eulis conference 2009 european e-justice – the story so far ivo thiemrodt european commission...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 2© 2009 Unisys Corporation. All rights reserved.
Why European e-Justice?
1. Increase of cross-border relations within Europe
2. Consequently increase of transnational procedures
Eurobarometer:- in 2007 were 10 million people involved
in transnational procedures- 13 % of the population might be in the future
Why European e-Justice?
Basic ideas
• access to existing information
• easy and quick exchange of data
• justice applications
Page 4.
Agenda
1. Institutional background
2. Practical requirements
3. State of play 2009
4. Shared responsibilities
5. Content sections
6. Look and feel
7. Outlook
8. COMco-financing
1. Institutional background
• May 2008Commission: “Towards a European e-Justice strategy”
• November 2008Council: “European e-Justice Action Plan”
• December 2008: Resolution European Parliament
• February 2009: Terms of Reference for the e-Justice Portal
2. Practical requirements
• consider and take over fragmented work already done– Member states/COM websites (e.g. EJN)
– Member states’ pilot projects (e.g. Insolvency registers/NJR)
– ‘Third party’ initiatives (EBR/EULIS)
• cover European and Member States dimension
• accessible and useful to different target groups – citizens
– businesses
– legal practitioners
– judicial authorities
• evolution towards European interoperability – make existing information available
– exchange information in business processes (e.g. NJR)
– business applications (e.g. EPO)
• modular and decentralised approach 2009 – 2013
3. State of play 2009Information
Citizen
Practitioner
Judiciary
Going to courtFamily mattersLegal aidCosts of proceedingsFinancial claimsMediationCrime victims
LawLegal professionsJustice ForumJudicial AtlasTaking of evidenceVideoconferencing
Business
Business registersFinancial claimsLand registersLawInsolvency registers
Cooperation in civil mattersJudicial training
Insolvencyregisters
EBR
EULIS
EPO
Videoconferencing
Identitymanagement
CR disclosure
Applications
Page ownership depending on content
General ownership shared
Development by European Commission
Decisions by Member States (Council)
4. Shared responsibilities
5. Content sections (= taxonomy)
5. Content sections
.
5. Content sections (figures)
27 Members States
22 languages
16 chapters per Member State+ 106 EU pages
27 x 22 x 16+ 106 x 22= 11.836 pages (2010)
6. Look and feel
• typical EU website (= common principles)
• ‘contemporary’ design
• personalisation und ‘geo-picker’
• front office – mainly static content and links
• back office – content and link management
6. Look and feel
Examples:
- Homepage
- EU content page (geo-picker)
- Member State page
7. Outlook
• March 2009
– procured under a framework contract
– classical IT project (methodology/delay etc)
• December 2009 / 1st semester 2010
– Launch of the Portal
– content management system
• 2010-2013
– step by step integration of “active content”
– progressive implementation of e-Justice applications
– draft roadmap
8. COM co-financing
• e-Justice costly undertaking – demand for EU financing
• COM (JLS) so far by calls for proposals with e-Justice as a priority
• financing of solely national projects too (‘national projects aligned…’)
• COM (INFSO) pilot project on inter-operability in 2010 (value of € 7 million )
European e-Justice Portal
Thanks for your attention!