Brussels, 25/01/2011 (Agence Europe) - In Gödöllõ, at their informal meeting on Friday 21 January, justice ministers held two exchanges of views on the obstacles to citizens' rights and the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
On the former issue, they discussed the 25 proposals made by the European Commission in October last year, with most member states taking the opportunity of this debate to stress the rights of defendants in judicial proceedings, according to one source, and the need for victim protection within the EU. These are the oft-spoken about European protection orders, on which member states are impatiently awaiting the proposals promised by the Commission for 2011, which it is likely to table in May. This exchange of views did not move away from general issues, but an important point was raised by Germany, which asked for European citizens to be properly notified of their rights in a more proactive way, as many people are still not aware of them. The same goes for the European e-justice portal created by the Commission, the source continued. This got off to a good start, but it “should be more than just a receptacle for information - it should become properly interactive”.
On the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the discussions, in which no strong current was formed, focused mainly on the mechanisms needed to verify that the legislative procedure at the Council complies with the Charter, with some raising the possibility of a specific unit within the Council, and others preferring a mechanism to come under the aegis of the Commission or all of the institutions. With no preferences, the member states worked on the best way of arriving at “a joint method” to make sure that fundamental rights are properly protected. On this issue, furthermore, the Hungarian Presidency announced possible decisions at the forthcoming JHA Council of 24 and 25 February. The other issues discussed related to one of Hungary's priorities: the issue of cross-border wills. Whilst debating this issue, member states called for greater “progress”. (S.P./transl.fl)