in this direction by introducing the European order for payment procedure. In addition, cross-border litigation concerning contested claims with a low value is frequently far too time-consuming and expensive. The Regulation on small claims is designed to remedy this situation, and I believe its adoption will contribute significantly to greater legal certainty in the EU.
Similar difficulties arise with respect to maintenance claims. The recovery of such claims in cross-border cases remains a very complicated matter for individual citizens. The Regulation on the enforcement of maintenance obligations will noticeably improve the situation for maintenance creditors, who are often the more economically vulnerable party.
I would also like to mention the Directive on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters, which is intended to help citizens gain better access to an important mechanism for the extra-judicial resolution of disputes. In an increasing number of disputes - including those of a cross-border nature - mediation enables the parties involved to take direct responsibility for resolving their conflicts. Within the Committee on Legal Affairs, you have devoted a great deal of work to this Directive. I would be pleased if, during our Presidency, the Council continued work on this directive and possibly even reached political agreement.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Legal certainty is necessary not only for citizens but also for the business sector. Businesses need a reliable legal framework in order to succeed within the internal market.
We have made significant progress in this area in the past, for example by establishing the European Company. However, we have not yet regulated how a company can transfer its registered office from one Member State to another. I hope that the Commission will soon submit a draft Directive so that the Council and Parliament can commence work on this matter during the next five months.
In contrast, we are already one step further along with the Directive on shareholders' rights. By establishing certain minimum rights, we wish to ensure that shareholders can effectively exercise their rights across borders. There are good prospects that we will be able to finalise this project during the course of our Presidency.
But in all of our endeavours in the field of economic law, we must keep one thing in mind: Today, cross-border economic activity is being pursued by far more than just large-scale businesses such as public limited liability companies. Many small and medium-sized enterprises also want to become active in more than one Member State, and we must improve and simplify their access to the internal market. Therefore, in addition to the European Company, we also need a European Private Company. I know that we are in agreement on this issue. And I am very grateful to you, ladies and gentlemen, for taking the initiative and calling on the Commission to become active in this area and to submit a legislative proposal.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
One topic of particular importance to me is the protection of intellectual property. Inventions, good ideas, and their resulting innovations serve as the guarantors of Europe's economic strength. Therefore, our business sector needs an affordable, secure and efficient patent system.
I eagerly await the Commission's Communication on future patent policy in Europe. The Parliament, too, urgently requested this Communication in October. This document needs to be submitted very soon so that we can make headway in this debate, which is once again at an impasse. It is my belief that we should focus on completing the initiatives already underway, namely the London Protocol and the uniform dispute settlement system offered by the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA). For us as well, the long-term goal is to achieve a Community Patent that is inexpensive and provides legal certainty. As holders of the Presidency, we are currently conducting discussions with numerous partner countries regarding different options and margins of flexibility. However, we will not waste time and energy fighting for a project where no agreement is currently in sight.
In addition, our active engagement is needed in an area that, according to Commissioner Peter Mandelson, represents an "extreme danger" and "one of the greatest challenges confronting the EU" - namely the fight against product piracy and counterfeiting.
Criminal law is not the only means to success in this area, but it is a crucial one. Therefore we will seek to move forward with the Directive on criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of intellectual property rights.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
All of these European legislative projects regulate only partial areas of life - and this is not done in the form of comprehensive codification, but rather through specific Regulations, Directives or Framework Decisions. This increases the danger that the law will become confusing, unsystematic and unpredictable for both citizens and the business sector.
For this reason, more coherence was already called for in the Hague Programme. The Commission's initiatives to establish a common frame of reference for European contract law and to review the existing consumer acquis can contribute to this effort. A common frame of reference that includes the essential principles of contract law, as well as definitions and model provisions, could provide valuable assistance as we pursue the objective of more coherent legislation. As a parallel measure, the review of the consumer acquis will help to eliminate internal contradictions in Community law. Thus these are commendable initiatives that are key priorities for us.
However, a model makes sense only if it truly works in practice and is more than just a theoretical formula. After all, the following remains true for all our endeavours: The Europeanisation of law is not an end in itself. The goal is not to realise a theoretical ideal but rather to create practical added value for citizens. For this reason, conflict of law rules are sometimes more important than full harmonisation, and networking among existing national authorities is often better than creating a new centralised bureaucracy.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that my elaborations have provided you with a brief overview of the objectives that the German Presidency has set itself. Whether these objectives can be achieved depends crucially on your support. I am aware of how important this Committee is, and I look forward to purposeful and successful cooperation with you.
Date: 30.01.2007