TREATMENT OF QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR A
PRELIMINARY RULING CONCERNING THE AREA OF FREEDOM, SECURITY AND
JUSTICE (13272/06, 17013/06)
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP, Minister for Europe, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Court's Discussion Paper was considered
by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 13 December. The Committee,
like the Government, welcomes the debate as to how preliminary
rulings and questions concerning the area of freedom, security
and justice might be dealt with more speedily and await with interest
to see the reactions of the Government and also of governments
of other Member States.
As you will be aware, the Committee also holds
under scrutiny Doc 11356/06, Commission Communication on the adaptation
of the provisions of Title IV TEC relating to the jurisdiction
of the Court of Justice. The Court's Discussion Paper and Communication's
Communication are clearly related and in my letter of 12 October
to Joan Ryan MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the
Home Office, the Committee noted that the Government were at a
quite preliminary stage in their analysis and assessment of the
Commission's proposal. We invited the Minister to take account
of the Court's Discussion Paper when responding to the Committee.
In her reply of 12 December she simply refers to your Explanatory
Memorandum. We assume that your officials will be liaising with
hers in formulating the Government's position on these two documents.
We also note that the House of Commons EU Scrutiny
Committee has raised two specific questions with the Government:
the role of the Advocate General under proposed emergency preliminary
ruling procedure; and, the number of cases in which the procedure
would be used.
On the face of it the first option presented
in the Discussion Paper does not seem attractive as it could give
rise to a matter having to he heard twice. We look forward to
receiving a fuller assessment from the Government of the proposals
from the Court (Doc 13272/06) and to seeing your response to the
questions raised by the EU Scrutiny Committee.
The Committee has decided to retain the Discussion
Paper under scrutiny.
14 December 2006
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 14 December regarding
the document 13272/06; Treatment of questions referred for a preliminary
ruling concerning the area of freedom, security and justice.
You are right to highlight the linkages between
the above document and the provisions for Title IV TEC relating
to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. I would like to reassure
the Committee that FCO officials are liasing closely with colleagues
in the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs
to form a detailed and joined-up response to the issues raised
in these documents. I attach a paper prepared by Treasury Solicitors
in conjunction with other Whitehall Departments which provides
the Committee with much of the additional analysis you have requested
in relation to the Court of Justice discussion paper. The paper
has been submitted to the Council Secretariat.
Whitehall Departments are working on a detailed
response to this paper and a supplementary paper from the President
of the Court (17013/06), which was translated into English on
8 January 2007 and has now been deposited for scrutiny. I will
write to the Committee with an update in early February.
14 January 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 14 January and
also for your Explanatory Memorandum of 1 February dealing with
the Supplementary Note Provided by the European Court of Justice.
We are also grateful for your providing a copy of the Note (prepared
by the Treasury Solicitor) which the UK has submitted in the negotiation
and for providing a clear explanation of the Government's position.
We are pleased to see that the Government share
the Committee's view, though perhaps for different reasons, that
Option I is not to be preferred and we note that it has received
little support in the Working Group. We note that Option 2 is
being considered and that various ideas are being put forward
by Member States in response to the Court's proposal.
Thank you for setting out the UK's ideas for
improving Option 2. We would be interested to learn what response
you have received from the representatives of the Court and from
other Member States. We would be pleased if you would keep us
informed of the progress of these negotiations.
The Committee decided to retain the proposal
under scrutiny.
22 February 2007
Letter from Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP to the
Chairman
Thank you for your letter of 22 February 2007
regarding the Discussion Paper on the treatment of questions referred
for a preliminary ruling concerning the area of freedom, security
and justice (documents 13272/06 and 17013/06). Following the European
Court of Justice Working Group meeting on 19 March I am now in
a position to answer the points you raised.
The discussions in the European Court of Justice
Working Group have focused on Option 2, with only a small number
of Member States supporting Option 1. The Working Group has been
working on a formal reply from the Council to the Court of Justice.
During these negotiations there was some debate around the appropriate
balance between ensuring preliminary rulings were dealt with speedily
and the need for Member State involvement in the process. It was
agreed that in the reply the Council should make clear an explicit
preference for Option 2, but note that some Member States would
like to see certain modifications, so long as this did not compromise
the objective of securing an effective accelerated procedure.
In order to clarify the circumstances where
the expedited procedure would be used Member States agreed to
specify that the procedure should be used in the whole area of
freedom, security and justice (Title IV TEC and Title VI TEU).
The Presidency will circulate a final copy of
the letter to be put to COREPER in April, for adoption as an A
point at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 19 April. A copy
is attached (not printed). The European Court of Justice will
then bring forward proposals based around Option 2 for consideration
by Member States. These proposals will of course be subject to
Parliamentary Scrutiny.
29 March 2007
Letter from the Chairman to Rt Hon Geoff
Hoon MP
Thank you for your letter of 29 March which
was considered by Sub-Committee E at its meeting on 18 April.
We are pleased to see that there is a substantial number of Member
States in favour of Option 2 and we note that Member States are
agreed that any new procedure should be used in the whole area
of freedom, security and justice (ie Title IV TEC and Title VI
TEU). We look forward to seeing the detailed proposals in due
course.
The Committee decided to clear the documents
from scrutiny.
19 April 2007
| 
