Legal accessibility

The following activities were implemented in the framework of the project:

• Stakeholder workshops
• Sectoral interviews
• Research
  • European outlook
  • Legislation review
• Set of recommendations
• Final report

The workflow and logic of the project are presented by the following figure.

The first activity of the project “Legal Accessibility” was the series of so called stakeholder workshops organized in the Hungarian border areas (altogether 9+1 workshops). All the local participants involved in cross-border cooperation were invited to these stakeholder workshops. Roundtable discussion was used at the workshops to collect information about those obstacles that were experienced by the invited local participants. The primary purpose of the roundtable discussion was to identify problems on a territorial basis. Subsequently, an inventory of the problems articulated by the local actors was compiled. In the next phase of the project, sectoral interviews were performed with experts. During these sectoral interviews, we revealed the legal and administrative dimensions of the articulated problems.

At the same time, a research in the field of European best practices on cross-border cooperation and identified obstacles was started. The legal inventory of the identified obstacles was further developed and specified through valuable information received during the sectoral interviews and through profound desk research. We have articulated legal and policy recommendations with the intention to dissolve the identified obstacles by using the sectoral interviews, the European outlook and results of the legislative research.

Summary report on the stakeholder workshops (1st milestone – 2016)

In order to download our summary report on the stakeholder workshops in English, please click on the image below:

Within the framework of the legal accessibility project, several stakeholder workshops were organised between 27 January and 18 February 2016, to which stakeholders active in cross-border projects of the relevant border region were invited.

During the course of the workshop, in the form of a round table discussion, we gather information on obstacles experienced by local participants. Following the workshops, a summary report was composed.

The report briefly presents Hungary’s border sections, primarily focusing on their status in the EU integration process, as this fundamentally determines the scale and nature of cross-border interactions.

Following the border sections description, all information that came up during the course of the workshops (legal obstacles, best practices, other obstacles of non-legal nature, further comments) were presented by geographical breakdown.

Nyíregyháza (1)	Nyíregyháza (2)
Pécs	Miskolc

After having presented the workshops themselves, a sectorial inventory was set up about everything that has been said during the events. The figure below shows how many independent legal obstacles could be identified after grouping the issues based on all bits of raw information.

Most of the legal obstacles in the inventory call for a change in the national legislative environment. However, in some cases it is the legislations of the neighbouring country that causes hindrance, and in some cases, EU level legislation would be needed. Determining the latter will be down to the following part of the project (Investigating regulations).

It is possible that the explored legal obstacles already do partially dispose of the appropriate legal environment, but stakeholders do not know of these due to lack of information-flow. This is why we have collected all mentioned legal obstacles in our inventory, to be able to clear their background for the benefit of all participants in the following sections of the project (Sectoral interviews, Investigating regulations).

At the end of the report, we have published further useful information mentioned during the workshops. Firstly the non-legal obstacles and issues, then all further comments that help us understand the situation of some topics deemed problematic, or even best practices.

Summary report on the series of sectoral interviews (1st milestone – 2016)

The summary report on the interviews with sectoral experts in Hungarian can be downloaded by clicking on the image below:

Interviews with sectoral experts were conducted between April and June in 2016 within the frameworks of the project, ‘Legal Accessibility’. The principal aim of these interviews was to thoroughly explore the obstacles experienced by local participants. The obstacles were initially gathered at the stakeholder workshops and roundtable discussions.

Approximately 100 interview requests were made, of which 24 in-depth personal interviews were actually held and 14 written answers were processed. Background research was frequently helped by telephone interviews. A total of 30 telephone interviews were conducted with different sectoral representatives.

During the series of interviews, we asked for the help of experts who actively participate in shaping, or enforcing the rules, operating the system, or resolving the emerged problems. We aimed to understand the existing and determining legal and regulatory environment.

Legislative competence and acquired professional experience were considered as the most important characteristics for the selection of interviewees. Special considerations had to be included in those cases, where we had to uncover the legal background of relevant regulatory issues which were valid only on specified border sections (e.g. the Serbian – Hungarian border).

Concerning the interviews’ content structure, we considered the understanding of the complexity and completeness of the regulatory systems as important as the cases and problems we explored during earlier stakeholder workshops. Thus, the specific answers to problems that arose during our interviews also provide important general information about the given area.

We attempted to personally visit the interviewees; at the same time, however, some potential interviewees could not undertake a personal meeting due to administrative reasons, therefore we asked for written answers that they successfully provided to us. In addition, the examination of legislative regulations – which was performed in parallel with the interviews –  made it necessary to perform further searches by telephone or by written form.

Within the frames of the summary report, interviews and sectoral reactions – received either in written or oral form – are elucidated on the basis of sectors and within them on the basis of obstacles. Some obstacles – which were originally identified as separate legal obstructions –have common roots, thus the given answers and solutions are also similar; subsequently, we merged them and we treat them together.

The concrete purpose of the interviews– and of the whole project – is to recommend legislative amendments; nevertheless, the prepared interview report itself represents a valuable achievement that contributes to a deeper understanding of the complex nature of political borders.

European outlook / Collection of best practices (1st milestone – 2016)

You can download the Collection of best practices prepared in the framework of the project by clicking on the following picture:

In the framework of the Legal Accessibility project, we examined the problems and obstacles that arise during the interactions of border regions; furthermore, we explored the handling, management and solution of these obstacles in other parts of Europe. We mainly concentrated on those European regions that have accumulated enough experience in the field of cross-border cooperation.

We used qualitative methodology during the preparation of the research study and during the actual research activity, too. That means our research was built on the so called ‘desk research’ methodology, thus we made a systematic gathering of good examples, their research, categorization, identification and evaluation of obstacles, and we explored the possible and implemented solutions as well.

Cross-border database and toolkit of the EDEN portal, developed by ISIG, commissioned by the Council of Europe, was a valuable help in the process of identifying relevant information on institutionalised cooperation. Furthermore, a useful source of information was the extensive information database that is accessible on the webpage of the French Mission Opérationnelle Transfrontalière (MOT), too.

During our research, we contacted some foreign cross-border cooperating parties and management organisations that coordinate cross-border cooperation, with the aim to receive updated and actual information, thus forming a clear picture about their obstacles and about their proposed solutions.

The document contains a detailed research of 52 good examples, and numerous additional models were mentioned. These good examples and models can be a useful source of information that can be effectively used in the process of abolishing the Hungarian obstacles.

Topic of good examples		Number of good examples with detailed exploration
	Cross-border health care and social cooperation	11
	Cross-border mobility and community transport cooperation	9
	Cross-border educational and labour market cooperation	15
	Cross-border environmental cooperation	4
	Cross-border crisis management cooperation	4
	Other non-specified forms of cross-border cooperation	9

In the last group of the study, we described several institutional models for state-level coordination that offered solution to certain cross-border problems and which might be useful and instructive for continuing the project.

Moreover, the prepared collection of good practices contains a rich bibliography. Specifically, it involves more than 140 bibliographic items. This huge bibliography might be very useful for those professionals who are interested in this specific field of research.

Legislative inventory (1st milestone – 2016)

You can download the Legislative inventory prepared in the framework of the project by clicking on the following picture:

During the legal analytical phase, we reviewed the legal environment of the obstacles identified at the workshops. When presenting the legal framework, we concentrated mainly on the legislation in Hungary but in the cases when it was necessary, we also touched upon the legal resources created by the European Union.

In the framework of the legal inventory, with respect to the 39 obstacles or groups of obstacles discussed in detail earlier we reviewed in total nearly 250 provisions. Among these, there were both EU and Hungarian provisions. In some cases, we analysed the legislations of the neighbouring countries, as well. Beside the desk research, in some cases, it became necessary to negotiate with the relevant authorities with a view to clarifying the legislators’ or the law enforcement officials’ interpretation.

During the compilation process of the legal inventory, we used the National Inventory of Legislations in case of the Hungarian law, the EUR-Lex database for the EU provisions and the N-Lex database for those of the neighbouring countries.

The legal framework of the obstacles identified at the workshops shows a mixed picture after the analysis of the legislations.

In the case of several specified obstacles, it cannot be set out that we clearly face a legal barrier. Their sectoral field is ruled according to long-term policy principles and interests, which apparently do not allow room for manoeuvering to modify the relevant legislations (e.g. public security, animal health issues).

In the respect of certain barriers, real progress can be envisaged only if the policy attitude of the relevant states moves toward cooperation. It is the case with local products. Territorial delineation of the particular provisions and the limitation of the territorial jurisdiction of the authorities currently prevent the citizens living in border areas to have access to local products with as wide a range as e.g. their counterparts living in more central regions of the country.

In some cases, the current legislation is comprehensible and well-justified along policy principles but it hinders cross-border cooperation in a hardly acceptable way. It is the case with the duty-free goods transported to third countries where regardless of that duties are not applied for these products and materials; the customs procedures are not avoidable.

In the respect of several cases, during the analysis of the legal environment it became clear that no legal obstacle backs the issue but the stakeholders have false or inaccurate information on that.

As a result of the legal analysis, we had the opportunity to identify several cases where the design of the legislation facilitating cross-border interactions already started or it has been under way for a longer time. A few of them already have tangible outputs and eases the daily life of the people affected by cross-border interactions. However, these initiatives typically need further improvements and completion.

As a result of our examinations, we found 2 obstacles requiring international legal harmonisation, 12 ones which make both legal and policy interventions necessary. Further, we identified one practical and one policy problem, as well as 3 barriers which, apart from legislation, contain also other factors.

Set of recommendations (1st milestone – 2016)

You can download the Set of recommendations prepared in the framework of the project by clicking on the following picture:

Based on the research activities carried out during the previous phases of the Legal accessibility project, in the subsequent stage we drafted recommendations regarding the obstacles identified at the stakeholder workshops. While doing so, we made a priority for four sectors: cross-border mobility and public transport, cross-border labour market cooperation, health care services and local products. These topics were treated in a comprehensive and integrated way (i.e. several obstacles have been merged into one larger subject) and this way we formulated concrete policy and legal recommendations.

The figure below demonstrates the share of types of recommendations in a comprehensive way. The four prioritised areas concern altogether 14 previously identified obstacles and for each of them we drafted, applying the method mentioned before, complex recommendations including both legal and policy recommendations and proposals addressed to the European Union. As it is indicated on the figure, the horizontal recommendations formulated based on the experience of the research conducted after the identification of the barriers are relevant in relation to the resolution of all obstacles affecting border areas.

We made three types of recommendations for the removal of the barriers: if it was possible, we drafted a legal text proposal; in other cases, we made a proposal to policy interventions; and if we considered the room for manoeuvring too narrow for national level interventions, we initiated an EU level solution.

The legal recommendations can be classified again into three groups:

• proposals of bilateral agreements, the wording of the agreement included;
• proposals for modification of particular legal text;
• guidelines for the necessary modification of the legal environment.

The study also contains a horizontal or, in other words, a „meta-level” chapter which, reaching beyond the sectoral based approach makes proposals on the one hand to apply EU and national level solutions for the information of the citizens; and, on the other hand, based on the example of the Nordic Council, to launch institutionalised mechanisms, by also involving neighbouring countries, which, make the problems caused by the borders erected by the nation states manageable.

Final report (1st milestone – 2016)

You can download the final reports on the project results by clicking on the following pictures:

Final report on the project	Contribution paper of CESCI to the public consultation on cross-border obstacles: 2. Report on Legal Accessibility project (2017)

The final report intends to inform the readers about the main stages of the research project, which lasted eight months, as well as about the results of professional value that were achieved through carefully structured work. The final report means represents the official termination of the project; nevertheless, we carried out our work in a spirit that articulated new tasks and possibilities. This logic is directly mirrored in the structure of our final report, too.

After the first chapter giving a brief description of the introduction and methodology, the second chapter is set to identify the obstacles and its workflow. We describe in detail the stakeholder workshops offering an appropriate space to reveal the regulatory background that hinders interactions, as well as to identify obstacles, together with their territorial and sectoral aspects. Information collected during this stage marks the thematic ground of our research.

The third chapter describes the research revealing the background of obstacles and the compilation of recommendations. The unfolding of the background of the obstacles was in parallel with a composition of a European outlook, aiming to understand best examples and practices in relevant topics; revealing the existing regulatory environment and policy structure through sectoral interviews with the addressed experts; as well as making a detailed analysis of domestic and European legal frameworks. The compilation of the obstacles has been drafted based on this research work.

In the fourth chapter the results of the project related to each of the obstacles identified at the stakeholder workshops are presented. In each case, we specify the brief overview of the given obstacle, the best practices from Europe (if any) which can be used as models, the list of interviewees and relevant legal texts. Subsequently, we summarise, in a few sentences, our recommendations regarding the possible removal of each of these obstacles. At the end of the chapter, we give a short overview on our horizontal recommendations.

In the fifth chapter, we offer a summary of the main experiences of the project, by evaluating the fulfilment of the objectives set out within the indicators, as well as through a summary table. Finally, we compare the results of the project with contemporary trends in the European Union.