Brussels, 26/01/2009 (Agence Europe) - On Friday 22 January in Toledo, European justice ministers attempted to chart a course for European legal cooperation over the next few months. Francisco Caamaño, the Spanish justice minister, explained that they had analysed the effects and consequences of the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, in an effort to ensure that its implementation is carried out in a coordinated fashion and without hindrance to legal or legislative structures. Francisco Caamaño is seeking to avoid any “paralysis” being created during treaty implementation. His Belgian counterpart, Stefaan De Clerck, indicated: “We will carry out an exploratory operation with the European Parliament, to see how we can make progress overall and launch new initiatives”. European Commissioner for Justice Jacques Barrot stated that “the new dynamic created by the treaty will enable us to move forward towards a single European legal system where national legal rules will coincide, to the advantage of EU citizens”. Innovations on criminal law in the treaty include the transition to qualified majority voting at the Council, co-decision power at the Parliament and the right of initiative shared between the Commission and at least a quarter of member states. One diplomat revealed that “during the debate, several ministers erred on the side of caution. They obviously did not get a feel for the goal contained in the treaty”. Others welcomed the fact that their country could rapidly launch initiatives. The latter also requested that the Commission carried out more assessments before launching proposals. The Commission and Parliament, nevertheless, pointed out that during the preparation of new legislation, what counted for the Commission was also valid for member states.
Ministers have also examined the possibility of developing greater coordination in civil and family law, in view of facilitating the adoption of Community standards on separation and divorce, wills and succession. In the context of the latter, when a person dies in a country that does not correspond to their nationality, Mr Barrot pointed out that the text proposed in October 2009 by the Commission did not affect material law. The commissioner also indicated that the Commission intended to submit a text in the second half of 2010 (under the Belgian Presidency) on systems governing marriage, in an effort to manage the consequences arising after the decease of one of the members of a couple. The Commission is also expected to present at the beginning of 2011 (under the Hungarian Presidency), a draft revision of the Brussels I Regulation involving legal competency, recognition and execution of decisions in the civil and commercial arena. Mr Barrot explained that the goal of this proposal is to simplify, indeed remove, the role of exequatur. He also said that the Commission intended to present a proposal to improve the 2001 framework decision on victims. Finally, he highlighted the fact that the Commission would now have the important responsibility of negotiating civil cooperation agreements with third countries and stated: “There will no longer be shared competency but the Commission will systematically consult experts from member states”.
The meeting agenda also included the Spanish proposal to protect victims throughout Europe (EUROPE 10051). This initiative, which already enjoys the support of 12 Union member states, would forbid, for example, a violent husband, subject to an injunction for marital violence by the legal authorities of one country, from approaching his wife in another country applying the same measure, should she decide to move. Francisco Caamaño pointed out that “several countries have civil legislation, others, like Spain, have criminal legal legislation. The important thing is to ensure that citizens can enjoy equivalent protection in other member states, irrespective of the criminal or civil legal authority that had made the decision”. Nonetheless, several countries believe that Spain is actually putting its head in the sand in this domain, just as member states due to apply this legislation are confronting huge difficulties. (B.C./transl.fl)