Inhoudsopgave van deze pagina:
Delen
1.1. Summary
The proposal on the table is substantial and wide-ranging and it extends over a number of different
social sectors. As far as Sweden is concerned, implementing the proposal in its entirety,
particularly in the area of procedural law, will require very careful consideration and more or less
extensive changes in the law. By extension, it is a fair assumption that if a system is to function
fully as intended, harmonisation of legislation will be required in certain areas. These are questions
which must be dealt with specifically.
Furthermore, costs, funding and language questions must be very clearly set out in the report to be
submitted. Likewise, the issues being considered here must be kept separate from the
Working Party's ordinary work, namely legal information.
Further discussion should therefore concentrate on those parts of the project which have a chance of
being successful within a reasonable period of time.
1.2. General points
The Working Party has been asked to compile the basis for a report on the scope for further action
and in what areas. It has already been established that work is going on in various quarters which
appear to touch on the areas currently under discussion.
It must be also be made clear how the work stands in relation to other common initiatives, for
example:
INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) PSI (Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 on the re-use of public sector information)
EULIS (European Land Information Service) Solvit (Internal Market Problem Solving Network) and the planned IMI system (Internal Market Information System).
The position in Sweden is that responsibility for some of the questions dealt with in the document
lies with authorities operating outside what is traditionally regarded as the judicial system. Work on
e-administration, which touches on the areas now under discussion is also underway in Sweden.
The situation is no doubt the same in other Member States. This might therefore justify trying to
take stock of what is going on in the Member States.
The brief extends over a wide field and it is to be hoped that such an analysis can lead to the
identification of a lowest common denominator on which further work could most usefully
be focused.
1.3. Architecture of the system
The assumption in the document appears to be that Member States will take part voluntarily and
will themselves prioritise the sphere or spheres in which they wish to be involved (see points 7, 8
and 23). For the project to have the full impact, it would seem to be necessary for all Member
States to offer the same service within the sphere or spheres finally chosen for further work. That
may mean that harmonisation of legislation within those spheres becomes necessary. That is a
question which must also be looked at before any decision is taken on future work.
It is already possible today to conduct a lot of business with the authorities at national level via their
websites. The question therefore arises as to whether it is necessary to have an EU portal which is
"operational", or whether it is sufficient for that portal to give information about and links to
national portals.
1.4. Access to registers
Careful consideration should be given here to which registers it is appropriate to make accessible
via a portal for the general public. The document lists different types of register, including registers
of sentenced persons. Such registers are not generally accessible in Sweden.
1.5. Availability on the Internet
Care should be taken to distinguish between legal information, in the sense of access to statutes,
preparatory work and practice, and information about and advice on legal cases.
Legal information portals should be reserved for the first type of information. If there is a need to
make other types of legal information available, access should be given in another way, for
example via special websites or portals.
1.6. Electronic signatures
In Sweden it is possible to a large extent to communicate in a fairly informal way with the
authorities. On the other hand, bringing a case in court involves certain formal requirements,
including authentic signatures.
1.7. Specific technical measures
The question of where and how it is intended to decide on technical standardisation for the
exchange of information needs to be clarified in more detail. This will, however, depend on the
choice of sphere or spheres for further work.
1.8. Financial questions
There are many economic and budgetary aspects which need to be clarified before
recommendations can be made as to whether and to what extent the work should be taken forward.
How are the costs to be financed? Have resources been earmarked for the work in the EU budget
for 2007 to 2013? Funding should remain within existing EU budget frameworks, with retention of
the margins set. Even if it were possible to take resources from existing appropriations in the
EU budget, would that mean reduced priority for other needs? If so, which? The value in relation
to other priorities in the EU and national budgets has to be looked at very closely.
The benefits in relation to costs must also be analysed. It looks as if full or partial implementation
will give rise to high costs for development, administration and translation. Costs likely to arise at
national level and for the EU budget, together with their funding, must therefore be clarified before
a position can be adopted on the proposal. Futhermore, the question of benefits must go beyond the
issue of costs.
Benefits in relation to the user and the need? Has the need for the project been analysed? To whom
is it addressed and is the need sufficiently great?
In this context the efforts which are required now at both EU and national level should also be
clarified.
1.9. Language question
The language question is important. In the Council Working Party meeting on 20 February it was
discussed from the point of view of the information assumed to feature in the various portals.
Attention must also be paid to the question of which language will be used for communication with
the authorities in the different Member States. The question may be seen as both a matter of
principle and of resources.
1.10. Future work
Sweden considers that the questions addressed in the document under consideration lie outside the
Working Party's current mandate. The spheres in which action is being proposed are situated on the
margins of legal information in the sense of information on applicable law, preparatory work and
practice. Future work is likely to be very comprehensive and will therefore require competence
within different areas, both in relation to information technology and in relation to the subject areas
ultimately selected for further work. The forms of future work must be carefully considered. There
are many arguments in favour of setting up a special working party to take the work forward.
______________
