The presentations of the different delegations showed clearly that the idea of making use of a kind of a national network of Court Coordinators European Law is firmly based in the policy approach of the nine Member States that were gathered at this conference.
Some Member States are preparing the establishing of a network (Poland) or just have started (Romania). It became clear that there are differences in structure of the different networks and it was obvious that they are not working within the same organizational framework.
Nevertheless the conclusion can be drawn that the different participating Member-States have CCE-networks that are adapted to their national visions and are presenting considerable added value as to the correct application of EU-law. The answers to the first questionnaire, concerning the networks, that were sent to the participants prior to the conference, showed that in some of the Member States the CCE has not enough time to carry out the task and activities that come along with being a member of a national network. Others do have enough time.
Furthermore, already from the answers on the questionnaire, it became quite clear that the general idea was that an international network of fellow judges from other Member States would help to be better equipped in the application of European Law. To the question: What conditions must be met in that respect a large variety of opinions was received:
- "Informal ways to easily ask questions and receive replies" (Belgium)
- "Internet access, list of contact points (e-mail addresses, fax and phones" (Bulgaria)
- It must be "fast, flexible and cheap" (Czech Republic)
- "Easy access through a common forum" (Denmark)
- "Contact, phone numbers, e-mail addresses" (Poland)
- "A list of available judges in different countries, with their expertise, would be helpful" (Romania)
- "Flexibility and reliability" (Spain).
Taking into account the different presentations, the visions that were presented from the European level, by Mr. Berlinguer and Ms. Michou, the opinions that were formulated by the working groups, there is a solid foundation to draw the following conclusions.
Concerning European law knowledgemanagement:
1. European law knowledgemanagement should distinguish clearly between
- access to information technology
2. These pillars of knowledgemanagement are interdependent.
The content of the technology pillar influences the educational and the network pillar.
3. Judges throughout the Union are entitled to have easy access to judicial information in a state of the art manner.
4. The development of technical searching tools like apps, mobile website's etc. should be done as much as possible in cooperation to avoid waste of financial resources.
5. Support from the European level as well as coordination is needed to avoid such a waste.
Concerning the networks of court-coordinators EU law:
6. The goal of the establishing of a national network of court-coordinators European law (CCE's) must be to contribute to the correct application of European law.
7. A network of CCE's should not be a duplicate of other networks.
8. A network of CCE's should be embedded in a structure in which access to information technology and education are recognised as different tools aiming at the same result.
9. The CCE should have some assumption from part of his other duties to allow time for his work as CCE.
10. Contacts between national CCE networks on a more structural basis by way of "interconnection" or "enlargement" must in the First place aim at the uniformity of the application of European law.
11. Participants in an "interconnected" or "enlarged" network must be able to exchange views, opinions and best practises in a (digital) environment in which they can feel safe and secure.
12. "Interconnection" or "enlargement" should have, as a first step, a simple structure. Putting an extra burden on the shoulders of the participants should be avoided.
13. Entrance in an "interconnected" or "enlarged" network could be open for non- judges as far as it concerns technical and organizational matters. Exchanging of legal opinions should be reserved for judges.