EULIS Conference 2009 European e-Justice – the story so far Ivo Thiemrodt European Commission

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 Shared responsibilities 5.Content sections 6.Look and feel 7.Outlook 8.COM co-financing

1. Institutional background May 2008 Commission: “Towards a European e-Justice strategy” November 2008 Council: “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)EJN –Member states’ pilot projects (e.g. Insolvency registers/NJR) –‘Third party’ initiatives (EBR/EULIS)EBREULIS 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 2009 Information Citizen Practitioner Judiciary Going to court Family matters Legal aid Costs of proceedings Financial claims Mediation Crime victims Law Legal professions Justice Forum Judicial Atlas Taking of evidence Videoconferencing Business Business registers Financial claims Land registers Law Insolvency registers Cooperation in civil matters Judicial training Insolvency registers EBR EULIS EPO Video conferencing Identity management 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 EU pages 27 x 22 x x 22 = 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 –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!