Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) Brussels, 25-26 June 2007

Inhoud

Delen

enveloppe
  1. Tekst
  2. Originele weergave
  1. Meer informatie

1.

Tekst

NOTE from:

General Secretariat of the Council

to: Delegations Subject : Summary of the meeting of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) Brussels, 25-26 June 2007 Mr GARGANI (EPP ED, IT) chaired the meeting.

I. Examination of reports as lead committee a) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of the environment through criminal law

COM(2007) 51 - 6297/07 - 2007/0022(COD)

Rapporteur: Mr NASSAUER (EPP ED, DE)

  • - 
    Consideration of a working document

The following members took the floor: Mr NASSAUER (EPP ED, DE), Ms DRCAR MURKO

(ALDE, SL), Ms FRASSONI (Verts/ALE, IT), Mr SPERONI (UEN, IT) and Mr LECHNE

(EPP ED, DE).

  • b) 
    Green paper on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts

COM(2006) 618 - 14583/06 - 2007/2026(INI)

Rapporteur: Mr LECHNER (EPP ED, DE)

  • - 
    Consideration of a draft report (PE390.569)

Timetable:

Consideration of a draft report:17 July 2007 Deadline for tabling amendments:17 July 2007 Vote in committee:11 12 September 2007 Vote in plenary:October 2007 c) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audit of annual accounts and consolidated accounts,

as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission

COM(2006) 903 - 5220/07 - 2006/0285(COD)

Rapporteur: Mr DOORN (EPP ED, NL )

  • - 
    Exchange of views

Timetable:

Consideration of a draft report:July 2007 Deadline for tabling amendments:end of August 2007 Vote in committee:September 2007

II. Examination of reports as opinion-giving committee a) International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) and the governance of the IASB 2006/2248(INI)

Drafter: Mr LEHNE (EPP ED, DE)

  • - 
    Exchange of views (PE388.441)

Timetable:

Deadline for tabling amendments:17 July 2007 Vote in committee:11 12 September 2007

  • b) 
    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products

lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision 3052/95/EC

COM(2007) 36 - 6313/07 - 2007/0028(COD)

Drafter: Mr TOUBON (EPP ED, FR)

  • - 
    Consideration of a draft opinion (PE 390.524)

Timetable:

Deadline for tabling amendments:23 August 2007 Vote in committee:September 2007 Vote in IMCO Committee:October 2007 Vote in plenary:November 2007 c) 2008 budget - other sections JURI/6/45211 Drafter: Mr M.A. CZARNECKI (UEN, PL) - Exchange of views

The item was postponed.

III. Vote on reports as lead committee

  • a) 
    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs

COM(2004) 582 - 12555/04 - 2004/0203(COD)

Rapporteur: Mr LEHNE (EPP ED, DE)

The item was postponed.

  • b) 
    Report from the Commission "Better Lawmaking 2005" pursuant to Article 9 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality

(13th Report)

COM(2006) 289 - 10558/06 - 2006/2279(INI)

Rapporteur: Mr DOORN (EPP ED, NL)

A draft report (PE388.351) was adopted, with amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, EMPL 1, 2,

4, 6, 9, 12, 14 and 15.

  • c) 
    First progress report on the strategy for the simplification of the regulatory environment

COM(2006) 690 - 15510/06 ADD 1 - 2007/2096(INI)

Rapporteur: Mr GARGANI (EPP ED, IT)

A draft report (PE388.366) was adopted, with amendments Nos 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and ENVI 4.

  • d) 
    Institutional and legal implications of the use of 'soft law' instruments 2007/2028 (INI)

Rapporteur: Mr MEDINA ORTEGA (PSE, ES)

A draft report (PE386.366) was adopted, with amendments CULT A, B, C, 1, 2, 5, 6, CULT

D, E, 7, 10, 11, 1, 10, 15, 16, 12, 6, 7, 8, 9 (first part), CULT 2, IMCO 11, amd. nos 21,

CONST 4, CULT 5, and 6.

  • e) 
    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 78/855/EEC concerning mergers of public limited liability companies

and Council Directive 82/891/EEC concerning the division of public limited companies

as regards the requirement for an independent expert's report on the occasion of a

merger or a division

COM(2007) 91 - 7207/07 - 2007/0035(COD)

Rapporteur: Ms KAUPPI (EPP ED, FI)

A draft report (PE388.714v02-00) was adopted, with amendments Nos 3 and 1.

  • f) 
    A strategic review of Better Regulation in the European Union COM(2006) 689 - 15510/06 - 2007/2095(INI)

Rapporteur: Ms LÉVAI (PSE, HU)

A draft report (PE388.369) was adopted, with amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, ECON 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ENVI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10, REGI 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

IV. Vote on reports as opinion-giving committee

  • a) 
    Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for the protection of soil and amending Directive 2004/35/EC

COM(2006) 232 - 13388/06 - 2006/0086(COD)

Drafter: Ms GERINGER DE OEDENBERG (PSE, PL)

The item was postponed until 10 11 September 2007.

  • b) 
    Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection COM(2006) 231 - 13401/06 - 2006/2293(INI)

Drafter: Ms FRASSONI (Verts/ALE, IT)

The item was postponed until 10 11 September 2007.

  • c) 
    Communication from the Commission towards an EU strategy on the rights of the child COM (2006) 367 - 12107/06 - 2007/2093(INI)

Drafter: Mr LÓPEZ ISTÚRIZ (EPP ED, ES)

The item was postponed until 10 11 September 2007.

  • d) 
    Green Paper on the review of the consumer acquis COM(2006) 744 - 6307/07 - 2007/2010(INI)

Drafter: Ms WALLIS (ALDE, UK)

draft opinion (PE 390.367) was adopted, with amendments Nos 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

A

  • e) 
    Proposal for a Council Decision accepting, on behalf of the European Community, the Protocol amending the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property

Rights (TRIPS), done at Geneva on 6 December 2005

COM(2006) 175 - 8932/06 - 2006/0060(AVC)

Drafter: Mr ROCARD (PSE, FR)

A draft opinion (PE 390.411v02-00) was adopted, with COMPR 1.

  • f) 
    Obligations of Cross-Border Service Providers 2006/2049(INI)

Drafter: Ms KAUPPI (EPP ED, FI)

A draft opinion (PE390.372v02-00) was adopted, with amendments Nos 1 and 3.

V. Procedures on immunity a) Consultation on the parliamentary immunity of Mr Szájer Rapporteur: Mr SPERONI (UEN, IT)

Exchange of views in camera.

  • b) 
    Request for defence of the immunity of Ashley Mote 2007/2122(IMM)

Rapporteur: Mr SPERONI (UEN, IT)

Adoption of a report in camera.

  • c) 
    Consultation on the immunity of Alessandra Mussolini 2006/2301(IMM) Rapporteur: Mr LEHNE (EPP ED, DE)

Adoption of a report in camera.

VI. Exchange of views with Ms Brigitte ZYPRIES, Federal Minister of Justice, German

Presidency

The speech by Ms Brigitte ZYPRIES, President of the Council, is annexed to this note.

The following members took the floor:Mr LEHNE (EPP ED, DE), Ms STAUNER (EPP ED,

DE), Ms LÉVAI (PSE, HU), Mr NASSAUER (EPP ED, DE) and Mr SPERONI (UEN, IT).

VII. Date and place of next meeting

Monday, 10 September 2007, 15.00 18.30, Brussels

Tuesday, 11 September 2007, 9.00 12.30, Brussels

__________________

For more information: Ms FEKETE (Tel. 7751)

ANNEX

Address by Ms Brigitte ZYPRIES, Federal Minister of Justice, President of the Council

before the JURI Committee of the European Parliament

Brussels, 26 June 2007

Dear Mr. Chairman Gargani,

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, Members of the European Parliament

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to present to you today my review of the

German Council Presidency in the field of justice.

I still retain vivid and fond memories of your Committee's visit to Berlin, as if it were only a short

time ago ­ and yet the six months of our Council Presidency are already coming to a conclusion.

I would like to once again call to mind that we set three goals for 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.

The second priority ­ increasing legal certainty ­ was the goal most pertinent to the work of your

Committee.

"More and more citizens and companies are taking advantage of the new freedoms in Europe and

becoming active beyond the borders of their own country." This observation was the point of

departure for our objective of enhancing legal certainty for citizens and businesses.

At the conclusion of the German Council Presidency, we can state in sum that we ­ the Council and

the European Parliament ­ have achieved substantial progress in the area of judicial cooperation in

civil matters. And this progress provides our citizens with numerous benefits ­ in particular, it

provides them with greater legal certainty. Key steps include:

· the successful conclusion of Conciliation Committee negotiations on the Rome II

Regulation;

· the agreement with regard to key elements of the Rome I Regulation;

· the agreement on guidelines for the Maintenance Regulation and the Rome III Regulation;

· the adoption of the Small Claims Regulation;

· the adoption of the revised Regulation on the service of judicial and extra-judicial

documents in civil and commercial matters;

· the accession of the European Community to the Hague Conference on Private International

Law;

· the agreement on the Consumer Credit Directive; and

· the Council adoption of the Directive on shareholder voting rights.

In April, the Council addressed the Rome I Regulation for the first time and already succeeded in

reaching agreement on part of the Regulation's central provisions. A package of mainly technical

provisions ­ comprising 15 provisions in total ­ was put to a vote and adopted unanimously.

In this package, we have specified that the principle of free choice of law by the affected parties

will be retained. In addition, in cases where a choice of law has not been exercised, a checklist will

now be used to determine which law shall apply to disputes regarding contractual obligations.

For persons who apply the law, this arrangement is decidedly easier to manage and therefore

promotes legal certainty and legal clarity.

The Rome II Regulation, which is designed to clarify the law applicable to non-contractual

obligations, is well-known to all of us here in this Committee. Vice President Wallis has been

actively engaged in support of this dossier, and I would once again like to express my sincere

thanks for her efforts.

Together with you, we completed this dossier during the German Presidency, and the formal steps

will follow shortly. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the constructive nature and

pleasant atmosphere of the Conciliation Committee talks on 15 May ­ after all, these were the first

Conciliation Committee proceedings in the justice field.

I am convinced that we achieved a well-balanced compromise. All participants agreed on this issue:

We wanted Rome II to take effect, and we wanted this to occur as soon as possible.

Now all that remains is for the Conciliation Committee's conclusions to be formally adopted by the

Council and the European Parliament. To the best of my knowledge, this can take place before the

summer break.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please allow me to briefly discuss two family law dossiers for which your Committee is not directly

responsible, but for which it does have the competence to provide opinions: the Rome III

Regulation and the Maintenance Regulation.

At the very outset of our Council Presidency, the future of judicial cooperation in the fields of

family and succession law was the central topic at the informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs

Ministers, which was held in Dresden in January. At that meeting, we staked out the policy

framework for family law initiatives which are currently being negotiated in the Council or which

will be negotiated in the future.

As a result, at the JHA Council on 12 April 2007, we were able to hold intensive discussions on

guidelines for the Rome III Regulation that will help steer further negotiations at the expert level.

For example, a choice of court agreement will be permitted for divorces with an international

dimension. In addition, the vast majority of Member States favour a choice of law option as well as

clear guidelines in cases where a choice of law is not exercised.

The April JHA Council also succeeded in reaching agreement on various key elements of the

Maintenance Regulation. For example, the Member States agreed that the exequatur procedure

will be eliminated for matters relating to maintenance.

Therefore, in the future all maintenance decisions by Member State courts will be enforceable,

without any intermediate measures, in all other Member States with the exception of Denmark.

In my view, it is also significant that we reached a political agreement on the Consumer Credit

Directive, for which your Committee is also competent to provide an opinion.

At the Competitiveness Council on 21 May 2007, I was able to confirm the political agreement on

this dossier, which has been on the table since 2001. I can assure you that this was a hard-fought

success. Nevertheless, we are certain that the outcome represents a balanced compromise.

Subject to the approval of the European Parliament, the Directive will provide for EU-wide

provisions that include a uniform right of withdrawal; criteria for a uniform method of calculating

the annual percentage rate of charge; basic rules on the early repayment penalty incurred by

consumers who repay their credit earlier than initially agreed; and the harmonisation of pre-

contractual information in the form of a standardised information sheet. These developments will

bring advantages not only to consumers but also to credit providers.

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.

Equally as important as the question of the applicable law is the question: How do I effectively

assert my rights when a court has rendered a decision?

As of 1 January 2009, it will be much easier to assert cross-border contested claims with a value of

up to 2000 euros. The formal adoption of the Small Claims Regulation at the June Council also

constitutes an important contribution to greater legal certainty in the EU. I would also like to

express my sincere thanks to you, Professor Mayer, for your cooperation in this matter.

I would also like to say a few words about the Directive on shareholder voting rights. The June

Council adopted, at first reading, the draft Directive on the exercise of certain rights of shareholders

in listed companies. We ­ the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council ­ have

succeeded together in ensuring that shareholders can effectively exercise their rights across borders.

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. Our Presidency

programme originally included deliberations on the so-called 14th company law Directive on the

cross-border transfer of registered offices. Unfortunately, contrary to plans that were expressed to

us, the Commission has not yet submitted its proposal.

We would welcome this proposal, just as we would welcome proposals to introduce a European

private company.

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.

On 4 April, the Commission issued a Communication on enhancing the patent system in Europe. As

a follow-up, the German Council Presidency held expert-level discussions on the central questions

raised by the Communication concerning future patent policy in Europe and submitted a progress

report. In late March, we organised a patent law conference in Berlin entitled "Patents in Europe ­

protection, exploitation and enforcement". This conference provided a valuable contribution to

subsequent deliberations in the competent Council working group. These deliberations focused on

the creation of a unified patent jurisdiction. Our progress report lays the foundation for future work

at the expert level. It specifies the questions relating to European law that must be clarified for

purposes of creating cross-border patent jurisdiction and identifies key structural and procedural

elements such as a system of regional divisions, the allocation of competences and the involvement

of technically qualified judges.

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. Upon the

recommendation of the German Council Presidency, the April Council for the first time formally

addressed the issue of creating a European contract law. The justice ministers agreed to develop a

unified position on the Commission's initiative to establish a "common frame of reference for

European contract law". The common frame of reference for European contract law is meant to

enhance the coherence and quality of Community private law ­ a goal which the German Council

Presidency emphatically supports and which was the focus of a European conference in early

March. The plan is to formulate this position by the end of 2009, during the term of the Barroso

Commission.

The purpose and exact details of the common frame of reference remain unclear, and there are

vastly different ideas as to what these should be. These ideas range from a conception of the

common frame of reference as merely an aid for European legislators to the view that it should

th

serve as a sort of 28 contract law regime, i.e. a so-called "optional instrument". While an aid to legislators would probably be limited to general principles, definitions and possibly some model

rules, an "optional instrument" would necessarily contain much more detailed rules. The Council

will now formulate clear-cut positions on these issues, once the corresponding preliminary work has

been conducted by the competent Council working group.

As a parallel measure to efforts on the common frame of reference for European contract law, the

review of the consumer acquis will help to eliminate internal contradictions in Community law.

Finally, I would like to provide a brief review of initiatives that are of particular importance to me

in the areas of strengthening citizens' rights and strengthening practical judicial cooperation. For

some of these initiatives, your Committee is competent to provide opinions.

The first that comes to mind is the Framework Decision on certain minimum rights in criminal

proceedings. I had hoped for a different outcome in this matter. A total of 21 Member States are

convinced that, throughout the European Union, there should be national minimum standards for

certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings. However, our deliberations in April and June

demonstrated that the unanimity necessary for adopting the Framework Decision or a compromise

version was not to be achieved.

Six Member States were prepared to make only concessions that have no effect on their national

criminal procedure law, which in turn was unacceptable to the aforementioned 21 Member States in

favour of the Framework Decision.

However, at its June summit the European Council expressed its wish that the work on procedural

rights in criminal proceedings be resumed as quickly as possible, in order to contribute to increasing

confidence in the legal systems of other Member States and thereby to facilitate the mutual

recognition of judicial decisions.

I am quite proud of the fact that, after lengthy deliberations, we were successful in finalising the

Framework Decision on combating racism and xenophobia in April under the German

Presidency. The final substantive reservation was resolved on 8 June. The Framework Decision

aims to achieve the approximation of criminal law provisions for the purpose of effectively

combating racism and xenophobia. It thus sends a clear signal that Europe is committed to fighting

intolerance. The heads of state and government reached the same conclusion at their summit in

June. Because the European Parliament was consulted on a version that differs considerably from

the one approved by the Council of Justice Ministers in April, the European Parliament will be

consulted again during the Portuguese Presidency.

During your January visit to Berlin, we gave you a short presentation on our project to network

criminal registers. In the meantime, we have taken a significant step forward in the field of e-

justice. The June Council reached agreement on key priorities for further action in this area, which

is so important to us as a component of improved practical cooperation. We have agreed to take

greater advantage of information and communication technologies to provide cross-border support

to the justice sector. No new centralised infrastructure should be created; rather, the future lies in

coordinating and networking among the individual Member States' systems, which will continue to

be operated in a decentralised manner. And over the long term, e-justice should be put to use not

only in the field of criminal law but in civil and administrative law as well. There will also be an e-

justice conference under the Portuguese Presidency, in order to continue pressing forward on this

important topic at the European level.

The first third of the new Trio Presidency, which we have closely coordinated from the outset with

our colleagues from Portugal and Slovenia, has nearly come to a conclusion.

I am certain that both subsequent Presidencies will continue to pursue our joint 18-month

programme. And I am confident that this will help us achieve even greater continuity and efficiency

in the work of the Council. Some of the projects that have made headway since January during the

German Presidency will be brought to completion by the summer of next year.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hope that my elaborations have provided you with an overview of what the

German Presidency has achieved during the past six months. And you have played a crucial role in

our success. Thank you very much for this dedicated and successful cooperation.

__________________

2.

Originele weergave

afbeelding document
 
 

3.

Meer informatie