Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Anfrage zur mündlichen Beantwortung an die Kommission über juristische Aus- und Fortbildung – Gerichtskoordinatoren von Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Luigi Berlinguer, Cecilia Wikström, Eva Lichtenberger, Francesco Enrico Speroni, Tadeusz Zwiefka im Namen des Rechtsausschusses (O-000186/2012 – B7-0112/2013) (2012/2864(RSP)).

  Tadeusz Zwiefka, autor. − Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowny Panie Komisarzu! To już kolejny – powtarzam kolejny, niestety – raz, kiedy członkowie Komisji Prawnej nawołują Komisję Europejską i państwa członkowskie do zwrócenia należytej uwagi na problem szkolenia kadr wymiaru sprawiedliwości w kontekście lepszej znajomości, a co za tym idzie lepszego stosowania unijnego prawa. Jest to podstawa sprawnego funkcjonowania wymiaru sprawiedliwości w całej Unii Europejskiej, a nasze argumenty powtarzamy już od wielu lat i są one dobrze znane. Znajomość prawa unijnego, systemów prawa poszczególnych państw członkowskich oraz specjalistyczne kursy językowe to przede wszystkim zapewnienie obywatelom Unii Europejskiej dostępu do sprawiedliwie przebiegających procesów.

Słusznie podkreśla proponowana przez nas rezolucja, że sąd i sędzia krajowy to sąd i sędzia unijny, a prawo krajowe to już w zdecydowanej większości prawo unijne. Opieszałość w tym obszarze może tylko i wyłącznie odbijać się negatywnie na naszych obywatelach.

Bardzo prosiłbym zainteresowane strony o baczne przyjrzenie się naszym postulatom, utworzenie instytucji koordynatora sądowego ds. prawa unijnego. Sugerowałbym także lepsze wykorzystanie możliwości, jakie daje nam współczesna technologia komunikowania się i wymiany praktyk oraz doświadczeń między pracownikami wymiaru sprawiedliwości różnych sądów czy udostępnianie poprzez internet wiedzy prawniczej. Oszczędzi to zarówno czas, jak i koszty.

Chciałbym też zwrócić uwagę po raz kolejny na niezwykle ważny aspekt: dobrych unijnych sędziów, praktyków prawa, będziemy mieli wówczas, kiedy zadbamy o właściwe ich przygotowanie już na pierwszym etapie szkolenia, czyli na uniwersyteckich studiach prawniczych, gdzie powinni się uczyć prawa krajowego, wspólnotowego, ale także języków obcych i kontaktów z innymi, by potem móc stosować te umiejętności w praktyce.

  Evelyn Regner, author. − Mr President, Luigi Berlinguer from the Socialist Group is the co-author of this report. He is the heart and the engine of the whole topic and is extremely enthusiastic about it. Therefore I would like to thank him.

The creation of a true and effective area of freedom and justice in Europe cannot be completed without the introduction of a deep judicial culture based on mutual trust within the different national systems. There has been a fundamental change in Parliament’s approach towards judicial training in this legislature. This is also due to Parliament’s strong and forward-looking position and, in particular, to the reflections hosted by the Committee on Legal Affairs in this House.

The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty and the objectives set down in the Stockholm Programme have paved the way for a substantial increase in the level of European Union activity in the field of judicial cooperation. The Stockholm Programme outlines in particular the importance of strengthening the establishment of a truly European judicial culture which fully respects the principles of subsidiarity and judicial independence. This is also one of the top priorities for policy in the area of freedom, security and justice and therefore for Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs. This is a top priority of the Socialist Group in the area of freedom, security and justice.

Over the coming years, Member States will in fact be called upon to implement existing legislative and non-legislative instruments in this field, as well as to participate in the adoption of new instruments. However, this increased law-making activity must proceed in parallel with a harmonious and effective practical application of these tools. In this respect, the role of the members of the judiciary and judicial staff becomes crucial.

European judicial training should therefore take a new shape and dimension. The idea behind this, which Parliament has tried to promote during the last two years with its numerous resolutions, is to promote a bottom-up approach. This will involve Member States’ national associations of legal professionals, such as lawyers, judges and universities, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. We therefore welcome the experience in the Netherlands with Eurinfra and its network of court coordinators for European law, which has been emulated by other Member States, in particular Italy, with its European Gaius Project, Denmark, Romania and Bulgaria.

Those experiences are designed around three pillars: improving the accessibility of European law information resources using web technology, improving knowledge of European law among the judiciary, and establishing and maintaining a network of court coordinators for European law. There is no excuse today for ignorance of European law. National judges are, and must be, European judges, called upon to play a fundamental role in a situation in which we will need more Europe.

This does not preclude fostering a European judicial culture in which diversity is celebrated as a common good. We should promote the idea of national court coordinators with European law and their interconnection at European level. In particular the main function of an interconnected network of court coordinators would be to enable judges to readily confer on their day-to-day work with their counterparts in other Member States on matters such as the interpretation of the applicable European law in a secure, digital environment. These circles of coherence would make for greater uniformity in the application of European Union law, while reducing the number of references for preliminary rulings, without detracting from the role of the Court of Justice.

In developing such search engines for searching judgments, opinions and European Union law in general, Member States should consider whether this technology might not benefit the judiciary in other Member States as well, in which case technology can be pooled, coordinated and developed in common.

Finally I would just like to thank Mr Zwiefka for his good cooperation and also for the support in the group in the Committee on Legal Affairs.

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, the European legal culture is made up of a diversity of legal systems that are progressively brought closer to each other. Europe’s legal diversity is a source of strength. Article 67 of the Treaty makes it clear that respect for the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States underpins the Union’s area of justice.

Through more cooperation between legal practitioners in the different Member States, exchanges of experience and judicial training, we can promote the rule of law and strengthen the mutual trust between these different legal systems. We can indeed bring these different legal cultures together without eliminating the differences. European judicial training is a crucial tool to achieve that goal. Legal practitioners must have a good knowledge of EU law. They must have trust in the different national judicial systems in order to apply European law correctly all over the European Union. As the EU’s legal order interacts with diverse national legal traditions and systems often built upon continual layers of history, this requires first of all well-informed and well-trained legal practitioners.

In September 2011, the Commission set out its objective to enable half of the legal practitioners in the European Union to participate in European judicial training activities by 2020. This involves the use of all available resources at local, national and European level. Since 2011 the Commission has been taking action with national authorities and with the support of the European networks such as the European Judicial Training Network, the European Law Academy and the European Law Institute. The Commission values the fact that Parliament shares the Commission’s vision and ambition on this subject.

As regards the specific questions I would like to highlight the following. First, regarding the length of time taken to award contracts. There have not been any unusual delays in the implementation of the pilot project. The pilot project was published on time, applicants were given the usual deadlines and three out of the four contracts are in the process of being signed this month.

As regards the second question on how account is taken of the Conference of Coordinators of European Law, representatives of the Commission were present at the Conference in The Hague last September. We welcomed the debate on having EU law court coordinators within the national court structure. However, we need to keep in mind that organisation of the judiciaries is a matter for Member States alone. We should also avoid duplication of tasks with the established European judicial networks in civil and commercial as well as in criminal matters.

Regarding the third question about investment in modern tools, the Commission continues to develop the European e-Justice Portal to give citizens and legal practitioners access to information. The judicial training section of the portal is being developed. It will serve as a single entry point for trainers and legal practitioners looking for training content. The first training content will be available online in a matter of weeks.

The Commission is also willing to support financially the development of high quality e-learning. The development of two training models on EU cross-border family law including e-learning courses has been tendered as part of a pilot project in 2012. E-learning courses may be helpful in certain areas but they cannot replace personal contacts between legal practitioners from different jurisdictions. Personal contact is necessary to build mutual trust and to exchange ideas.

Furthermore, e-learning tools are only one possible way of addressing the time restrictions preventing legal professionals from participating more often in exchanges and specific training. However, time restrictions would have less impact if continuous training were to be duly taken into account by the Member States when calculating the workload of judges and prosecutors.

Regarding the fourth question on broadening the scope, the Commission communication of September 2011 makes it clear that it intends to target training activities at all legal practitioners. This includes judges, prosecutors, court staff, lawyers and other legal professions. The Commission also supports future knowledge partnerships between universities, judicial schools and bar associations to develop innovative training solutions. However, the EU has no competence to regulate the curriculum and teaching of law at European universities.

  Erminia Mazzoni, a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa interrogazione trova la sua origine anche in un'iniziativa che ho avuto l'onore di promuovere insieme all'on. Berlinguer. Era l'iniziativa di un progetto pilota presentato nel 2011 e poi introitato al bilancio del 2012. Un progetto pilota sulla formazione giudiziaria europea che ha trovato l'accoglimento del Parlamento e della Commissione e che quindi ha seguito le fasi che poi il Commissario oggi ci ha raccontato.

In quel progetto c'era come elemento di novità, del quale vado fiera, il tentativo di trasformare e di introdurre il concetto di formazione giuridica, andando oltre l'impostazione di Leaken della formazione giudiziaria dedicata ai soli magistrati, per incominciare a parlare della categoria delle professioni giuridiche – quindi avvocati, magistrati, pubblici ministeri – insieme espressione di una filiera istituzionale del diritto che deve rimanere unita.

L'intenzione, quando abbiamo presentato quel progetto pilota, era di dare un avvio all'implementazione dello spazio comune di libertà, giustizia e sicurezza, che abbiamo interpretato, cercando di rimanere coerenti in quella nostra iniziativa, con gli obiettivi del Protocollo di Stoccolma. Abbiamo appunto immaginato che, se non si avviava un percorso formativo che superasse le distanze e le differenze tra i paesi, ma in maniera non invadente e non invasiva in modo da non toccare – come ha ricordato il Commissario – l'autonomia e la sovranità nazionale in questo settore, noi non avremmo dato un contributo reale a soddisfare le esigenze di un'implementazione della costruzione europea.

Oggi una sollecitazione, non solo perché credo che i tempi siano importanti in assoluto, ma anche perché in un momento di debolezza dell'Unione europea la garanzia dei diritti che solo la fiducia reciproca e l'uniformità …

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)

  Cecilia Wikström, för ALDE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Jag är en person som tror att de utmaningar vi står inför i Europa bara kan lösas på område efter område, genom att vi arbetar så mycket vi kan för att lära oss mer om varandra och öka förståelsen för varandra och på det sättet, när det gäller det juridiska området, lära oss förstå och bygga en gemensam rättskultur.

Jag är också övertygad om att vi måste se till att ha en välfungerande europeisk lagstiftningsprocess – ett maskineri om man så vill – om vi vill nå framgång på lång sikt. Jag tror att stärkt rättslig utbildning är ett ämne som sällan eller aldrig får utrymme i stats- och regeringschefernas högtidstal, men det är ett väldigt konkret och praktiskt område där vi med små insatser kan åstadkomma stora resultat för att stärka sammanhållningen och förståelsen för de olika rättsliga traditionerna på vår kontinent och i förlängningen få en fördjupad förståelse för de olika lagar som vi också fattar beslut om i denna kammare.

Jag, och hela den liberala gruppen med mig, är övertygad om att satsningar på rättslig utbildning av hög kvalitet skulle kunna fungera som olja i ett beslutsmaskineri som i dessa dagar tyvärr allt oftare skär sig och präglas av brist på tillit, stor osäkerhet och misstro mot varandra. För att råda bot mot detta behöver vi öka förståelsen. Jean Monnet sade en gång att den Europeiska unionen inte har kommit till för att föra samman nationer utan för att föra samman människor.

Jag tror personligen att utbildningen för Europas jurister från alla medlemsländer är ett lysande exempel på hur vi gestaltar detta i vår tid.

  Eva Lichtenberger, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Aus- und Weiterbildung von Richtern und von Anwendern von Rechtsnormen ist heute leider noch immer viel zu sehr national fokussiert. Dazu kommt, dass fast jede nationale Gruppe der Ansicht ist, dass ausschließlich ihr Rechtssystem das beste aller denkbaren ist. Dabei könnten wir so viel voneinander lernen und dabei Vertrauen aufbauen. Auch wenn es um die Anwendung europäischen Rechts und um die unterschiedliche Auslegung geht.

Es gibt eine klare Erfordernis, weil grenzüberschreitende Problemstellungen ständig zunehmen und weil die Uniformität der Rechtsanwendung natürlich auch ein Anspruch von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern ist. Das erfordert Fortbildung, hochprofessionell organisiert. Dazu gehören die Rechtskoordinatoren, und dazu gehören auch elektronische Hilfsmittel, die in einer sicheren Umgebung entwickelt werden müssen. Die Auslegung geltenden Europarechts in verschiedenen Mitgliedstaaten wird zentral, auch für die Umsetzung. Dazu braucht es aber auch nicht nur Plattformen, nicht nur elektronische Hilfsmittel, sondern auch Begegnungen.

Wir merken heute, dass immer weniger Menschen im öffentlichen Dienst auf Fortbildungen geschickt werden, denn im Zuge der Finanzkrise wird das als Allererstes eingespart. Aber hier wird ganz klar am falschen Platz gespart. Bürgerinnen und Bürger haben einen Anspruch auf gute Rechtsanwendung.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – Pentru definitivarea spațiului de libertate, securitate și justiție, ar trebui stabilite norme comune de pregătire și instruire a celor care își desfășoară activitatea în instanțe. De asemenea, persoanele care profesează dreptul în statele membre ar trebui să aibă un set minim de cunoștințe de legislație europeană. Includerea dreptului european între materiile obligatorii care se studiază în facultățile de drept poate fi o soluție. De aceea, consider și eu că implementarea proiectului-pilot propus de Parlamentul European trebuie să aibă loc cât mai repede.

Astfel, s-ar putea realiza o coordonare între pregătirea oferită de școlile de formare judiciară din statele membre. În contextul reformei justiției din România, și magistrații din țara mea ar putea beneficia de un astfel de schimb de experiență. Astfel, s-ar putea continua îmbunătățirea activității instanțelor și reduce durata procedurilor judiciare.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - V otvorenom európskom priestore, kde garantujeme voľný pohyb občanov a jednotný trhový priestor, musíme počítať aj s tým, že tak v oblasti občianskych vzťahov, ako aj v obchodných veciach bude dochádzať k rôznym nedorozumeniam a sporom. Naše členské krajiny majú rôznorodé právne systémy historicky založené na rozdielnych tradíciách. Pre spravodlivé efektívne riešenie cezhraničných sporov v štruktúre rozdielnych právnych systémov zastrešených spoločným právom Únie je potrebné vytvoriť podmienky pre našich sudcov, aby si mohli rozšíriť svoje odborné spôsobilosti tak, aby sa vedeli efektívnejšie vysporiadať s rozhodovaním zložitých sporov, pri ktorých sa prelínajú pravidlá z viacerých právnych systémov. Nástrojom, ktorý mal napomôcť rozšírenie prístupu k odbornej príprave k právam Európskej únie v rámci systému súdnictva členských štátov, bol pilotný projekt, ktorý mal prebiehať od roku 2012. Preto Komisii pripomíname, že je naším spoločným záujmom, aby sme v tejto príprave sudcov čo najvýraznejšie pokročili.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Algirdas Šemeta, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, European Union law permeates a wide number and diverse range of activities at national level. Its impact on the daily life of citizens and businesses is high, as Union law creates rights and obligations which national courts must safeguard. And European law is not static, but results from a dynamic and open process of lawmaking and legal interpretation. This means that every national lawyer and every national judge must also be a European law expert. They must be capable of interpreting and effectively enforcing EU law alongside their own domestic law, and in the Union’s decentralised legal system national judges must become true Union law judges to be able to comply with their responsibilities.

The national judge has therefore become the frontline judge of European Union law, and legal practitioners and authorities will be called upon increasingly in the European area of justice to understand and apply decisions made in other Member States. They will also be called upon to live up to common minimum standards so that authorities in other countries will be able to trust those decisions. Meeting these challenges requires, first of all, well-informed and well-trained legal practitioners.

The Commission also agrees that judicial training needs to be complemented by other means, such as easy access to judicial decisions. Networks of court coordinators on EU law could contribute to this aim. However, they need to complement existing judicial networks in order to avoid duplications.

The Commission will, in close cooperation with Parliament, continue working on the tracks laid down in the Communication of September 2011 to meet the objective of enabling half of the legal practitioners in the European Union to participate in European judicial training activities by 2020. This will be achieved through the use of all available resources at local, national and European level. The Commission thanks Parliament and appreciates its steadfast support on matters of judicial training.

  Der Präsident. − Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurde gemäß Artikel 115 Absatz 5 der Geschäftsordnung ein Entschließungsantrag⁽¹⁾ eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2013, um 12.00 Uhr statt.

Zwischendurch für alle, die es interessieren könnte: Es steht 0:0 beim Spiel Frankreich gegen Deutschland.