JUDICIAL TRAINING IN THE EU (11243/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Ashton of Upholland, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department
for Constitutional Affairs
This Communication was considered by Sub-Committee
E at its meeting of 11 October 2006.
We welcome initiatives designed to encourage
cooperation between judges in different Member States and improve
awareness and understanding in the UK of the European context.
We do, however, share your concerns that any training programme
organised at EU level should meet the needs of the judiciary in
all the different jurisdictions of the EU. Differences in how
and when judges are recruited in the UK compared to many continental
systems should be reflected in any future Commission proposals
and we fully support the Government's aim of ensuring equal access
to funding by all Member States.
We are also concerned at the proposal to allow
prosecutors to participate in judges' training. While prosecutors
are equated to judges in most civil law systems, in the UK their
position is quite different. It is not clear what the Communication
means by "subject to full respect for national traditions
concerning the separation between prosecutors and judges"
(para 33) and careful attention will have to be paid to this matter
in any futue proposals.
You say that a French initiative to establish
the EJTN failed for reasons of "pillar purity". The
EJTN has now been set up outside EU structures. Are there disadvantages
in the present arrangement? Would there be any difference (particularly
as regards funding) were the body to be established within the
EU umbrella? Are the Government concerned that the present arrangement
might set an unhelpful precedent?
Finally, we are interested to understand more
about how the EJTN currently operates. Have UK judges participated
in any exchanges under that programme? Is there much coordination
at present as regards training, and in particular awareness of
European law? What training is currently available for judges
in the UK and does it reflect the priorities listed in paragraph
24 of the Communication?
We have decided to hold the Communication under
scrutiny.
12 October 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Baroness Ashton of
Upholland to the Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 12 October on the
Commission Communication on judicial training in the EU. You asked
whether there are disadvantages in the present arrangement, whether
there would be any differences (particularly as regards funding)
if the present European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) were
to be founded under an EU umbrella, and whether the Government
is concerned that the present arrangement might set an unhelpful
precedent.
The EJTN was established in 2000. It is working
towards a framework agreement with the EU for the purposes of
clarity and to preserve judicial independence across Europe as
far as possible rather than go down the route of establishing
an EU instrument. The Government is content to support the EJTN
in this regard. The Commission's proposal supporting the EJTN
through the framework funding programme on fundamental rights
and justice ought, though the comitology arrangements proposed
in that programme, to introduce an appropriate degree of transparency
into the arrangements. There is no reason to suppose that the
EJTN would gain more funding if it were established on a different
basis, nor does the Government have any present concerns about
any precedent that might be set.
You asked various questions about the EJTN.
Training for judges in England and Wales is
undertaken by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB), an independent
judicial body under the Lord Chief Justice's stewardship. Acting
through its Director of Studies (Judge Victor Hall), the JSB is
an active member of the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN).
As the largest common law country, England and Wales plays a prominent
part in the Network. The JSB is a member of the nine country Steering
Committee which meets four or five times a year and provides direction.
In total, 36 training organisations are either members [28] or
observers [8]. We are also a member of one of the three Working
Groups. In 2005 we organised and had the Presidency of the General
Assembly (to coincide with the UK's Presidency of the EU). As
presently structured the EJTN is referred to by the European Commission
for help in delivering its objectives.
In relation to the point you raise in your letter
about prosecutors participating in judicial training, it is not
that EJTN allow prosecutors to participate in judges' training
but that most Member States see prosecutors as members of their
judiciary; in some cases they are classified as such by state
decree or other legislative act.
As regards funding, the EJTN's expertise in
the field has been recognised to the extent that its work has
attracted a permanent administrative budget line for the years
2007-13 which will take away the need to bid annually with all
the uncertainties this brings. The EJTN's administrative budget
grant is likely to rise to c Euro 1 million by 2013. EJTN members
pay subscriptions totalling approximately 170,000 Euros, based
pro-rata on gross national product. Hitherto this has been assimilated
into both operational and administrative budgets.
This budget underpins a seven-year strategy
and concomitant work plan which have been formulated to allow
for EU expansion and a consequent increased membership of EJTN.
The Strategy provides for EJTN to have an active role in promulgating
training methodologies, to provide for judges to participate in
each others seminar programmes and to facilitate exchange of judges
across Europe.
The EJTN will be (separately) funded by the
EU to the tune of c 2 million Euro for 2007 to facilitate the
exchange programme. The programme aims to increase judges' familiarity
with the legal and judicial systems of other Member States, one
of the three priorities listed in paragraph 24 of the Communication.
Judges in England and Wales do not currently take part in the
exchange programme (which is in its third year) principally for
reasons connected with judicial workload. However, I understand
that the judiciary in Scotland have been involved. I should also
add that although judges in England and Wales are not participating
in this programme, many do accept invitations to visit other states,
some to participate in training, and the JSB welcomes judges from
Europe and beyond to experience its training and to share their
views with participants on courses.
Another of the three priorities listed in the
Communication stresses the need for judges to improve their understanding
of EU law. The training that the JSB provides includes updates
on EU legal instruments, where appropriate. Recent examples include
the European Arrest Warrant in criminal law and both Brussels
I and II in civil and family law. The EJTN is also concerned in
formulating a curriculum in European Law; a pan European website
to enable exchange of EU documents.
Further, many of its members are also members
of the Lisbon Network of the Council of Europe (including England
and Wales) and are working in the HELP programme towards a revised
Human Rights training programme. The Lisbon Network comprises
the 46 countries across Europe and their training organisations.
The third priority in the Communication, suggests
that judges should develop language skills and the EJTN now has
a programme of linguistic training. England and Wales has not
chosen to participate at this time.
Finally it is worth reiterating that in the
UK, judicial training is quite specifically under judicial control,
not that of the Executive.
30 November 2006
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Baroness
Ashton of Upholland
Thank you for your letter of 30 November 2006
which was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting of 10 January
2007.
We note that the Judicial Studies Borad (JSB)
is actively involved in the European Judicial Training Network
(EJTN) and participates in the meetings of its Steering Committee.
The continued participation of the JSB in the management of the
EJTN is likely to be a useful means of ensuring that EJTN training
programmes meet the needs of common law as well as civil law judges.
While we welcome the training currently offered
by the JSB to update judges on EU legal instruments, it is disappointing
that judges in England and Wales do not participate in language
training or exchanges organised by the EJTN, although members
of the judiciary in Scotland have been involved in exchanges.
You say that the main reason for non-participation in exchanges
is judicial workload. How is this problem dealt with in Scotland?
What is being done to overcome this obstacle in England and Wales
and allow judges who wish to take part in the exchange programme
to do so? What, incidentally, is the position in Northern Ireland?
You do not explain why England and Wales has chosen not to participate
in the language training. Is workload the main problem here or
is there a more fundamental objection to language training for
judges?
Regarding the framework for the EJTN, we note
that the Government has no concerns about any precedent that may
be set by the present arrangement. We would be grateful if you
would explan what you understand is required or prohibited under
the principle of pillar purity, a principle to which the Government
did not make reference in the discussion of the proposed remit
of the Fundamental Rights Agency.
We have decided to retain the Communication
under scrutiny.
11 January 2007
| 
