Lawyer campaigns for litigation database to boost EU e-commerce in EU

Although the Government and, most notably, the Minister for Public Enterprise, Ms O'Rourke, decided last June to seek to establish Ireland as a "hub" for global e-commerce the precise make-up of such a structure remains unclear.

A lot of work needs to be done to install a physical infrastructure capable of handling the exchange of vast amounts of information. There is also a very strong case for a legal infrastructure to support high volumes of electronic transactions. So far there has been little or no effort made to legislate for the Internet, even though online transactions will be conducted across a range of jurisdictions, leaving little redress for consumers who may fall victim to rogue traders.

Given that there has been no centralised effort to provide a legal framework for trade, it is surprising that the effort of one individual to establish such a service has been rejected by the EU Council of Ministers.

Dublin barrister, Ms Twinkle Egan, has worked since 1992 to persuade the European Parliament to introduce a centralised database providing basic information on all cases instituted under the Brussels Convention 1968. This would be a commercial database, accessible to anyone capable of using a computer, providing litigation details of companies throughout the EU. One of Ms Egan's strongest arguments is that 40 million EU citizens are involved in accidents with consumer products annually. Some 80,000 people are killed, while 300,000 are left with a permanent disability. The existence of the EU database would provide quick and easy access to companies' product liability actions. The Committee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights said this year that road traffic accident claims taken abroad are at least 15 per cent more expensive, and take, on average, eight years to settle. A centralised database would greatly speed up such a process, and would also allow for multiparty actions, where aggrieved consumers from a number of countries could join forces in making a claim.

For example, if proceedings are instituted in Ireland under the Brussels Convention against an English company for damage caused by faulty goods, there will only be a record of those proceedings in Ireland. Meanwhile, the same company could have similar proceedings issued against it by people in other European countries, but there would be no record of this if someone in England were to check the company.

A centralised database would help protect copyrights and prevent piracy, and allow the rapid enforcement of foreign judgments. It would provide the European Commission with a tool for monitoring the compliance of companies and their products with international standards.

Despite receiving the endorsement of the International Bar Association, the Irish Stock Exchange, and the European Lawyers Union, among others, the Council of Ministers rejected the project in 1996 after it was placed on the EU agenda by the Government.

Ms Egan believed the reasons given for rejecting the idea were so weak, she filed a complaint with the European Ombudsman. Last month, he issued his negative finding and closed the case. However, Ms Egan is determined to push forward her idea again as she believes it is inevitable it will have to be adopted by the European Parliament as e-commerce gathers momentum. She will now petition every member of the European Parliament to brief them on the centralised legal database, and seek their support in a review of the decision.

One of Ms Egan's biggest grievances with the process to date, has been the virtual non-existence of a body accountable for the ultimate rejection of the plan. The proposal fell into the lap of the K4 Committee, part of the so-called Third Pillar, which retains considerable scope for confidentiality. Not even the European Ombudsman can extract Third Pillar information.

Ms Egan is outraged the project was rejected without the consultation of any of the eminent bodies which have pledged support for the initiative. In a commentary outlining reasons to petition MEPs, Ms Egan says: "We can only conclude that their decision against the project was based primarily on administrative convenience to the civil servants involved, since there is no evidence that the project's broad benefits in the realm of European justice were ever seriously considered."

In its response the committee said full implementation of the proposal would be very costly, particularly for member-states whose court records were not automated. Does it believe that those states which have not automated their court records will never do so? The committee suggested the process was unlikely to be cost effective. Considering it would immediately eliminate all the tedious phone calls and postal delays associated with making legal enquiries abroad, it is difficult to understand how the committee could have reached such a conclusion. The initiative would also operate on a commercial basis, with users incurring a charge per query.

The committee expressed reservations that an action pending against a firm might adversely affect its commercial reputation and financial standing. However, the legal database would simply be making this information more readily available, and if there are proceedings issued against a company, individuals have the right to know about it.

However, Ms Egan is determined to reintroduce the plan, and ask every MEP to reconsider the case for a centralised EU Convention Causebook and Judgment Registry Database.