EU Family Law Update – June 2009
The Brussels Office Law Reform Update Series: EU Family Law and Wills and Succession Matters
June 2009
Reproduction is authorised, provided the Law Societies’ Joint Brussels Office is acknowledged.
Contents
I. WHAT’S NEW
II. INTRODUCTION
III. IN FORCE
1. Regulation on Maintenance Obligations
IV. IN PROGRESS
1. Stockholme Programme
2. Divorce
3. Wills and Succession
4. Matrimonial Property Regimes
5. Rights of the Child
6. Conclusion of Bilateral Agreements
7. European Authentic Act and Legalisation of Documents
8. Sexual Exploitation of Children
9. Human Trafficking
10. Protection of Vulnerable Adults
* Please note that changes made to the text since the last edition are in bold italics.
The Law Societies’ Joint Brussels Office
85 Avenue de Nerviens
B-1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel : (+32) 2 743 85 85
Fax : (+32) 2 743 85 86
Susan Clements, Justice and Home Affairs Policy Advisor
Susan.Clements@lawsociety.org.uk
Michael Torrance, Trainee Solicitor
Michael.Torrance@lawsociety.org.uk
| In force | ||||
| Regulation on Maintenance Obligations | Regulation 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and co-operation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.
Related: Commission proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion by the EC of the Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations 23 February 2009. |
Published in Official Journal on 10 January 2009 and will generally apply from 18 June 2011, subject to the Hague Protocol being applicable in the Community by that date. Its provision on continuation of legal aid (Article 47(3)) applies from 18 September 2010. UK opt-in published in Official Journal on 12 June 2009 and Regulation will apply in the UK from 18 June 2009. Denmark is not taking part. | LSEW responded to the original Green Paper and commented on the draft Regulation.
LSEW was represented at the European Parliament hearing on 11 September 2007. |
|
| In progress | ||||
| Stockholm Programme | Communication on the Stockholm Programme in the area of freedom, security and justice 10 June 2009. | European Commission evaluation of its action in the area since 2005 10 June 2009. Results of Commission consultation on defining programme priorities 19 January 2009. | LSEW set out its position on the Future EU Justice and Home Affairs Programme in October 2008.
LSEW and LSS response to Commission consultation on defining the priorities for the Programme which closed on 4 December 2009. |
|
| Divorce | Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (Rome III) 17 July 2006. | Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed that unanimity needed to adopt could not be obtained 5 and 6 June 2008. Parliament approved draft Regulation subject to amendments on 21 October 2008. On 28 May 2009 it was reported that the Commission would not pursue enhanced cooperation. On 4 June 2009 it was reported that it would instead propose a “28th regime.” Commission proposal 10 June 2009 on Stockholm Programme removed reference to “28th regime”. | LSEW represented at public hearing.
EU Family Law Working Group submitted response to Green Paper and to DCA in response to domestic consultation and to House of Lords inquiry. |
|
| Wills and Succession | Green paper on wills and succession 1 March 2005 launching public consultation. | European Parliament Report adopted in plenary 16 November 2006. Information on e-Justice Europe – Testaments Programme 2009. A proposal for a Regulation on the applicable law, jurisdiction, recognition of decisions and administrative measures in the area of successions and wills due to be published 6 April 2009 postponed. Proposal now expected in late Autumn 2009, after second Irish referendum on Lisbon Treaty. | LSEW submitted joint response to Green paper with the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, and a member of this working group representing UK’s position at public hearing in the European Parliament. LSS submitted response to Green paper.
LSEW represented on Commission expert group. LSEW successfully lobbied for a public hearing which took place in the House of |
|
I. WHAT’S NEW
• On 15 July the Council of Europe Group of Specialists consultation requesting examples of good national practices in child-friendly justice closes.
• On 23 June Sweden which will take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union from the Czech Republic from 1 July until 31 December 2009, published its work programme.
• On 19 June the European Council formally gave a series of guarantees to Ireland in advance of its referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
• On 12 June the UK opt-in to the maintenance regulation was formally published. The regulation generally applies from 18 June 2011.
• On 10 June the European Commission made proposals for the Future EU Justice and Home Affairs Programme 2010-2014 and also evaluated the Hague Programme 2005-2009.
• On 5 June the Council reached political agreement on a regulation on the conclusion of bilateral agreements.
• On 5 June the Council identified a number of outstanding issues regarding the proposed legislation on sexual abuse and trafficking.
• On 5 June the Council held an exchange of views on tackling international child abductions.
• On 4 June the Council agreed conclusions aimed at the international protection of children, including the better use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) database for the purpose of searching for missing children.
• On 4 June the Council adopted conclusions on establishing an informal EU network of national rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms on human trafficking.
• On the 2 to 3 June the Council of Europe held a children’s rights meeting with various stakeholders.
• On 14 May the UK Parliament Home Affairs Committee published its report on The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK including a number of recommendations.
• In April a compilation of texts relating to child-friendly justice was made available on the Council of Europe Child-Friendly Justice portal.
II. INTRODUCTION
Family
Creating a genuine area of freedom, security and justice, where decisions taken in one Member State are recognised and enforced throughout the European Union is one of the main aims of the EU today. Those working on EU-level family law proposals claim that the “free circulation” of decisions is particularly important in the family law area, since family ties are formed increasingly between nationals or residents of different Member States. In such cases it is important to have clear rules on jurisdiction and applicable law in questions of divorce and parental responsibility and to establish common effective rules for the recognition and enforcement of decisions within the EU. EU-level rules are designed to limit forum shopping.
Wills and Succession matters
Work is ongoing at European level in order to address problems relating to the great diversity of rules on succession throughout the EU. It is understood that the majority of cross border successions are settled in a non contentious manner. However, where a dispute does arise, the difficulty remains in the disparity between procedural and substantive rules and conflict of law rules which exist in different Member States. The aim is to look at matters of conflict of law rules on jurisdiction and applicable law, mutual recognition and enforcement and a possible European register of wills.
UK Government position
The United Kingdom has a right to choose whether to be bound by European legislation in the field of civil justice and family law, issues that fall under Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (“TEC”).
Treaty of Lisbon
Article 81 of the Treaty of Lisbon agreed on 13 December 2007 would govern judicial cooperation in civil matters, including family law.1 Family matters will continue to be subject to unanimous agreement. Any plan to remove the national veto in relation to family law must be approved by Westminster and every other national parliament in the EU.
The Law Society of England and Wales has published a Guide to the Lisbon Treaty.2
The second Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon is expected in October 2009. If there is a yes vote, and the remaining Member States all ratify the Treaty in time, it would enter into force on 1 January 2010. In advance of the referendum, the European Council formally gave a series of guarantees to Ireland including in respect of Ireland’s constitutional provisions on the right to life, family and education on 19 June 2009.3
Swedish Presidency
Sweden is due to take over the Presidency of the Council of the European Union from the Czech Republic from 1 July 2009 until 31 December 2009 and has lauched its Presidency website.4 On 23 June 2009 the incoming Swedish Presidency published their work programme for the six-month period.5
Mediation
On 16 March 2009 international participants at the 7th European Conference on Family Law, organised by the Council of Europe, agreed on the need to take specific action to improve family mediation and tackle complex issues such as cross-border family law disputes and child abductions.6
Family mediation specialists called for a register of international family mediators and:
• Developing qualifications and training standards for family mediators;
• Considering direct and indirect mediation (telephone, web and videoconference);
• Extending a code of conduct for international mediators; and
• Considering different models of international mediation for cross-border cases.
III. IN FORCE
1. Regulation on Maintenance Obligations
Regulation: Regulation 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.7
Current Status: Published in Official Journal on 10 January 2009 and will generally apply from 18 June 2011, subject to the Hague Protocol being applicable in the Community by that date. Its provision on continuation of legal aid (Article 47(3)) applies from 18 September 2010. UK opt-in published in Official Journal on 12 June 2009 and Regulation will generally apply in the UK from 18 June 2011.8 Denmark is not taking part.9
Related: Commission proposal for a Council Decision on the conclusion by the European Community of the Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations 23 February 2009.10
Background
The intention of the Regulation is for decisions on maintenance obligations to be able to circulate freely between almost all Member States without any form of control on the substance in the Member State of enforcement. It abolishes exequatur between all Member States which apply harmonised conflict of laws rules. Maintenance creditors should be able to obtain an enforcement order that will be able to circulate freely throughout the European judicial area.
One of the key sticking points that had led to the United Kingdom’s initial decision not to originally opt-in to the Regulation was the question of applicable law. Under the compromise solution that the Regulation is based on, the rules on applicable law will be the rules of the Protocol to the Hague Convention, so only the Member States who ratify this Protocol will be subject to its applicable law rules. It abolishes exequatur so that the United Kingdom will not be able to apply it to maintenance decisions of other Member State parties to the Protocol. Other EU Member States will be able to apply exequatur to maintenance decisions of the United Kingdom. However, it limits the grounds for refusal of recognition.
On 23 February 2009, the Commission published its proposal on the conclusion by the European Community of the Protocol to the Hague Convention.
IV. IN PROGRESS
1. Stockholm Programme
Proposal: Communication on the Stockholm Programme in the area of freedom, security and justice 10 June 2009.11
Current Status: European Commission evaluation of its action in the area since 2005 10 June 2009.12 Law Society of England and Wales13 and Law Society of Scotland14 response to Commission consultation on defining the priorities for the Programme15 which closed on 4 December 2008. Results of consultation 19 January 2009.16
Stockholm Programme
On 10 June the European Commission announced its vision for European action for the next five years. It contains the following objectives:
• The extension of mutual recognition to succession and wills, matrimonial property rights and the property consequences of the separation of couples;
• The development of an “ambitious” EU strategy on the rights of the child. Children in particularly vulnerable situations will receive special attention, notably in the context of immigration policy and protecting children against the risk of sexual abuse;
• The introduction of minimum standards in relation to the recognition of decisions on parental responsibility, including those on custody rights;
• The removal of barriers to the recognition of legal acts in other Member States.
The European Commission proposal will be discussed by Council and Parliament with a view to the European Council adopting a programme for the next five years in December 2009 called the Stockholm Programme.
European Commission evaluation
On 10 June 2009, the European Commission also published an evaluation of its action in the area since 2005 as follows:
• An extended report on the evaluation of the Hague Programme.
• Implementation Scoreboard.
• General overview of instruments and deadlines provided in the Hague Programme and Action Plan in the fields of justice, freedom and security.
Background
The Law Societies have been active on the future programme.
The Law Society of England and Wales response to the Commission consultation asserts that it is premature to consider harmonisation of applicable law rules in the family law area. Differences in law and procedure between Member States are significant. However, the law of the forum has the advantage of pragmatism. The appropriateness of allowing parties to designate the applicable law depends on the process at hand. Permitting party autonomy and thus allowing a choice of law and of forum should be encouraged within the EU framework of freedom of movement.
It supports the removal of exequatur in the area of family law provided that common minimum standards in civil procedure do not impinge unnecessarily on domestic family law and procedure, common definitions are in very broad terms and maintenance obligations protect debtor’s rights.
It emphasises that recognition throughout the EU of civil partnerships and other non marital registered regimes is a very important issue that should be considered for both same sex and mixed sex couples.
It welcomes the recognition that it is important to assess the proper functioning of already existing instruments and where further legislative measures are necessary; and the exploration of cooperation mechanisms, including close cooperation between Central Authorities of Member States for example to facilitate the filing of lawsuits.
On creating a network of existing national databases for wills and testaments it asserts that any system of will registration requires national government support but a flexible system for internationally mobile testators is vital, whilst ensuring that it does not introduce unnecessary bureaucracy for testators without any cross border issues.
In the field of wills and succession it asserts that it is important to deal with applicable law first and jurisdiction and recognition afterwards. There are advantages in approximating conflict rules, limiting the law governing succession and the law of the forum to one jurisdiction. There should be: choice of law (and therefore of jurisdiction) of either nationality or habitual residence for the whole estate at the time of selection or death in a will or codicil not a separate document; clarity about which jurisdiction governs the assets of the deceased irrespective of whether the assets are moveable or immoveable; machinery to resolve disagreements; and a referral mechanism. Moreover, action should not trespass on legal traditions. Different systems should be protected and made available for those who chose to use them, whether, for example, usufructs or trusts. Protecting property rights against claims in rem is vital.
A European Certificate of Inheritance may well be unworkable for all Member States in the short run. Once issues of applicable law have been resolved, and the inevitable problems created by that harmonisation dealt with, then means of reducing the need for individual certificates of inheritance in each Member State can be addressed. In any event whilst a European Certificate of Inheritance could reduce need for involvement of the court where the property is situated a mechanism to refer matters to the court of the laws governing succession would be needed.
It asserts that thought should be given to the creation of a European lasting power of attorney in order to protect the elderly.
2. Divorce
Proposal: Proposal for a Regulation amending Regulation 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (Rome III) 17 July 2006.17
Current Status: Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed that unanimity needed to adopt could not be obtained 5 and 6 June 2008.18 Parliament approved draft Regulation subject to amendments on 21 October 2008.19 On 28 May 2009 it was reported that the Commission would not pursue enhanced cooperation. On 4 June 2009 it was reported that it would instead propose a “28th regime.” Commission proposal 10 June 2009 on Stockholm Programme removed reference to “28th regime”.
Background
On 17 July 2006 the European Commission published its proposal for a Regulation on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce matters. It was called Rome III because it follows the Rome I Convention of 1980,20 which deals with applicable law relating to contractual obligations, and Rome II,21 adopted on 11 July 2007, which deals with applicable law relating to non-contractual obligations. This was a key step towards the European Commission’s aim of establishing a common judicial area based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments in the EU.
Draft Regulation
The draft Regulation was presented as an amendment to the Brussels II bis Regulation (2001/2003)22 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility. The amendment would have introduced new jurisdictional rules in relation to party autonomy and, for the first time, would have included conflict of laws rules. The overall objective of the proposal was to provide a clear and comprehensive legal framework in matrimonial matters in the European Union.
Jurisdiction: In terms of jurisdiction the Regulation would have “updated” Brussels II by introducing a limited possibility for the spouses to designate by common agreement the competent court (new Article 3a). The proposal recognised that certain formal requirements need to be respected to ensure that both spouses are aware of the consequences of their choice. In particular, that the agreement must be expressed in writing and signed by both spouses by the time the court is seised at the latest. Where the parties have chosen jurisdiction, the court would have also had jurisdiction in relation to parental responsibility provided certain conditions, for example the best interests of the child, were fulfilled.
Applicable law: The draft Regulation would have introduced a new chapter into the Brussels IIbis Regulation and set out rules on harmonising the conflict of law rules to determine which law would cover the divorce proceedings.
It would have introduced the limited possibility for the spouses to choose the applicable law. The choice would have been confined to laws with which the spouses have a close connection by virtue of:
• their last common habitual residence if one of them still resides there;
• nationality of one of the spouses;
• law of state of previous habitual residence; or
• law of the forum.
Again, certain formal requirements would have been recognised as necessary to ensure that the spouses were aware of the consequences of their choice and to prevent abuse.
In the absence of choice by the parties, the draft Regulation set out a number of other criteria to determine the applicable law. This would have been done on the basis of a scale of connecting factors, based in the first place on the habitual residence of the spouses and also would have included the law of the nationality and the law of the place where the application was lodged.
The draft Regulation did not seek to harmonise provisions of domestic law but rather to provide uniform rules to determine which law would be applicable in an international case. However, the application of foreign law in domestic courts remained a controversial issue.
Latest state of play
The Slovenian Presidency had been determined to make some progress on the text. A number of options were on the table some months ago including the possibility of splitting the draft Regulation into two: one Regulation dealing with jurisdiction, which would essentially be a revised Brussels II bis with additional clauses on party autonomy and one Regulation dealing with applicable law. However, despite some discussion on this at the Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 5 to 6 June, EU Justice Ministers came to the decision that it would not be possible to make progress in this way or indeed to get the unanimous agreement needed to adopt the text as it stood. A declaration to that effect was set out in the Council Conclusions.
However, all was not necessarily lost as a reference was made to the fact that work could continue in this area amongst a group of Member States. This process is known as the enhanced co-operation procedure and means that a legislative instrument can be negotiated and adopted by a group of eight of more Member States. Any future agreement would in principle only affect the Member States that sign up to it.
On 28 July 2008, nine Member States, namely Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovenia and Spain, reportedly formally requested enhanced cooperation, requesting the Commission to legislate for a common standard for divorces between international couples on their territory. Bulgaria is also reportedly calling for enhanced cooperation. The Commission must now decide whether to submit an initiative to the Council on this.
Whilst the enhanced cooperation procedure suits Governments who are frustrated by the failure of their colleagues to reach agreement, there is concern that it will result in a patchwork of rights, powers and procedures which will be complicated for practitioners and their clients. Therefore, whilst the proposal was designed to minimise forum shopping and race to court, it may ultimately encourage it. At least some Member States doubt whether enhanced cooperation is appropriate in this case.
In the meantime, despite the failure to reach political agreement in Council on the draft Regulation, the European Parliament continued to consider the draft Regulation. Indeed, the Rapporteur asserted that even though the file has “collapsed” in the Council, it was still important for the European Parliament to vote on this issue for which a European law is needed.
On 21 October 2008 the European Parliament approved the draft Regulation subject to amendments. The amendments provide a definition of the term ‘habitual residence’ to mean a person’s place of ordinary abode in order to avoid arbitrary interpretations. In relation to choice of jurisdiction they introduce a new provision to govern situations in which the jurisdiction assigned has no provision for divorce or does not recognise the existence or validity of the marriage in question. In particular, that jurisdiction shall be granted to the Member State of which one of the spouses is a national or the Member State in which the marriage took place.
In relation to choice of applicable law they stipulate that where the law indicated pursuant to the Regulation does not recognise separation or divorce or does so in a form that is discriminatory as regards one of the spouses, the lex fori shall apply. They set out the choices that spouses have when designating by common agreement the law applicable in their divorce procedure. Namely: the law of the State in which the spouses have their habitual residence at the time when the agreement is concluded; the law of the State in which the marriage took place at the time when the agreement is concluded; the law of the State in which the spouses have had their habitual residence for a minimum period of three years. They also add that such law must be in conformity with fundamental rights and public policy.
Moreover, they emphasise that the choice of jurisdiction and applicable law must be an informed one. In particular, the choice should be without prejudice to the rights of, and equal opportunities for, the two spouses.
On 15 and 16 January 2009 an informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers was held in Prague, at which attempts were made at reaching agreement on the possibility of strengthening conflict-of-law rules that govern cross-border divorce proceedings. No consensus was reached. However, Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask asserted that: ‘We are one of the countries which, in the past, prevented a decision on the regulation on divorce. Nevertheless, we will not oppose the decision of other countries to cooperate in this area, should they wish to.’
As at 28 May 2009, it was reported that the Commission was expected to withhold its consent to an enhanced cooperation request from the 10 Member States. Instead the Commission is expected to present a revised proposal in late Autumn 2009, after the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty has been held in Ireland.
As at 4 June 2009, it was reported that the Commission proposal was expected to create a “28th regime”, which would allow couples to choose to marry under a European matrimonial arrangement instead of adhering to the different systems in place in each Member State. It was reported that this was expected to be an alternative to enhanced cooperation.
However, when the Commission proposal on the Stockholm Programme was adopted on 10 June 2009, the reference to the “28th regime” in relation to divorce was removed. However, it does make reference to the extension of mutual recognition to matrimonial property rights and the property consequences of the separation of couples.
3. Wills and Succession
Proposal: Green Paper on Wills and Succession 1 March 2005 launching public consultation.23
Current Status: European Parliament Report adopted in plenary 16 November 2006.24 The Law Society of England and Wales made submissions to the Ministry of Justice 3 September 2008 and held conference 1 December 2008. Information on e-Justice Europe – Testaments Programme 2009.25 A proposal for a Regulation on the applicable law, jurisdiction, recognition of decisions and administrative measures in the area of successions and wills due to be published 6 April 2009 postponed. Proposal now expected on 14 October 2009, after second Irish referendum on Lisbon Treaty has taken place.
Background
The European Commission Green Paper was published on 1 March 2005. The aim of the Green Paper was to gather information on the actual practical problems encountered in this field and to canvass opinion on possible solutions to be proposed at political and judicial level. The paper addressed both jurisdiction and applicable law because the Commission argued that most difficulties stem from divergence in substantive rules, procedural rules and conflict of laws rules in the Member States.
The scope of the paper, and therefore the future instrument, included:
• successions where the deceased has left no specific indication about how the estate should be distributed; and
• successions governed by a will.
This discussion, although addressing a particular specialist area, touches on broader issues of private international law and conflict of law rules. The Green Paper suggested that one instrument could be proposed to deal with jurisdiction and applicable law.
The clear divide between the continental and common law systems has become apparent as experts tackle the issue of how to deal with rules on forced heirship and other forms of protection for beneficiaries in a regime based on choice and testamentary freedom.
The Law Society of England and Wales made submissions to the Ministry of Justice on 3 September 2008 emphasising: a unified choice of law for all asset classes; affording citizens a degree of choice in relation to the governing law, including nomination at the time a will is made; minimising claw-back; and recognising trusts.
The European Commission has established an experts’ group. A number of UK delegates have been successfully nominated to the group, including those nominated by the Law Society of England and Wales, the Law Society of Scotland and the Bar Council.
The European Commission has commissioned an Impact Assessment Study on Community Instruments on Successions and Wills to provide it with information on the legal situation in the Member States and the nature and scale of current problems in the area of transnational successions and wills.
LSEW held a private client conference on 1 December 2008 in London to discuss developments in the area of wills and succession and matrimonial property. Representatives of the European Commission, Ministry of Justice and expert practitioners took part in the panel discussion.
There are a number of concerns for the United Kingdom on this matter and the United Kingdom Government can choose whether to opt-in to this proposal or not. One of the key issues relates to the question of “claw-back” in relation to lifetime gifts and assurances as to testamentary freedom.
e-Justice
On 28 October 2008 the Council Working Party on Legal Data Processing (e-Justice) was invited by the Presidency to hold a first exchange of views in order to put forward solutions at the beginning of 2010 for taking concrete measures in the area of wills and succession between 2011 and 2013.26
It notes as points for discussion first the “Europe-Testaments” programme, a 2009 study programme seeking to promote mutual recognition in the area of succession and wills, co-financed by the Commission and conducted by the European Network of Registers of Wills (ENRWA). The aim of this programme is to prepare 27 information sheets aimed at citizens with information on how to register and search for a will in each Member State of the EU; and a list of the legal, technical and organisational recommendations which should make it possible to develop a system for searching for testaments and last wills in all Member States.
Secondly, to reflect on the work already undertaken by the ENRWA, an interconnection of national wills registers which allows a notary dealing with a succession case involving several Member States to consult the wills register of another Member State via his national register. To date the Belgium and French wills registers have been interconnected, Romania should be fully interconnected by the end of 2009. ENRWA has also developed a system which allows non-computerised members of the association to consult computerised registers which are connected to the ENRW. This system was expected to be deployed in Bulgaria and Slovenia in 2009.
Current Status
At an informal meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers on 15 and 16 January 2009, the ministers reportedly believed that a balanced piece of legislation regulating the issues of jurisdiction, conflict-of law rules as well as the recognition and execution of decisions in succession proceedings may help bring about efficient enforcement of cross-border succession claims.
At a meeting of the Parliament Committee on Legal Affairs on 19 and 20 January 2009, an exchange of views took place with Jiří Pospíšil, the Czech Minister of Justice, on the priorities of the Czech Presidency. Mr Pospíšil asserted that a draft Regulation on succession and wills should simplify and speed up the settlement of estates in cross-border cases in the future. He asserted that the absence of any Community measure in the area of succession and wills is felt very strongly. He observed that a Eurostat (European Statistical Office) survey of November 2008 shows that in 2006, 1.7 million EU citizens changed the country of their usual residence. One half of them were under 34 years of age. The movement of persons is related to the movement of their possessions and the consequences may include succession proceedings with an international aspect.
He asserted that the main contribution of a new regulation should be the unification of jurisdiction rules and conflict-of-law rules determining the governing law, laying down mutual recognition of decisions and public deeds in inheritance matters and the introduction of the so-called European Certificate of Inheritance.
On 6 April 2009 the European Commission was expected to publish a proposal for a draft Regulation on the applicable law, jurisdiction, recognition of decisions and administrative measures in the area of successions and wills. However the publication of this draft legislative proposal has been delayed until after the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in Ireland which is due to take place in October 2009. The Commission is therefore expected to present the proposal on 14 October 2009.
4. Matrimonial Property Regimes
Proposal: Green paper on conflict of laws in matters concerning matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition 17 July 2006.27
Current Status: The Law Society of England and Wales responded to the Green Paper. The UK Government also responded. Commission established a stakeholder expert group. Law Society of England and Wales private client conference 1 December 2008. Commission proposal expected before end March 2010.
Background
On 17 July 2006, the Commission launched a consultation and Green Paper on the conflict of laws in matters concerning regimes on the property of married and unmarried couples, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition. The aim was to launch a preliminary discussion on future legislation to enable a court in one Member State to recognise and enforce a judgment relating to the distribution of assets upon divorce issued in another.
The Green Paper had been preceded by a report published in 2003. The European Commission commissioned a study from the Consortium TMC Asser Instituut voor International Recht-UCL Département de Droit International de la Faculté de Droit. The Green Paper was based on many of the findings in this study ”Etude sur les régimes matrimoniaux des couples mariés et sur le patrimoine des couples non mariés dans le Droit International Privé et le Droit interne des Etats membres de l’Union européenne.”28
The argument is that the increasing mobility of citizens within the European Union has resulted in an increasing number of “international” married and unmarried couples whose members are of different nationalities or live in a Member State of which they are not nationals. The absence of Community rules on applicable law to the property rights of married and unmarried couples, such as the lack of a system of mutual recognition of patrimonial rights linked to these relationships, may lead to many practical problems. Given that the Regulation Brussels II bis does not cover the property aspects of separation, divorce and marriage annulment, the current situation may lead to results that do not correspond to the legitimate expectations of citizens in terms of legal certainty.
The then UK Government Department of Constitutional Affairs submitted a response to the Green Paper which questions the need for the Commission to act in this area and asserts that there is no evidence of real problems with the current arrangements for the enforcement of matrimonial orders. The UK also asserts that the Commission’s proposals will not be workable in common law countries and urges the Commission to consider non-legislative solutions to the issue.
It makes three substantive points to the Commission at the conclusion of its response, which are that the Commission should prepare:
• a full qualitative and quantitative assessment of the problems the Commission is seeking to address;
• a careful examination of the legislative background in all Member States; and
• a wide-ranging review of the options for action, including non-legislative solutions, to address the defined problem, which are proportionate and respect the different traditions of law and society in Member States.
Progress
Following the Commission consultation which closed on 30 November 2006. The Commission was to undertake further work to determine the scope of activity in this area.
Law Society activity
The Law Society of England and Wales responded to the consultation. It also held a private client conference on 1 December 2008 in London to discuss developments in the area of wills and succession and matrimonial property. Representatives of the European Commission, Ministry of Justice and expert practitioners took part in the panel discussion.
Next steps 16
The European Commission has established a stakeholder expert group on which the Law Society of England and Wales is represented. The Commission is expected to propose a draft regulation before the end of March 2010.
5. Rights of the Child
Proposal: Commission Communication ‘Towards an EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child’ 4 July 200629 and European Parliament resolution 16 January 2008.30
Current Status: The April Update provides further details on a range of developments including in external action, child care facilities, combating child poverty, fundamental rights, safer internet programme, protection of children in judicial systems and detention, the Council of Europe Strategy for 2009-2011 Building a Europe for and with Children, and measuring how child rights are implemented. Council of Europe: Group of specialists on Child-friendly justice consultation requesting examples of good national practices in child-friendly justice closes 15 July 2009. Group has a website.31 Compilation of texts relating to child-friendly justice April 200932 on Council of Europe Child-friendly justice portal.33 Commissioner for Human Rights Viewpoint 2 February 2009.34 Council of Europe children’s rights stakeholder meeting 2 to 3 June 2009.35 EU: JHA Council conclusions on using SIS database to search for missing children 4 June 2009.36 JHA Council exchange of views on problem of international abductions of children to countries which are not contracting parties to the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction 5 June 2009.37
EU Strategy
On 4 July 2006, the European Commission published its long-awaited Communication to safeguard and promote the rights of the child, entitled “Towards an EU strategy on the Rights of the Child.” The Communication marked the Commission’s launch of a long-term strategy to ensure that EU action effectively promotes and safeguards children’s rights and to support the efforts of Member States within this field. It covers more than ten internal and external policies, including civil and criminal justice, employment, development co-operation, trade negotiation, education and health.
Among other things, it aims to identify priorities for future EU action and mainstream children’s rights in EU actions. It also seeks to establish efficient coordination and consultation mechanisms as well as to enhance expertise on children’s rights with a view to effectively communicate on the same.
The Commission’s communication was backed by the European Parliament in its resolution of 16 January 2008. The report reiterates Parliament’s opposition to all forms of violence against children. It also calls for technical measures to combat paedophile content on the internet and a mechanism to enable the prosecution in Europe of suppliers of products manufactured with child labour.
Council of Europe
Consultation
Further to Resolution No. 2 on child-friendly justice adopted at the Council of Europe Conference of Ministers of Justice in Lanzarote (October 2007), a Group of specialists on Child-friendly Justice (CJ-S-CH) was formed in early 2009 under the auspices of three major Council of Europe intergovernmental committees dealing respectively with civil law and administrative law (the European Committee on Legal Co-operation – CDCJ), criminal law (the European Committee on Crime Problems – CDPC) and human rights (the Steering Committee on Human Rights – CDDH) and in consultation with the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). The Group is entrusted with the task of drafting European guidelines on child-friendly justice and, to that aim, three meetings and a consultation with various non-governmental organisations and other international organisations, institutions or bodies are planned for 2009. Its first meeting was held in Strasbourg on 16-17 April 2009.
In line with the Terms of Reference of the Group, the European guidelines will be based on existing international, European and national instruments as well as on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, and will serve as a practical tool for member states in adapting their judicial system to specific needs of children, thereby enhancing their access to justice.
The Group has asked various organisations for examples of good national practices with a view to their possible incorporation into the guidelines. Contributions can be sent in the form of documents to be produced on its website (http://www.coe.int/childjustice); or website links to be included on its website. It has asked for such information on positive national experiences, in law and/or in practice, to be sent to the following email address: cj-s-ch@coe.int by 15 July 2009.
By way of background Resolution No. 2 on child-friendly justice adopted in October 2007 and a wealth of other materials including Conclusions from the conference on the protection of children in European Justice systems dated 12-13 March 2009 and Committee of Ministers Recommendation on the European Rules for juvenile offenders adopted 5 November 2008 are in a compilation of texts relating to child-friendly justice dated April 2009 on the Council of Europe Child-friendly justice portal. Also of interest is the Commissioner for Human Rights Viewpoint dated 2 February 2009.
A Council of Europe meeting with stakeholders in the area of children’s rights, held on 2 to 3 June 2009, considered the following points:
• the endorsement of the Draft Council of Europe Policy Guidelines on National Integrated Strategies for the Protection of Children against Violence; and
• the promotion of national integrated strategies on children’s rights and violence against children in Member States.
EU
Missing Children
On 4 June 2009, the Justice and Home Affairs Council agreed conclusions aimed at the international protection of children, including the better use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) database for the purpose of searching for missing children. The Council considered that this system could be relied upon as a quick information source for police authorities.
Hague Convention on International Child Abduction
On 5 June 2009 the Justice and Home Affairs Council held an exchange of views on the problem of international abductions of children to countries which were not contracting parties to the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, It noted that in such instances it became more difficult to get the child returned safely and promptly. The current practice of individual Member States on approaching such instances was also discussed and Ministers detailed their experiences in cooperating with diplomatic missions and NGOs regarding the use of cross-border mediation and other ways of helping parents whose child has been abducted.
6. Conclusion of Bilateral Agreements
Proposal: Proposal for a Regulation establishing a procedure for the negotiation and conclusion of bilateral agreements between Member States and third countries concerning sectoral matters and covering jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and decisions in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility and maintenance obligations, and applicable law in matters relating to maintenance obligations 19 December 2008.38
Current Status: Parliament report adopted 7 May 2009.39 JHA Council reached political agreement on the proposal 5 June 2009.40 Due to be adopted at a later Council meeting.
On 19 December 2008 the Commission proposed the above Regulation to establish a procedure for Member States to enter into agreements with third countries on sectoral matters related to the fields of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and decisions in matrimonial matters, parental responsibility and maintenance obligations and to the applicable law in matters relating to maintenance obligations. The Member State must notify the Commission about any proposed agreement. If the Community has already concluded an agreement on the same subject matter with the third country concerned, the Member State is not allowed to negotiate or conclude the agreement with the third country concerned and any application submitted will be rejected. If that is not the case, the Commission must determine whether such an agreement is expected in the near future. If no such agreement is expected in the near future the Commission may grant authorisation, provided that certain conditions are met.
Parliament adopted report on 7 May 2009. The report made a number of amendments to the Regulation, for example, regarding authorisation to conclude an agreement, a requirement that the Commission must give its reasoned decision on the application of the Member State within 90 days of receipt of the notification. It also provides for Member States’ discussions with the Commission with a view to finding a solution and sets out the time limits concerned.
On 5 June 2009, the Justice and Home Affairs Council confirmed its political agreement on the proposal following the Parliament’s adoption of an opinion on 7 May 2009. The proposal is due to be adopted at a future Council meeting.
7. European Authentic Act and Legalisation of Documents
Proposal: European Parliament “own-initiative” for a European Authentic Act 19 December 2008.41
Current status: Commission Green Paper on the legalisation of documents in the EU expected 1 October 2009.42 Commission Green Paper on authentic acts expected early 2010.
Background
On 19 December 2008 the European Parliament adopted an “own-initiative” report on the subject of a European Authentic Act.
This report calls on the European Commission to take action to facilitate and improve the recognition and enforcement of authentic acts by setting up a common system for the recognition and enforcement of authentic acts mainly through simplifying registration procedures. The rapporteur outlines that such a system would make life easier for citizens and businesses.
It is important to note that this is not an official legislative proposal as issued by the European Commission. The European Parliament cannot issue legislative proposals as the European Commission has the sole right of initiative. However the European Parliament has strong political sway in this matter and can call on the European Commission to take action.
Notaries Council of Europe (CNUE)
The Parliament report heavily relies on a report produced for the European Parliament by the Council of Notaries of the European Union (CNUE).43 It was published on 2 December 2008 and entitled “Comparative study on Authentic instruments national provisions of private law, circulation, mutual recognition and enforcement, possible legislative initiative.” It appears that their long term goal is for the European Union to produce a European Authentic Act and they have worked closely with the French Presidency and the European Parliament in this campaign.
On 19 and 20 March 2009 the Council of Notaries of the European Union, organised a symposium44 in Brussels regarding legal cooperation for the service of families in Europe. It was held in association with the European Commission. The themes of the conference were legal certainty and the need to ensure effective access to justice across border for the citizen. A number of issues were addressed including:
• The recognition of marriage and registered partnerships between same-sex couples.
• Cross-border divorce.
• The protection of creditors.
• Succession planning.
• The protection of vulnerable adults.
• The mutual recognition of civil status documents.
• The mutual recognition and enforcement of authentic acts in Europe.
Throughout the conference, many of the speakers stressed the importance of introducing an Authentic Act in the European Union to address the problem of recognition and enforcement of documents.
Copies of the speeches delivered at the conference can be accessed through the above link.
UK perspective
The Parliament report throws up a number of concerns for solicitors in the UK and Notaries Public in England and Wales.
The report only focuses on authentic acts as issued by a Notary exercising a public function – i.e. the continental notarial system. The report relies on the Unibank judgment of the Court of Justice (C-260/97) and the conclusions therein relating to the exercise of authority by a public official.
The report states that the “key characteristic of the authentic act is that it has a greater probative value than a private agreement and that this probative value, which must be accepted by the judge, is regularly conferred on it in Member State legislation on account of the trust placed in acts drawn up, in the context of legal transactions, by a public officer appointed for this purpose or by a public authority.”
The report therefore excludes documents drafted by Notaries in England and Wales and analogous legal documents such as deeds drawn up by solicitors.
European Parliament debate
During the European Parliament debate Diana Wallis MEP tabled amendments to improve the report and to ensure that equality between legal systems were respected. The amendments were defeated.
The UK Government position to date has been support for the principle of mutual recognition and enforcement whilst cautioning that a wide-ranging horizontal instrument on authentic instruments would be a radical step requiring very careful consideration. Underlining that any instrument must fully respect national legal traditions, including common law systems, the Government has stated that proposals should work equally in notarial and non-notarial systems.
European Commission Green Paper on Brussels I jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement
The European Commission is undertaking a review of the Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in civil and commercial matters. Authentic instruments are included within the scope of the Regulation. The Green Paper looks at ways in which to improve free circulation of orders and judgments by removing administrative proceedings – exequatur. The consultation also queries whether it might be appropriate to address the question of the free circulation of authentic instruments as well.
Next steps
The European Commission was expected to launch a consultation on this issue by publishing a Green Paper in March/April 2009. However, this is now expected to be launched early in 2010. This Green Paper is expected to have a wider remit than authentic acts and look at recognition and enforcement of documents, public and private.
The European Commission is also expected to launch a related consultation on this issue by publishing a Green Paper on the legalisation of documents in the EU on 1 October 2009. The Green Paper is expected to deal with the difficulties faced by EU citizens and economic operators because of the obligation to legalize documents between the EU, with the objective being to facilitate the mutual recognition of legal documents, abridging or even abolishing the legalisation requirements.
8. Sexual Exploitation of Children
Proposal: Proposal for a Framework Decision on combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, replacing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA on combating sexual exploitation of children and child pornography 25 March 2009.45
Current Status: Impact assessment46 and summary 31 March 2009.47 JHA Council identified outstanding issues regarding proposal 5 June 2009.48 Parliament opinion on proposal pending.
Proposal
The proposal for a Framework Decision on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography was published on 25 March 2009.
The proposal addresses substantive and procedural criminal law and includes the following provisions:
• It defines a ‘child’ as any person below the age of 18 years and includes a presumption where there are reasons to believe that the person is a child;
• It includes a definition of offences which must be punishable, minimum penalties, making provision for non-punishment of victims and addresses disqualification arising from convictions;
• Investigation and prosecution must not be dependant on the victim’s statement;
• Confidentiality rules imposed on professionals must not constitute an obstacle to reporting;
• Measures must be taken to ensure effective investigation and prosecution of the offences, allowing the possibility of covert operations at least in those cases where the use of an information system is involved;
• Jurisdiction extends outside the EU, for example in the case of EU nationals. It also extends to where an offence is committed by means of an information system accessed from a Member State’s territory, whether or not the information system is on its territory. Member States must cooperate with each other where they each have jurisdiction with a view to centralising proceedings in one Member State;
• Measures must be taken to ensure that where appropriate victims of the offences have access to free legal counselling and free legal representation in criminal proceedings;
• Regarding participation of child victims in criminal investigations and proceedings, measures must be taken to ensure that in criminal investigations of any of the offences: the number of interviews is as limited as possible and interviews are only carried out where strictly necessary for the purpose of criminal proceedings; the child victim may be accompanied by his or her legal representative or, where appropriate, an adult of his or her choice, unless a reasoned decision has been made to the contrary in respect of that person; all interviews with the child victim or, where appropriate, with a child witness, may be videotaped and these videotaped interviews may be used as evidence in criminal court proceedings, according to the rules under its national law;
• Measures must be taken to ensure that in criminal court proceedings the judge may order the hearing to take place without the presence of the public; and the child victim may be heard in the courtroom without being present.
The proposal also addresses prevention including special offender prevention programmes, prohibitions on carrying out activities with children, and national mechanisms to block access to websites with child pornography.
On 31 March 2009, the Commission published an impact assessment on the proposal.
On 6 April 2009, the JHA Council held its first exchange of views on the proposal and Member States agreed to increase their initiatives in this area.
On 5 June 2009, the Justice and Home Affairs Council identified the following outstanding issues regarding the proposal:
• The question of legal basis.
• The penalties’ system, in particular the severity of the penalties and the level of differentiation according to the types and gravity of the offences.
• The question of jurisdiction, in particular extra-territoriality in order to combat such phenomenon as sex tourism.
• The question of protection and assistance to victims.
The European Parliament’s opinion on the proposal is pending.
9. Human Trafficking
Proposal: Proposal for a Framework Decision on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims, replacing Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA on combating trafficking in human beings 25 March 2009.49
Current Status: Impact assessment50 on the proposal and summary 31 March 2009.51 UK Parliament Home Affairs Committee report ‘The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK’ 14 May 2009.52 Draft Council conclusions on establishing an informal EU Network of National Rapporteurs or Equivalent Mechanisms on Trafficking in Human Beings adopted 4 June 2009.53 JHA Council identified outstanding issues regarding proposal 5 June 2009.54 Parliament opinion on proposal pending.
Background
The proposal for a Framework Decision on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims was published on 25 March 2009.
The proposal addresses substantive and procedural criminal law and includes the following provisions:
• It includes a definition of offences which must be publishable, minimum penalties and making provision for non-punishment of victims;
• Investigation and prosecution must not be dependent on the victim’s statement;
• Investigative tools which are used in organised crime cases such as phone tapping, electronic surveillance, and financial investigation must be made available for investigating or prosecuting offence;
• Jurisdiction extends outside the EU, for example in the case of EU nationals;
• Member States must cooperate where they each have jurisdiction with a view to centralising proceedings in one Member State;
• Member States must protect vulnerable victims of trafficking, including children, in criminal proceedings. Without prejudice to the rights of the defence, each Member State must ensure that such victims are entitled to specific treatment aimed at preventing secondary victimisation by avoiding, as far as possible and in accordance with the grounds defined by national legislation a number of things. Notably, visual contact between victims and offenders; questioning concerning private life which is not absolutely necessary to prove the facts which are at the core of the indictment; the giving of evidence in open court; and unnecessary repetition of interviews during investigation, prosecution and trial. Moreover, each Member State must allow, where appropriate, that the identity of a particularly vulnerable victim acting as a witness is not disclosed;
• Particularly vulnerable victims must have in the course of criminal proceedings access to free legal counselling, and to legal representation on the same grounds envisaged by national legislation for the defendant;
• A range of assistance must be provided to victims before, during and after criminal proceedings, from secure accomodation to assistance to enable their rights and interests to be presented and considered in criminal proceedings, and translation and interpretation services where appropriate.
It also focuses on prevention, including training and considering criminalising the use of services from trafficking.
On 31 March 2009, the Commission published an impact assessment on the proposal.
On 6 April 2009, the Justice and Home Affairs Council held its first exchange of views on the proposal and Member States agreed to increase their initiatives in this area.
On 14 May 2009, the UK Parliament Home Affairs Committee published its report on ‘The Trade in Human Beings: Human Trafficking in the UK’. The report notes that within UK agencies, such as the UKBA, there appeared to be a lack of understanding about the problem, variable enforcement of relevant legislation and little protection for victims. It therefore made a number of recommendations for improvements in these areas.
On 4 June 2009 the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted Draft Council conclusions on establishing an informal EU Network of National Rapporteurs or Equivalent Mechanisms on Trafficking in Human Beings, which included the following:
• That all Member States are invited to participate in an informal and flexible EU network of National Rapporteurs or equivalent mechanisms.
• That the network should serve as a forum for exchange of experience and best practices in the field of preventing and combating trafficking in human beings at the EU level with the personal data or findings of investigations only being exchanged if allowed by the national law of the Member State concerned.
• That the network should be open to EU institutions and EU agencies and relevant international institutions such as the OSCE and the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons.
On 5 June, the Justice and Home Affairs Council identified the following outstanding issues regarding the trafficking proposal:
• The question of legal basis.
• The penalties’ system, in particular the severity of the penalties and the level of differentiation according to the types and gravity of the offences.
• The question of jurisdiction, in particular extra-territoriality in order to combat such phenomenon as sex tourism.
• The question of protection and assistance to victims.
The European Parliament’s opinion on the proposal is pending.
10. Protection of Vulnerable Adults
Action: Council conclusions on the situation of vulnerable adults and their cross-border legal protection 10 October 2008.55
Current Status: European Parliament Report on Legal protection of adults: cross-border implications 18 December 2008.56
Related: Hague Convention on the international protection of adults57 concluded on 13 January 2000, entered into force 1 January 2009.
Background
On 10 October 2008, the Council adopted conclusions on the situation of vulnerable adults and their cross-border legal protection. It included an invitation to the Commission, once sufficient experience has been acquired and examined with regard to the operation of the Hague Convention, to commence discussions on the advisability of introducing additional measures at Community level.
On 18 December 2008, the European Parliament adopted a report which asked the Commission to bring forward a legislative proposal on strengthening cooperation between Member States and improving the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the protection of adults and incapacity mandates and lasting powers of attorney. The Parliament agreed with the Council conclusion on following the operation of the Hague Convention and also agreed that any resulting measure should include the following principles and aims:
• provisions to help achieve the goal of establishing an area of justice, freedom and security by facilitating the recognition and enforcement of decisions granting a protection measure, determination of the law to be applied and cooperation between the central authorities;
• specific and appropriate measures for cooperation between the Member States should be implemented, drawing on the instruments available under the Hague Convention;
• single Community forms to promote information on protection decisions and the circulation, recognition and enforcement of those decisions;
• a single Community form created at European Union level in the case of incapacity mandates, in order to ensure their effectiveness in all the Member States
The Parliament also asked the Commission to:
• monitor experience with the application of the Hague Convention and its implementation in the Member States, and to submit to Parliament and the Council in due course a report summarising the problems and best practices in its practical application and containing, if necessary, proposals for Community provisions supplementing or specifying the manner in which the Convention is to be applied;
• assess the option of the accession of the Community to the Hague Convention;
• finance a study to compare Member States’ legislation on vulnerable adults and protection measures with a view to ascertaining where legal issues could arise and what measures would be needed at EU or Member State level to resolve any such issues. It considers that the study should also address the issue of institutionalised adults with intellectual disabilities as regards their guardianship and their ability to exercise their legal rights.
1 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0047:0199:EN:PDF
2 http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/documents/downloads/guide_to_treaty_of_lisbon.pdf
4 http://www.se2009.eu/en/the_presidency/about_the_eu/justice_and_home_affairs#tabs_7_159_tab1-tab
7 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:007:0001:0079:EN:PDF
8 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:149:0073:0073:EN:PDF
9 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st17/st17102.en08.pdf
10 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0081:FIN:EN:PDF
11 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0262:FIN:EN:PDF
15 http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=JLSFuture&lang=en
16 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/news_consulting_public_en.htm
17 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/doc/com_2006_399_en.pdf
19 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P6-TA-2008-0502
20 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:41980A0934:EN:HTML
21 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:199:0040:0049:EN:PDF
22 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32003R2201:EN:HTML
23 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2005/com2005_0065en01.pdf
25 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st14/st14376.en08.pdf
26 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st14/st14376.en08.pdf
27 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0400en01.pdf
29 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2006/com2006_0367en01.pdf
31 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/default_en.asp
32 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/childfriendly_EN.pdf
33 http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/standardsetting/childjustice/default_en.asp
34 http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Viewpoints/090202_en.asp
35 http://www.coe.int/t/transversalprojects/children/events/launchmeetingplatform_EN.asp
38 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st05/st05146.en09.pdf
42 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/forward_programming_2009.pdf
44 http://www.cnue.be/fr/cnue-colloque-19-20-mars-2009/en/007/index.html
45 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0135:FIN:EN:PDF
46 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st08/st08150-ad01co01.en09.pdf
47 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st08/st08150-ad02co01.en09.pdf
49 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0136:FIN:EN:PDF
50 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st08/st08151-ad01.en09.pdf
51 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st08/st08151-ad02.en09.pdf
52 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmhaff/23/23i.pdf
55 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st14/st14034.en08.pdf
