As Austria begins its EU presidency, it has outlined a host of legal issues that it wants to address. June O'Keeffe discusses how these could affect lawyers

In recognition of the fact that many still associate Austria as the country that brought us the Von Trapp family and 'Edelweiss', the Austrian presidency of the European Union (which runs from January to June 2006) has decided to go along with the stereotype by holding a special event entitled 'the sound of Europe'.


The purpose of this event, which coincides with the 250th anniversary of the birth of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, will be to discuss European values, culture and identity. This winsome reference is in stark contrast to the controversial start to the presidency caused by a government-sponsored art exhibition that includes three naked figures with masks of the Queen, President Chirac and President Bush respectively engaging in a ménage à trois.


But this, along with a rather jazzy barcode logo depicting all the 25 European flags from west to east, are only minor distractions from the weighty and difficult issues facing the Austrians as they attempt to steer the EU (EU metaphors tend to be borrowed from transport, notably ships being navigated and trains going uphill or becoming derailed) through a tricky course.


While the preceding UK presidency has been dubbed 'inaudible and invisible', the Austrians are wary of similar charges and have therefore set themselves a modest set of objectives (rather like the understated Dutch a few years ago with their slogan, 'Europe - quite important'). The motley collection of dossiers that has fallen into their lap ranges from high-level policies such as a 'space' strategy to more down-to- earth subjects such as the Community patent and the review of the data protection directive.


As much of the agenda is inherited, there is little room for bold new initiatives. What the EU rotating presidency does do is give every EU country (from tiny Malta at one end of the spectrum to Germany with its 90 million inhabitants at the other) a chance to bring its own unique style to the EU business of the day, and showcasing areas of national expertise.


One of the trickier issues facing the Austrians is the revival of the draft EU Constitution. Following the rejection of the constitution in referenda in France and the Netherlands, it was written off and described as being 'deep frozen' and 'in a coma'. 'No' does not necessarily mean no, however, so far as EU treaties are concerned - the Nice Treaty was rejected in a first referendum in Ireland a few years back but saved in a subsequent poll. The hope among some, therefore, is that the constitution can be given a new lease of life and that voters will be convinced of its merits. But do not hold your breath for the once-promised UK referendum, as upcoming elections in France and the Netherlands will need to take place before any difficult decisions are taken on the constitution's future.


As for other priorities, the ongoing Services Directive - which aims to make it easier for service providers, including lawyers, to ply their trade throughout the EU - will be coming before the European Parliament in February for a vote. It will then be put to the member states for their views. The Austrian Ministry of Justice contends that lawyers should be excluded from the scope of the proposal. This draft directive is likely to be around for a few presidencies yet (the Finns will be in the chair from July onwards, followed by the Germans early next year), given the strong reactions it has aroused - the French were so outraged by it that they took to the streets last year in protest.


In terms of the day-to-day business that the Austrians will be dealing with, there are a number of issues in the field of 'justice and home affairs' (meaning criminal law, civil law and asylum and immigration) currently before EU law-makers, including proposals on evidence and small claims. Electronic law-making was pioneered in Austria, so we can expect to hear more talk of information technology, such as the conference on e-justice and e-courts planned in May.


Conferences will also take place on alternative dispute resolution and class actions, the latter being an issue that has raised its head on occasion in Brussels. On better regulation (no presidency would be complete without something on it), a conference will take place just after Easter on 'subsidiarity' (taking decisions at the lowest level possible).


So how useful, or not, is the system of rotating presidencies? It is unlikely that the EU would grind to a halt if they were abolished; in fact the constitution proposes just that. On the one hand, they are costly and can lead to a disjointed approach to policy and law-making. On the other hand, they allow each country their six months in the limelight where they can promote their country and values to the rest of the EU - this is particularly important for the 'micro' states such as Malta, Luxembourg and Cyprus, which do not often get to strut centre stage in the international arena.


It remains to be seen whether Austria, which will not hold the presidency again until 2019 at the earliest, succeeds in under promising and over delivering - rather than the reverse.


June O'Keeffe is head of the Law Society's Brussels office, e-mail: brussels@lawsociety.org.uk.