Brussels tables new EU litigation charter

Libel and defamation have been dropped from a revised European commission charter on civil litigation.

Brussels has tabled modified proposals for an EU framework governing the consistency of laws applied in civil liability actions.

EU justice commissioner Franco Frattini hailed measures that would help enforce the rights of private persons and companies.

“This proposal, which affects every European citizen and business, is indispensable in achieving a European area of justice in which the outcome of a cross-border dispute is no longer wholly dependant on which member states court it is tried,” he said.

The ‘Rome II’ regulations do not alter the substance of national laws on civil liability but aim to use the same law to resolve cross-border cases involving several courts.

EU officials believe the proposals will make litigation easier in “tens of thousands of cases” and lead to greater mutual recognition of court rulings across Europe.

“We imagine Rome II will apply to a huge amount of cases as the regulation applies to all disputes involving non-contractual civil liability from road accidents to product safety,” said an official.

A typical example of the working of the regulation, given by the commission, is a road accident involving personal injury.

Rome II will clarify which courts would be used in the case of a German tourist holidaying in Spain injured in a road accident by a Belgian driver.

To avoid litigation shopping, the rules will limit liability action to the country where the accident took place – in the example, Spain.

If both parties agree litigation could take place on the country of origin of the victim – in this case, Belgium.

Family issues, such as custody of children will be excluded from the new rules that, if agreed, will apply across the EU, except for Denmark.

But the commission has been forced to ditch proposals that would have covered the issue of defamation litigation against the media.

Proposals ran into heavy fire from national governments and the European parliament amid fears that new rules could hit free speech and make libel shopping easier.

The commission’s original proposals had envisaged that a libelled individual could seek redress in his or her country of residency.

Concerns over freedom of expression saw the EU executive row back but MEPs and national capitals could not agree.

“Eleven different options were considered but at the end of the day it was our view that there was simply no agreement possible at this time,” said a commission spokesman.

“It is not, ultimately, a satisfactory result. I am sure we will come back to it. We need first to see how governments and the parliament respond to our new proposal.”

• Previous article
• Next article