51997AC0466

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision establishing an action programme to improve awareness of Community law for the legal professions (Robert Schuman Project)` () (97/C 206/13)

On 13 February 1997 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 100a of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 10 April 1997. The rapporteur was Mr Cavaleiro Brandão.

At its 345th plenary session (meeting of 23 April 1997), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 123 vote to one, with six abstentions.

1. Introduction

1.1. The European Community is first and foremost a 'Community of law`. It is therefore vital that its legal provisions are accessible and familiar, and that they are applied in an effective and uniform manner.

1.2. The Sutherland report on the internal market after 1992 - meeting the challenge, submitted to the Commission in 1992, stressed that Community law must be understood and applied in the same way as national law.

1.3. Thirteen of the report's conclusions (numbers 18 to 30) concerned the need to remove doubts about Community law. The report also pointed out that many financial and human resources would be needed, and that 'more effort needs to be made to improve knowledge of Community law on the part of lawyers and judges in the Member States` (conclusion 24); this is a precondition both for proper implementation of Community law and for checks on that implementation.

1.4. The ESC opinion on the Sutherland report attached particular importance to the report's concern for the implementation of Community law.

1.5. The public will not have confidence in the EU integration process and be able to identify with it until they feel, amongst other things, that they can assert the rights and rules established by the EU to benefit and protect them. And they will never feel that they can assert these rights while they rightly feel that national judges and lawyers are still not properly at home with Community law - or in other words, until these judges and lawyers have been trained to apply Community law as a matter of course.

1.6. There is a widespread feeling that legal practitioners have not yet acquired a sufficient 'Community law culture`. And there is no guarantee that the national courts currently play their proper role in intra-EU legal relations and, in particular, in the relations generated by the single market.

1.7. The present opinion confines itself to the proposal. However, the Committee recognizes that the gravity of the problem in general - which concerns not only judges and lawyers but also other sectors of the legal profession - could justify broader and deeper consideration at some future time.

2. General comments

2.1. For the reasons mentioned above, the Robert Schuman project is particularly apposite, despite the modest funding envisaged. It seeks to make the 100 000 or so judges and 450 000 lawyers in the Community realize the importance of their role in ensuring the application of Community law, providing them with additional specific resources to help them play their role to the full.

2.2. The project is designed to encourage initiatives launched in the Member States. Temporary financial support may be given to training institutions for legal practitioners who participate directly in the work of the courts, with due respect for Article 127 of the EC Treaty which leaves responsibility for the content and organization of vocational training to the Member States.

2.3. The Commission states that a limited number of pilot projects were launched on an experimental basis in 1996. However, the results of these pilot projects are not yet available.

2.4. The proposed decision is based on Article 100a of the EC Treaty, on the grounds that the approximation of national legislation concerning the establishment and operation of the single market presupposes the effective, uniform and decentralized application of Community law.

2.5. The Committee supports the proposal.

3. Specific comments

3.1. The project solely concerns judges and lawyers, and excludes all other members of the legal profession.

As the Member States have different concepts of the term 'judge and lawyer`, each should use its own concept.

The Committee nevertheless stresses the considerable importance of legal practitioners within companies, organizations and associations as regards day-to-day experience and practical application of Community law. In this context, the Commission proposal already states that 'the possibility of extending the scope of the project could be envisaged in connection with the assessment and monitoring arrangements referred to in Article 9`. The Committee hopes that when the time comes, such an extension will indeed be considered.

Nonetheless, the Commission's justification for initially restricting the proposal to judges and lawyers is sound. Firstly, it is necessary to set clearly delimited objectives and concentrate the modest resources available in order to ensure the effectiveness of the scheme. Secondly, the real objective of the scheme is to improve the practical enforcement of Community law by the courts, and this depends on judges and lawyers, and only very indirectly on other legal practitioners.

3.2. Article 2 sets out the objectives of the planned support programme, which is designed to encourage training, information and accompanying initiatives that will improve awareness of Community law among judges and lawyers.

3.3. Article 4 lays down the conditions governing eligibility for support. The eligible candidates include institutions responsible for the initial training of future judges or lawyers.

This suggests that the scheme will also cover future judges and lawyers, although Article 1 specifically refers only to 'judges and lawyers`.

This point needs clarification as it is of more than secondary importance.

There are arguments both for and against the inclusion of 'future` judges and lawyers.

On the minus side, their inclusion would considerably extend the scope of the scheme and thus diminish its impact and effectiveness.

Furthermore, universities and other specialist institutions providing basic training for future judges and lawyers are generally already well aware of the objectives of the scheme, although it is hoped they will be provided with more effective means for pursuing these objectives.

Also, it is the older and more senior judges and lawyers who have proved less willing and able to assimilate Community law.

It might therefore be best to make them the priority target of the scheme.

3.4. Article 5 lists the project selection criteria; these include the inter-professional and cross-border dimension of measures as optional criteria.

The first of these optional criteria is of particular importance.

Indeed, the Committee would argue that priority should be accorded to measures which bring judges and lawyers together.

It would seem from past experience that difficulties in the relations between judges and lawyers might have aggravated the problems regarding full application of Community law.

Moreover, sociological studies in some Member States have concluded that difficulties in these relations are due to the quite separate character of the further training received by judges and lawyers respectively.

3.5. The Commission's proposed date of entry into force (1 January 1997) has already passed. It is unlikely that the scheme will enter into force before 1 January 1998.

Brussels, 23 April 1997.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee

Tom JENKINS

() OJ No C 378, 13. 12. 1996, p. 17.