RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE
Brussel, 12 maart 2004 (15.03) (OR. en)
7016/1/04 REV 1
ENFOPOL 22
NOTA van: aan: nr. vorig doc.: Betreft:
de Groep politiële samenwerking het Comité van artikel 36 7016/04 ENFOPOL 22; PB C 22 van 24.1.2002, blz. 1; PB C 281 van 22.11.2003, blz. 1; 15990/03 ENFOPOL 121 Ontwerp-conclusies van de Raad over politiesamenwerking ter bestrijding van voetbalgeweld
Ontwerp-conclusies van de Raad over politiesamenwerking ter bestrijding van voetbalgeweld DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE
Veroordeelt voetbalgeweld, de daarmee gepaard gaande ongeregeldheden en de gevolgen daarvan voor gewone burgers. De Raad beseft ook dat veel politiemensen bij het vervullen van hun centrale rol in de strijd tegen het voetbalgeweld zelf met geweld en geweldsdreiging geconfronteerd worden. OVERWEGENDE HETGEEN VOLGT: -
een kerndoel van de Europese Unie is de instandhouding van een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid voor al haar burgers;
7016/1/04 REV 1
las/GRA/KS/dm DG H II
1
NL
-
voetbal is een van de belangrijkste sportactiviteiten in Europa en trekt een massapubliek dat zich ook over de grens verplaatst;
-
het is van groot belang dat de toeschouwer van voetbalevenementen kan genieten in een betrouwbare en veilige omgeving zonder aan geweld of angst voor geweld te worden blootgesteld;
-
de dreiging van voetbalgeweld kan zich voordoen op alle niveaus waarop clubs of landen teams vriendschappelijk of in competitieverband tegen elkaar spelen;
-
de komende twee jaar zal er in Europa aanzienlijke aandacht zijn voor b elangrijke internationale voetbalevenementen: het Europees kampioenschap in 2004 en het wereldkampioenschap in 2006;
-
de bestrijding van voetbalgeweld is een prioriteit in de politiële samenwerking tussen de lidstaten van de Europese Unie;
-
de uitbreiding van de Europese Unie met tien nieuwe lidstaten in 2004 zal kansen creëren voor een verbreding van de operationele politiesamenwerking op dit terrein;
-
de instrumenten die de Raad tot dusverre ter bevordering van politiële samenwerking heeft vastgesteld zijn effectief gebleken en blijven van toepassing, maar het evoluerende karakter van voetbalgeweld maakt verdere ontwikkeling van die samenwerking noodzakelijk,
ONDERSCHRIJFT de in de bijlage vervatte elementen ter bestrijding van voetbalgeweld, NEEMT NOTA van de evaluatieconclusies betreffende de uitvoering van Besluit 2002/348/JBZ van 25 april 2002 met betrekking tot, onder meer, de oprichting van nationale informatiepunten betreffende voetbal en in het bijzonder de behoefte aan een betere informatie-uitwisseling en de indeling van supporters in categorieën, ERKENT dat voortzetting van een strategisch gestructureerd werkprogramma met doelstellingen voor de korte, de middellange en de lange termijn, die naar behoefte bijgesteld kunnen worden, de weg vooruit is,
7016/1/04 REV 1
las/GRA/KS/dm DG H II
2
NL
IS VERHEUGD OVER de contacten die op het gebied van politiesamenwerking gelegd zijn tussen de relevante Raadsinstanties en de Europese unie van voetbalbonden UEFA en IS VAN OORDEEL dat het overleg met de UEFA structureel voortgezet moet worde n, ROEPT de lidstaten OP de passende nationale instanties ertoe aan te sporen de banden met alle bij de organisatie van wedstrijden betrokken entiteiten aan te halen, het beleid inzake kaartverkoop voor voetbalwedstrijden gelijk te trekken en stewards beter op te leiden en vaker in te zetten.
_____________
7016/1/04 REV 1
las/GRA/KS/dm DG H II
3
NL
BIJLAGE 1.
Het voetbalhandboek voor internationale politiesamenwerking in verband met voetbal wedstrijden toetsen, wijzigen en verspreiden Het handboek is een belangrijk instrument in de bestrijdin g van voetbalgeweld. Het handboek kan doeltreffender worden door het tot een levend en actueel document met welomschreven operationele procedures te maken.
2.
Geregeld deskundigenvergaderingen beleggen Het is van essentieel belang regelmatig beste praktijken uit te wisselen met betrekking tot alle aspecten van politieoperaties in verband met voetbalwedstrijden.
3.
Overleg tussen de relevante Raadsinstanties en de UEFA organiseren De reeds gelegde contacten moeten worden uitgebouwd om toegevoegde waarde t e creëren door nauw samen te werken met de UEFA.
4.
Reizen/Reisbeperkingen in kaart brengen Het is nuttig in kaart te brengen welke praktijk elk van de lidstaten ten aanzien van reisbeperkingen hanteert, gelet op zijn wettelijke en constitutionele vereis ten.
5.
Het jaarlijks situatieverslag meer profiel geven Het situatieverslag biedt een globale en een gedetailleerde analyse van gedragingen tijdens voetbalwedstrijden in de lidstaten. Doel is het gebruik van het verslag in een strategische context te bevorderen en het snel te vervaardigen zodat het wijd kan worden verspreid.
6.
Een systeem van wederzijdse beoordeling van politieoperaties tijdens voetbal wedstrijden invoeren Een dergelijk systeem zou op vrijwillige basis functioneren met als doel praktische politiesamenwerking te bevorderen.
7.
Een website opzetten Er moet studie worden verricht naar de mogelijkheden om een gemakkelijk te raadplegen referentiecentrum in te richten waar politiediensten met het oog op hun planning en operaties nuttige informatie kunnen inwinnen.
8182/04
NB/lwp DG H III
4
EN
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 2 April 2004
8182/04
EUROJUST 22
NOTE From : To : Subject :
Joint Supervisory Body of Eurojust Article 36 Committee/COREPER/Council Activity Report of the Eurojust Joint Supervisory Body for the yea r 2003
1. Article 23(12) of the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust reads "The Joint Supervisory Body shall submit an annual report to the Council".
2. In Annex please find the Activity Report of the Eurojust Joint Supervisory Body for the year 2003. 3. The Article 36 Committee is asked to request COREPER to invite Council to take note of and endorse the report set out in Annex.
________________________
8182/04
NB/lwp DG H III
5
EN
ANNEX
First Activity Report of the JOINT SUPERVISORY BODY of Eurojust
2003 CONTENTS FOREWORD ..........................................................................................................
3
STRUCTURE OF EUROJUST ............................................................................
4
JOINT SUPERVISORY BODY...........................................................................
4
MEETINGS 2003...................................................................................................
5
AGREEMENT WITH EUROPOL .......................................................................
6
APPEALS ................................................................................................................
6
APPOINTMENT OF A DATA PROTECTION OFFICER ..............................
7
SECRETARIAT.....................................................................................................
7
APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES ..................................................................
8
JSB Secretariat P.O. Box 16183 2500 BD The Hague Tel.: +31 70 412 5192 Fax: +31 70 412 5191
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
FOREWORD As chairman of the Joint Supervisory Body of Eurojust, I am pleased to present our first Activity Report outlining the activities of the JSB since its establishment in 2003.Up to 30 June 2003, the chairman was Gerasimos Fourlanos from Greece and Alphonso Papa from Italy for the latter part of the year.
The Joint Supervisory Body has an important role to play in ensuring that Eurojust balances the rights of the individual regarding personal data held about them, with the important work of Eurojust in its fight against serious cross border crime. On 29 April 2003, representatives attended the Inauguration of Eurojust, which was a very successful event attended by Ministers of Justice from most of the Member States. The main focus of its first period of activity was to ensure that structures were being put in place at Eurojust to enable it to carry out its functions, while at the same time adhering to the Data Protection requirements. While recognising that Eurojust is in a start up situation, nevertheless, I am pleased to record that the College of Eurojust and staff are conscious of their responsibilities and are making satisfactory progress overall. I thank the former and current members, from Netherlands and Luxembourg, of the JSB for their contribution to the work of the JSB and also the College and staff of Eurojust who have facilitated our work and provided every cooperation. I look forward to the further developme nt of this constructive and effective relationship in the future.
Joe Meade Chairman of the Joint Supervisory Body of Eurojust and Irish member 2 March 2004
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
STRUCTURE OF EUROJUST
A NEW EUROPEAN UNION BODY OF 15 PROS ECUTORS AND JUDGES , ONE NOMINATED BY EACH M EMBER STATE, EUROJUST WAS ESTABLIS HED BY COUNCIL DECISION OF 28 FEBRUARY 2002 TO FACILITATE
AND
AUTHORITIES
IN
IMPROVE
EU
COOPERATION
MEMBER
STATES
AND WHEN
C OORDINATION THEY
ARE
BETWEEN
DEALING
INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS OF SERIOUS TRANS -NATIONAL CRIME.
THE
WIT H
TO
COMPETENT
CROSS -BORDER
DO SO,
EUROJUST
M EMBER’S 15
NATIONAL MEMBERS REQUIRE ACCESS TO SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION, OFTEN OF A PERSONAL NATURE RELATING TO SUSPECTS , WITNESSES AND VICTIMS . IT BEGAN
PROVISIONAL EUROJUST IN BRUSSELS ON 1 M ARCH 2001 AND MOVED TO THE HAGUE 2002.
OPERATIONS AS IN DECEMBER
JOINT SUPERVISORY BODY The task of the JSB is outlined in Article 23 of the Council Decision of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust. An independent body, it will monitor the activities of Eurojust in order to ensure that the processing of personal data is carried out in accordance with the Eurojust Decision. It will also hear appeals lodged by individuals who are dissatisfied if Eurojust does not grant them a right of access to personal information as outlined in Article 19 of the Council decision. Members are appointed from each Member State, from which three make up the Joint Supervisory Body, being the member from the state which currently holds the presidency of the European Union and those of the two forthcoming presidencies. Due to a delay by some member states in nominating members, the JSB could not become operational until May 2003 at the earliest.
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
Rules of Procedure Rules of Procedure were drafted and adopted in March 2004 by all the members of the JSB in line with the Council decision.
MEETINGS 2003 The Joint Supervisory Body met on three occasions in The Hague during 2003 as well as communicating by email on other occasions when necessary. s
The first meeting, with the College of Eurojust, took place on 21 st May 2003. This being the initial meeting it was very useful in outlining and appreciating the respective roles of the JSB and Eurojust. The JSB emphasized to the College that personal information is received by Eurojust in the course of their coordinated investigations and must be subject to data protection rules. The body should not be seen as a burden to Eurojust in its endeavours to investigate and improve prosecution of serious cross-border crime; however, clarity and lines of demarcation must be put in place as soon as possible, where personal data is concerned. Eurojust confirmed that priority would be given to the appointment of a Data Protection Officer who would oversee the case filing system and database, and would draw up Data Protection Rules. Following a proposal from OLAF, the body charged with tackling fraud within the European Community institutions, a Memorandum of Understanding has been drawn up to improve cooperation between the two bodies. The draft agreement with Europol would be revised to take into account the comments of the JSB of Eurojust as well as comments made by the JSB of Europol . An agreement with Norway and Europol was already in place and it was suggested that a generic model along the lines of this agreement, suitably adapted for Eurojust requirements, be established to be used in future agreements with other countries.
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
s
A second meeting took place on 14 th October 2003 at which Eurojust was pleased to introduce Diana Alonso Blas who has been appointed as Data Protection Officer. Examples of cases were presented to the JSB to give them more background on Eurojust casework as well as an outline of plans being made to computerize work procedures. The JSB were updated on the progress of the agreement with Norway which will be based on the Europol agreement with Norway. It was agreed that information on the activities of the JSB should be available on the website in due course.
A second meeting took place on 14th October 2003
AGREEMENT WITH EUROPOL A meeting took place on 31st July with the JSB of Europol, representatives from Europol and Eurojust and the EU Council. As a result, the draft agreement for cooperation between Europol and Eurojust was subsequently revised to the satisfaction of both JSBs . The agreement envisages the transfer of information from Eurojust to Europol spontaneously or on motivated request. This agreement will be formalized in 2004.
APPEALS
NO APPEALS WERE RECEIVED DURING 2003.
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
APPOINTMENT OF THE DATA PROTECTION OFFICER One important development during the year has been the appointment of a Data Protection Officer for Eurojust. The JSB were pleased to learn that Ms. Diana Alonso Blas, LL.M. (European Law) took up the position in November 2003. Before her commencement with Eurojust, Ms. Alonso Blas was an official at the Data Protection Unit of DG Internal Market at the European Commission and closely involved with the Article 29 Working Party. Prio r to this, she carried out several data protection comparative research projects for the European Commission. She acted as privacy expert for the Belgian Data Protection Authority and Senior International Officer with the Dutch Data Protection Authority. She will, as a priority, draft Data Protection Rules, which will be discussed with the JSB, and anticipates that definitive rules will be in place during the first half of 2004.
SECRETARIAT In accordance with Article 32(10) of the Eurojust Decision, a Secretariat has been established, the costs of which will be met by Eurojust. As an interim measure, Ms. Catherine O'Doherty will provide secretarial support to the Joint Supervisory Body, under the direction of the Chairman. The JSB expresses its appreciation for the excellent assistance provided by her.
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
Mrs. Nicole LEPOIVRE
GERMANY
Mr. Klaus TOLKSDORF
DENMARK
Mrs. Lena ANDERSEN
GREECE
Mr. Gerasimos FOURLANOS
SPAIN
Mr. José Luis PIÑAR MAÑAS
FRANCE
Mr. Didier GASSE
IRELAND
Mr. Joseph MEADE
ITALY
Mr. Alfonso PAPA
LUXEMBOURG
Mrs. Lotty PRUSSEN
NETHERLANDS
Mr. Ulco. VAN DE POL
AUSTRIA
Dr. Gustav MAIER
PORTUGAL
Mr. José A. GUIMARÃES DE SOUSA PINHEIRO
FINLAND
Mrs Hagar Gabriela NORDSTRÖM
SWEDEN
Mr. Hans FRENNERED
UNITED KINGDOM Mr. Richard THOMAS
Former Appointees in 2003: FRANCE
Mr. MICHEL GENTOT
PORTUGAL
Mr. MÁRIO MANUEL VARGES GOMES
APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES
BELGIUM
________________________
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE
Brussel, 20 april 2004 (OR. en)
16184/1/03 REV 1
FRONT 186 COMIX 769
WETGEVINGSBESLUITEN EN ANDERE INSTRUMENTEN Betreft: Beschikking van de Raad houdende vaststelling van de minimumaanduidingen voor signalisatie aan de buitengrensdoorlaatposten
16184/03
CS/hd DG H I
NL
BESCHIKKING VAN DE RAAD van houdende vaststelling van de minimumaanduidingen voor signalisatie aan de buitengrensdoorlaatposten
DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Gelet op het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, en met name op artikel 62, punt 2), onder a), Gezien het initiatief van de Helleense Republiek 1 , Gezien het advies van het Europees Parlement 2 ,
1 2
PB C 125 van 27.3.2003, blz. 6. Advies van 18 november 2003 (nog niet verschenen in het Publicatieblad).
16184/1/03 REV 1
CS/mm DG H I
1
NL
Overwegende hetgeen volgt: (1)
De bestaande aanduidingen die voor signalisatie aan de buiteng rensdoorlaatposten van de luchtgrenzen worden gebruikt om de stromen personen die het grondgebied van de lidstaten binnenkomen te kanaliseren, zoals deze vervat zijn in Besluit SCH/Com-e x (94) 17, 4e herz., van het Uitvoerend Comité van Schengen van 22 december 1994 betreffende de invoering en toepassing van de Schengenregeling op verkeersluchthavens en secundaire luchthavens 1 , moeten geactualiseerd worden om rekening te houden met de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte alsook met de Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Gemeenschap en haar lidstaten, enerzijds, en de Zwitserse Bondsstaat, anderzijds, over het vrije verkeer van personen.
(2)
Ook is het nodig op eenvormige wijze vast te stellen welke aanduidingen moeten worden gebruikt voor de nieuwe signalisatie waarmee, voorzover van toepassing, de reizigersstromen aan de land- en zeebuitengrenzen worden gekanaliseerd.
(3)
Om te vermijden dat de lidstaten worden opgezadeld met buitensporige financiële lasten, moet worden voorzien in een overgangsperiode van vijf jaar tijdens dewelke het bepaalde in deze beschikking alleen van toepassing is wanneer de lidstaten nieuwe signalisatie plaatsen of bestaande signalisatie vervangen.
(4)
Overeenkomstig de artikelen 1 en 2 van het Protocol betreffende de positie van Denemarken, dat is gehecht aan het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie en het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, neemt Denemarken niet deel aan de vaststelling van deze beschikking en is het niet gebonden door of onderworp en aan de toepassing ervan. Aangezien er met deze beschikking wordt beoogd voort te bouwen op het Schengenacquis krachtens de bepalingen van Titel IV van het derde deel van het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, beslist Denemarken op grond van artikel 5 van genoemd Protocol binnen een termijn van zes maanden nadat de Raad deze beschikking heeft vastgesteld, of het deze in zijn nationale wetgeving zal omzetten.
1
PB L 239 van 22.9.2000, blz. 168.
16184/1/03 REV 1
CS/mm DG H I
2
NL
(5)
Wat IJsland en Noorwegen betreft, vormt deze beschikking een ontwikkeling v an de bepalingen van het Schengenacquis als bedoeld in de door de Raad van de Europese Unie, de Republiek IJsland en het Koninkrijk Noorwegen gesloten overeenkomst inzake de wijze waarop deze twee staten worden betrokken bij de uitvoering, de toepassing en de ontwikkeling van het Schengenacquis 1 , die vallen onder artikel 1, punt A, van Besluit 1999/437/EG van de Raad van 17 mei 1999 inzake bepaalde toepassingsbepalingen van die overeenkomst. 2
(6)
Deze beschikking vormt een ontwikkeling van bepalingen va n het Schengenacquis waaraan het Verenigd Koninkrijk niet deelneemt, overeenkomstig Besluit 2000/365/EG van de Raad van 29 mei 2000 betreffende het verzoek van het Verenigd Koninkrijk van Groot-Brittannië en Noord-Ierland deel te mogen nemen aan enkele van de bepalingen van het Schengenacquis 3 ; het Verenigd Koninkrijk neemt derhalve niet deel aan de vaststelling van deze beschikking en is hieraan niet gebonden noch onderworpen aan de toepassing ervan.
(7)
Deze beschikking vormt een ontwikkeling van de bepalingen van het Schengenacquis waaraan Ierland niet deelneemt, overeenkomstig Besluit 2002/192/EG van de Raad van 28 februari 2002 betreffende het verzoek van Ierland deel te mogen nemen aan enkele van de bepalingen van het Schengenacquis 4 ; Ierland neemt derhalve niet deel aan de vaststelling van deze beschikking en is hieraan niet gebonden noch onderworpen aan de toepassing ervan.
(8)
Deze beschikking is een rechtshandeling die voorbouwt op het Schengenacquis of daaraan is verbonden als bedoeld in artikel 3, lid 2, van de Toetredingsakte van 2003,
HEEFT DE VOLGENDE BESCHIKKING VASTGESTELD:
1 2 3 4
PB L 176 van 10.7.1999, blz. 36. PB L 176 van 10.7.1999, blz. 31. PB L 131 van 1.6.2000, blz. 43. PB L 64 van 7.3.2002, blz. 20.
16184/1/03 REV 1
CS/mm DG H I
3
NL
Artikel 1 De lidstaten voorzien in aparte trajecten in de erkende doorlaatposten van hun luchtbuitengrenzen, zodat zij de noodzakelijke grenscontroles kunnen uitvo eren op de personen die hun grondgebied binnenkomen. De trajecten worden van elkaar onderscheiden door middel van de in artikel 2 genoemde signalisatie.
De lidstaten gebruiken dezelfde signalisatie indien zij voorzien in aparte trajecten in de buitengrens doorlaatposten van hun land - en zeegrenzen. Artikel 2 De aanduidingen op de signalisatie, eventueel in elektronische vorm, worden omschreven in de bijlagen. De aanduidingen kunnen in de taal of talen zijn gesteld die elke lidstaat passend acht.
16184/1/03 REV 1
CS/mm DG H I
4
NL
Artikel 3 1. a) b)
Burgers van de EU; onderdanen van staten die partij zijn bij de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese
Economische Ruimte;
c)
onderdanen van de Zwitserse Bondsstaat; en
d)
gezinsleden van de onder a), b), of c) genoemde personen, die geen onderdaan van een van
die staten zijn en op wie het Gemeenschapsrecht inzake het vrije verkeer van burgers van de Europese Unie van toepassing is,
mogen het traject volgen dat wordt aangegeven met de in bijlage I getoonde signalisatie. Zij mogen ook het traject volgen dat wordt aangegeven met de in bijlage II getoonde signalisatie. 2. Alle andere onderdanen van derde landen volgen het traject dat wordt aangegeven met de in bijlage II getoonde signalisatie. 3. Wanneer echter de verkeersstromen in een bepaalde grensdoorlaatpost tijdelijk verstoord zijn, kunnen de bevoegde autoriteiten afwijken van de regels betreffende het gebruik van de verschillende trajecten, zolang de normale situatie niet hersteld is. Artikel 4 Aan landgrens- en zeegrensdoorlaatposten kunnen de lidstaten het voertuigenverkeer scheiden in aparte rijstroken voor lichte en voor zware voertuigen en bussen door gebruik te maken van de in bijlage III getoonde signalisatie.
De lidstaten mogen, waar passend, in het licht van de plaatselijke omstandigheden afwijken van de aanduidingen op deze signalisatie.
16184/1/03 REV 1
CS/mm DG H I
5
NL
Artikel 5 Punt 2 van de bijlage (SCH/I-Front (94) 39, 9e herz.) bij Besluit SCH/Com-ex (94) 17, 4e herz., van het Uitvoerend Comité van Schengen van 22 december 1994, en punt 2 van het aan die bijlage gehechte besluit inzake de invoering en toepassing van de Schengen-regeling op verkeersluchthavens en secundaire luchthavens, worden ingetrokken.
Artikel 6 Deze beschikking is van toepassing met ingang van 1 juni 2004, voorzover de lidstaten nieuwe signalisatie plaatsen of bestaande signalisatie vervangen in de onder deze beschikking vallende grensdoorlaatposten. In alle andere gevallen is deze beschikking van toepassing met ingang van 1 juni 2009.
Artikel 7 Deze beschikking is niet van toepassing op de grenzen tussen lidstaten die onder artikel 3, lid 2, van de Toetredingsakte van 2003 vallen. Artikel 8 Deze beschikking is gericht tot de lidstaten, overeenkomstig het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap.
Gedaan te Voor de Raad De voorzitter
________________
16184/1/03 REV 1
CS/mm DG H I
6
NL
BIJLAGE I
EU EER CH
BURGERS
_________________
16184/1/03 REV 1 BIJLAGE I
CS/mm DG H I
7
NL
BIJLAGE II
ALLE PASPOORTEN
_________________
16184/1/03 REV 1 BIJLAGE II
CS/mm DG H I
8
EN
BIJLAGE III
EU EER CH
auto's
EU EER CH
vrachtwagens
EU EER CH bussen
14994/03
rv DG H I
NL
ALL ALLE PASSPORTS PASPOORTEN auto's
ALL
ALLE
PASSPORTS
PASPOORTEN vrachtwagens
ALL
ALLE PASSPORTS
PASPOORTEN bussen
____________________
14994/03
rv DG H I
NL
RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE
Brussel, 17 december 2003 (OR. en)
14994/03 Interinstitutioneel dossier: 2002/0043 (CNS) MIGR 101
WETGEVINGSBESLUITEN EN ANDERE INSTRUMENTEN Richtlijn van de Raad betreffende de verblijfstitel die in ruil voor samenwerking Betreft: met de bevoegde autoriteiten wordt afgegeven aan onderdanen van derde landen die het slachtoffer zijn van mensenhandel of hulp hebben gekregen bij illegale immigratie
14994/03
rv DG H I
NL
RICHTLIJN 2003/.../EG VAN DE RAAD van betreffende de verblijfstitel die in ruil voor samenwerking met de bevoegde autoriteiten wordt afgegeven aan onderdanen van derde landen die het slachtoffer zijn van mensenhandel of hulp hebben gekregen bij illegale immigratie
DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Gelet op het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, en met name op artikel 63, eerste alinea, punt 3, Gezien het voorstel van de Commissie 1 , Gezien het advies van het Europees Parlement2 Gezien het advies van het Europees Economisch en Sociaal Comité 3 , Na raadpleging van het Comité van de Regio's,
1 2 3
PB C 126 E van 28.5.2002, blz. 393. Advies uitgebracht op 5 december 2002 (nog n iet bekendgemaakt in het Publicatieblad). PB C 221, 17.9.2002, blz. 80.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
12
EN
Overwegende hetgeen volgt: (1)
De ontwikkeling van een gemeenschappelijk immigratiebeleid, dat de omschrijving van de voorwaarden voor binnenkomst en verblijf van vreemdelingen alsmede maatregelen ter bestrijding van de illegale immigratie omvat, is een wezenlijk aspect van de doelstelling van de Europese Unie een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid tot stand te brengen.
(2)
De Europese Raad heeft tijdens zijn speciale bijeenkomst van Tampere van 15 en 16 oktober 1999 verklaard dat hij vastbesloten is om de illegale immigratie bij de bron aan te pakken, meer bepaald door de strijd aan te binden met diegenen die zich met mensensmokkel en economische uitbuiting van migranten bezighoud en. De lidstaten werd verzocht hun inspanningen te richten op het opsporen en ontmantelen van de betrokken criminele netwerken en ervoor te zorgen dat de rechten van de slachtoffers worden gewaarborgd.
(3)
De toenemende internationale bezorgdheid over dit verschijnsel blijkt uit het feit dat de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties een Verdrag tegen de grensoverschrijdende georganiseerde criminaliteit, alsmede een aanvullend protocol ter voorkoming, bestrijding en bestraffing van mensenhandel, inzo nderheid handel in vrouwen en kinderen, en een protocol tegen de smokkel van migranten over land, over zee en door de lucht heeft aangenomen. De Gemeenschap en de vijftien lidstaten hebben deze in december 2000 ondertekend.
(4)
Deze richtlijn doet geen afbreuk aan de bescherming die overeenkomstig het internationale vluchtelingenrecht wordt verleend aan vluchtelingen, rechthebbenden op subsidiaire bescherming en aanvragers van internationale bescherming. Zij doet evenmin afbreuk aan de andere instrumenten betreffende mensenrechten.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
13
EN
(5)
Deze richtlijn doet geen afbreuk aan andere bepalingen betreffende de bescherming van slachtoffers, getuigen of bijzonder kwetsbare personen. Zij doet evenmin afbreuk aan de prerogatieven van de lidstaten inzake het om humanitaire of andere redenen toegekende recht van verblijf.
(6)
In deze richtlijn worden de grondrechten en de beginselen die met name in het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie worden erkend, in aanmerking genomen.
(7)
De lidstaten passen deze richtlijn toe zonder onderscheid naar geslacht, ras, huidskleur, etnische of sociale herkomst, genetische kenmerken, taal, godsdienst of wereldbeschouwing, politieke of andere overtuigingen, het behoren tot een nationale minderheid, vermogen, geboorte, handicaps, leeftijd of seksuele gerichtheid.
(8)
Richtlijn 2002/90/EG van de Raad van 28 november 2002 tot omschrijving van hulpverlening bij illegale binnenkomst, illegale doortocht en illegaal verblijf
1
en Kaderbesluit
2002/629/JBZ van de Raad van 19 juli 2002 inzake de bestrijding van de mensenhandel 2 hebben tot doel de preventie en de bestrijding van bovengenoemde delicten te versterken. (9)
Bij deze richtlijn wordt voor slachtoffers van mensenhandel of, indien de lidstaten de werkingssfeer van de ric htlijn wensen te verruimen, voor onderdanen van derde landen die hulp hebben gekregen bij illegale immigratie een verblijfstitel ingesteld die voor de betrokkenen een voldoende prikkel moet zijn om samen te werken met de bevoegde autoriteiten en waaraan, om misbruik te voorkomen, bepaalde voorwaarden zijn verbonden.
1 2
PB L 328 van 5.12.2002, blz. 17. PB L 203 van 1.8.2002, blz. 1.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
14
EN
(10) Daartoe dienen de criteria voor de afgifte van een verblijfstitel, de voorwaarden voor verblijf en de gronden voor niet-verlenging of intrekking te worden vastgesteld. Het aan deze richtlijn ontleende recht van verblijf is van voorlopige aard en verbonden aan voorwaarden. (11) De betrokken onderdanen van derde landen moeten in kennis worden gesteld van de mogelijkheid deze verblijfstitel te verkrijgen en zij dienen bedenktijd te krijgen. Dit moet hen in staat stellen met kennis van zaken te beslissen of zij, gezien de eventueel daaraan verbonden risico’s, bereid zijn samen te werken met de bevoegde autoriteiten (politie, het openbaar ministerie en de rechterlijke autoriteiten), zodat zij h un medewerking op vrijwillige basis verlenen en deze derhalve doeltreffender is. (12) Gelet op hun kwetsbaarheid dienen de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen de hulp te krijgen waarin deze richtlijn voorziet. Deze hulp moet hen in staat stellen om te h erstellen en zich aan de invloed van de daders van de strafbare feiten te onttrekken. De medische behandeling voor onderdanen van derde landen die onder deze richtlijn vallen, omvat zo nodig ook psychotherapeutische zorg. (13) Het besluit inzake de afgifte van een verblijfstitel met een geldigheidsduur van ten minste zes maanden, of de verlenging daarvan, wordt genomen door de bevoegde autoriteiten, die tevens nagaan of aan de desbetreffende voorwaarden is voldaan. (14) De toepassing van deze richtlijn mag geen afbreuk doen aan de werkzaamheden van de bevoegde autoriteiten in enig stadium van de desbetreffende nationale procedure, met name het onderzoek van de strafbare feiten in kwestie.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
15
EN
(15) De lidstaten dienen in overweging te nemen om op andere grond en, overeenkomstig hun nationale wetgeving, toestemming voor verblijf te verlenen aan onderdanen van derde landen die weliswaar binnen de werkingssfeer van deze richtlijn vallen, maar niet of niet langer voldoen aan de daarin gestelde voorwaarden, aan lede n van hun familie of aan personen die als familieleden behandeld worden. (16) Teneinde de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen in staat te stellen hun onafhankelijkheid te verwerven en niet naar het criminele netwerk terug te keren, dienen de houders van de verblijfstitel, onder de bij deze richtlijn vastgestelde voorwaarden, toegang te krijgen tot de arbeidsmarkt en tot beroepsopleiding en onderwijs. Bij het verlenen van toegang tot beroeps opleiding en onderwijs aan de houder van een verblijfstitel dienen de lidstaten met name rekening te houden met de vermoedelijke verblijfsduur. (17) De deelname van de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen aan bestaande of geplande programma's en regelingen moet hen helpen om weer een normaal sociaal leven op te bouwen. (18) Wanneer een betrokken onderdaan van een derde land een ander soort verblijfstitel aanvraagt, nemen de lidstaten een besluit op grond van het gewone vreemdelingenrecht. Bij de behandeling van een dergelijke aanvraag houden de lidstaten rekening met het feit dat aan de betrokken onderdaan van een derde land uit hoofde van deze richtlijn een verblijfstitel is afgegeven.
(19) De lidstaten dienen de Commissie in verband met de uitvoering van deze richtlijn de informatie te verschaffen die is verkregen in het kader van de werkzaamheden betreffende de verzameling en verwerking van statistische gegevens met betrekking tot zaken die onder Justitie en Binnenlandse Zaken vallen.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
16
EN
(20) Aangezien de doelstelling van de voorgenomen richtlijn, namelijk een verblijfstitel in te voeren voor de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen die hun medewerking verlenen aan de bestrijding van de mensensmokkel, niet voldoende door de lidstaten kan worden verwezenlijkt en derhalve, wegens de omvang van de actie, beter op communautair niveau kan worden verwezenlijkt, kan de Gemeenschap maatregelen vaststellen, overeenkomstig het subsidiariteitsbeginsel van artikel 5 van het Verdrag. Overeenkomstig het evenredigheidsbeginsel, dat in hetzelfde artikel is opgenomen, gaat deze richtlijn niet verder dan hetgeen nodig is om die doelstelling te bereiken. (21) Overeenkomstig de artikelen 1 en 2 van het Protocol betreffende de positie van het Verenigd Koninkrijk en Ierland, gehecht aan het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie en aan het Verdrag betreffende de oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, en onverminderd artikel 4 van genoemd protocol, nemen deze lidstaten niet deel aan de aanneming van de onderhavige richtlijn en zijn de bepalingen daarvan niet bindend voor, noch van toepassing in deze lidstaten. (22) Overeenkomstig de artikelen 1 en 2 van het Protocol betreffende de positie van Denemarken, gehecht aan het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie en aan het Verdrag betreffende de oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap, neemt Denemarken niet deel aan de aanneming van de onderhavige richtlijn en zijn de bepalingen daarvan niet bindend voor, noch van toepassing in Denemarken,
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
17
EN
HEEFT DE VOLGENDE RICHTLIJN AANGENOMEN: HOOFDSTUK I Algemene bepalingen Artikel 1 Doel
Het doel van deze richtlijn is de voorwaarden vast te stellen voor het verlenen van verblijfstitels van beperkte duur, gekoppeld aan de duur van de daarmee verband houdende nationale procedures, aan onderdanen van derde landen die hun medewerking verlenen bij het bestrijden van mensenhandel of hulp bij illegale immigratie. Artikel 2 Definities Voor de toepassing van deze richtlijn wordt verstaan onder: a)
"onderdaan van een derde land": eenieder die geen burger van de Unie is in de zin van artikel 17, lid 1, van het Verdrag;
b)
"hulp bij illegale immigratie": gevallen als bedoeld in de artikelen 1 en 2 van Richtlijn 2002/90/EG;
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
18
EN
c)
"mensenhandel": gevallen als bedoeld in de artikelen 1, 2 en 3, van Kaderbesluit 2002/629/JBZ;
d)
"maatregel tot uitvoering van een verwijderingsbesluit": elke maatregel die door een lidstaat wordt getroffen met het oog op de uitvoering van een door de bevoegde autoriteiten genomen besluit waarin de verwijdering van een onderdaan van een derde land wordt bevolen;
e)
"verblijfstitel": iedere door een lidstaat verleende toestemming op grond waarvan het een onderdaan van een derde land die aan de bij deze richtlijn vastgestelde voorwaarden voldoet, is toegestaan legaal op het grondgebied van die lidstaat te verblijven;
f)
"niet-begeleide minderjarige": onderdaan van een derde land jonger dan achttien jaar die zonder begeleiding van een volwassene die krachtens de wet of het gewoonterecht voor hem verantwoordelijk is, op het grondgebied van een lidstaat aankomt, zolang hij niet daad werkelijk onder de hoede van een dergelijke volwassene staat, of minderjarige die nadat hij op het grondgebied van een lidstaat is aangekomen, zonder begeleiding wordt achtergelaten.
Artikel 3 Werkingssfeer
1. De lidstaten passen deze richtlijn toe op onderdanen van derde landen die het slachtoffer zijn of zijn geweest van strafbare feiten in verband met mensenhandel, ook als zij het grondgebied van de lidstaten illegaal zijn binnengekomen.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
19
EN
2. De lidstaten kunnen deze richtlijn toepassen op onderdanen van derde landen d ie hulp hebben gekregen bij illegale immigratie. 3. Deze richtlijn is van toepassing op de bovenbedoelde onderdanen van derde landen die volgens de wetgeving van de betrokken lidstaat de meerderjarige leeftijd hebben bereikt. In afwijking van deze regel kunnen de lidstaten besluiten deze richtlijn onder in hun nationale recht omschreven voorwaarden toe te passen op minderjarigen. Artikel 4 Gunstiger bepalingen Deze richtlijn belet de lidstaten niet om voor personen die onder deze richtlijn vallen, gunstiger bepalingen vast te stellen of te handhaven.
HOOFDSTUK II Procedure voor de afgifte van verblijfstitels Artikel 5 Verstrekking van informatie aan de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen Wanneer de bevoegde autoriteiten van de lidstaten van oordeel zijn dat deze richtlijn van toepassing zou kunnen zijn op een bepaalde onderdaan van een derde land, stellen zij de betrokkene in kennis van de mogelijkheden die deze richtlijn biedt.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
20
EN
De lidstaten kunnen besluiten dat dergelijke informatie ook verstrekt kan worden door een nietgouvernementele organisatie of een vereniging die door de betrokken lidstaat speciaal daartoe is aangewezen. Artikel 6 Bedenktijd
1. De lidstaten zorgen ervoor dat de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen bedenktijd krijgen om te herstellen en zich te onttrekken aan de invloed van de daders van de strafbare feiten, zodat zij met kennis van zaken kunnen beslissen of zij bereid zijn met de bevoegde autoriteiten samen te werken. Duur en aanvang van de in de eerste alinea bedoelde te rmijn worden overeenkomstig het nationale recht vastgesteld.
2. Tijdens de periode voor de bedenktijd hebben de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen, in afwachting van de beslissing van de bevoegde autoriteiten, toegang tot de behandeling waarin artikel 7 voorziet en mag geen enkele tegen hen genomen verwijderingsmaatregel ten uitvoer worden gelegd. 3. De bedenktijd geeft geen recht op verblijf uit hoofde van deze richtlijn. 4. De lidstaat kan de bedenktijd te allen tijde beëindigen indien de bevoegde autoriteiten hebben vastgesteld dat de betrokkene actief, vrijwillig en uit eigen beweging opnieuw contact heeft opge nomen met de daders van de strafbare feiten als bedoeld in artikel 2, onder b) en c), alsook om redenen die verband houden met de openbare orde of de bescherming van de binnenlandse veiligheid.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
21
EN
Artikel 7 Behandeling die verleend wordt voorafgaand aan de afgifte van de verblijfstitel 1. De lidstaten waarborgen de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen die over onvoldoende middelen beschikken, een levensstandaard die hen in staat stelt in hun onderhoud te voorzien, alsmede toegang tot spoedeisende medische behandelingen. Zij voorzien in de bijzondere behoeften van de meest kwetsbare personen, zo nodig en indien het nationale recht hierin voorziet, in de vorm van psychologische bijstand. 2. De lidstaten houden bij de toepassing van de bepalingen van deze richtlijn naar behoren rekening met de behoeften van de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen op het gebied van veiligheid en bescherming, overeenkomstig het nationale recht. 3. De lidstaten garanderen de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen zo nodig taalkundige bijstand. 4. De lidstaten kunnen, onder de door het nationale recht gestelde voorwaarden, en indien zij een dergelijk systeem kennen, de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen kosteloze rechtshulp bieden. Artikel 8 Afgifte en verlenging van de verblijfstitel
1. Wanneer de bedenktijd verstreken is, of eerder indien de bevoegde autoriteiten van oordeel zijn dat de betrokken onderdaan in middels heeft voldaan aan het in punt b) genoemde criterium, bekijkt een lidstaat: a)
of het voor het onderzoek of de gerechtelijke procedure dienstig is het verblijf van de persoon in kwestie op zijn grondgebied te verlengen, en
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
22
EN
b)
of deze duidelijk blijk heeft gegeven van zijn bereidheid tot medewerking, en
c)
of deze alle banden met de vermoedelijke daders van een of meer van de in artikel 2, onder b) en c), omschreven strafbare feiten heeft verbroken.
2. Onverminderd redenen die verband houden met de openbare orde of de bescherming van de binnenlandse veiligheid mag de verblijfstitel alleen worden afgegeven als aan de in lid 1 genoemde voorwaarden is voldaan. 3. Onverminderd de bepalingen van artikel 14 betreffende de intrekking, heeft de verblijfs titel een geldigheidsduur van tenminste zes maanden. Wanneer de voorwaarden van lid 2 van dit artikel vervuld blijven, wordt hij verlengd. HOOFDSTUK III Behandeling van houders van de verblijfstitel Artikel 9 Na de afgifte van de verblijfstitel verleende behandeling 1. De lidstaten zorgen ervoor dat houders van een verblijfstitel die niet over voldoende middelen beschikken, tenminste dezelfde behandeling krijgen als die waarin artikel 7 voorziet.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
23
EN
2. De lidstaten verstrekken de noodzakelijke medische of andere bijstand aan onderdanen van derde landen die niet over voldoende middelen beschikken en bijzondere behoeften hebben, zoals zwangere vrouwen, gehandicapten en slachtoffers van seksueel of ander geweld en, ingeval de lidstaten gebruikmaken van de kra chtens artikel 3, lid 3, geboden mogelijkheid, minderjarigen. Artikel 10 Minderjarigen
Wanneer de lidstaten gebruikmaken van de krachtens artikel 3, lid 3, geboden mogelijkheid, gelden de volgende bepalingen: a)
De lidstaten houden bij de toepassing van deze richtlijn naar behoren rekening met de belangen van het kind. Zij zien erop toe dat de procedure is afgestemd op de leeftijd en de maturiteit van het kind. Als zij dat in het belang van het kind achten, kunnen zij met name de bedenktijd verlengen.
b)
De lidstaten verlenen het kind toegang tot het onderwijsstelsel onder dezelfde voorwaarden als die welke gelden voor de nationale onderdanen. De lidstaten kunnen bepalen dat deze toegang beperkt blijft tot het openbaar onderwijs.
c)
In het geval van niet-begeleide minderjarige onderdanen van derde landen nemen de lidstaten de nodige maatregelen om de identiteit en de nationaliteit van de minderjarigen vast te stellen en om vast te stellen dat zij niet begeleid zijn. De lidstaten stellen alles in het werk om de families van de minderjarigen zo snel mogelijk terug te vinden en nemen ten spoedigste de maatregelen die nodig zijn om te garanderen dat de minderjarigen in rechte vertegenwoordigd zijn, inclusief zo nodig in het kader van de strafprocedure, in overeenstemming met het nationale recht.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
24
EN
Artikel 11 Arbeid, beroepsopleiding en onderwijs 1. De lidstaten stellen de regels vast volgens dewelke houders van de verblijfstitel toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt, beroepsopleiding en onderwijs wordt toegestaan. Deze toegang is beperkt tot de geldigheidsduur van de verblijfstitel.
2. De voorwaarden en procedures voor het toestaan van toegang tot de arbeidsmarkt, beroepsop leiding en onderwijs, worden door de bevoegde autoriteiten overeenkomstig de nationale wetgeving bepaald. Artikel 12 Programma's en regelingen voor de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen
1. De betrokken onderdanen van derde landen krijgen toegang tot bestaande programma's en regelingen die erop gericht zijn dat de betrokken onderdanen weer een normaal sociaal leven opbouwen en die zo nodig cursussen omvatten ter verbetering van hun beroepsvaardigheden of ter voorbereiding op hun terugkeer naar het land van herkomst; deze programma's en regelingen kunnen worden aangeboden door de lidstaten of door niet-gouvernementele organisaties of verenigingen die een specifieke overeenkomst met een lidstaat hebben.
De lidstaten kunnen specifieke programma's en regelingen aan de betrokken onderdanen van derde landen aanbieden.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
25
EN
2. Wanneer een lidstaat besluit de in lid 1 bedoelde programma's of regelingen in te voeren en te implementeren, kan hij aan de afgifte of verlenging van een verblijfstitel de voorwaarde verbinden dat aan deze programma's of regelingen wordt deelgenomen. HOOFDSTUK IV Niet-verlenging en intrekking
Artikel 13 Niet-verlenging 1. Een krachtens deze richtlijn afgegeven verblijfstitel wordt niet verlengd wanneer de voorwaarden van artikel 8, lid 2, niet meer vervuld zijn of wanneer de desbetreffende procedure bij besluit van de bevoegde autoriteiten is beëindigd.
2. Na afloop van de geldigheidstermijn van een krachtens deze richtlijn afgegeven verblijfstitel is het gewone vreemdelingenrecht van toepassing. Artikel 14 Intrekking De verblijfstitel kan te allen tijde worden ingetrokken indien de voorwaarden voor afgifte niet langer vervuld zijn. De verblijfstitel kan met name in de volgende gevallen worden ingetrokken:
a)
wanneer de houder actief, vrijwillig en uit eigen beweging opnieuw contact heeft opgenomen met de vermoedelijke daders van de strafbare feiten in kwestie, of
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
26
EN
b)
wanneer de bevoegde autoriteit van oordeel is dat de medewerking of de klacht van het slachtoffer misleidend of te kwader trouw is, of
c)
om redenen die verband houden met de openbare orde of de bescherming van de binnenlandse veiligheid, of
d)
wanneer het slachtoffer niet langer zijn medewerking verleent;
e)
wanneer de bevoegde autoriteiten besluiten de procedure stop te zetten.
HOOFDSTUK V Slotbepalingen Artikel 15 Vrijwaringsclausule
De toepassing van deze richtlijn laat de specifieke nationale regels inzake de bescherming van slachtoffers en getuigen onverlet. Artikel 16 Verslag 1. Uiterlijk...* brengt de Commissie aan het Europees Parlement en de Raad verslag uit over de toepassing van deze richtlijn in de lidstaten en stelt zij eventueel noodzakelijke wijzigingen voor. De lidstaten doen de Commissie alle voor de opstelling van dat verslag nuttige informatie toekomen.
*
Vier jaar na de inwerkingtreding van deze richtlijn.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
27
EN
2. Na indiening van het in lid 1 bedoelde verslag brengt de Commissie ten minste om de drie jaar verslag uit aan het Europees Parlement en de Raad over de toepassing van deze richtlijn in de lidstaten. Artikel 17 Omzetting
De lidstaten doen de nodige wettelijke en bestuursrechtelijke bepalingen in werking treden om uiterlijk ..............* aan deze richtlijn te voldoen. Zij stellen de Commissie daarvan onverwijld in kennis. Wanneer de lidstaten die bepalingen aannemen, wordt in de bepalingen zelf of bij de officiële bekendmaking daarvan naar deze richtlijn verwezen. De regels voor de verwijzing worden vastgesteld door de lidstaten.
*
Twee jaar na de inwerkingtreding van deze richtlijn.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
28
EN
Artikel 18 Inwerkingtreding Deze richtlijn treedt in werking de dag na haar bekendmaking in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie. Artikel 19 Adressaten Deze richtlijn is gericht tot de lidstaten, overeenkomstig het Verdrag tot oprichting van de Europese Gemeenschap.
Gedaan te Voor het Europees Parlement
Voor de Raad
De voorzitter
De voorzitter _____________________
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
29
EN
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 14 April 2004
8284/04
EUROJUST 24
NOTE From : To : Subject :
General Secretariat Article 36 Committee Second Annual Report of Eurojust (Calendar Year 2003)
Delegations will find attached the Second Annual Report of Eurojust (Calendar Year 2003).
________________________
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
30
EN
1. 2. 3. “FINAL DRAFT” 4.
5. 6. ANNUAL REPORT 2003
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
31
EN
7.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
32
EN
ANNUAL REPORT 2003 8. 9.
CONTENTS
10. 11. 12.
FOREWORD
13. 14. 15.
1 S TRUCTURE OF EUROJUST
16. 17.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
33
EN
18.
2 DECISION, EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT
INSTITUTIONS ,
PARTNERS
LEGAL
AND
19. 20. 21. 22.
3 CASEWORK
23. 24. 25. 26.
4 RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
27. 28. 29.
5 ENLARGEMENT AND THIRD S TATES
6
Administration
7
Objectives for 2004
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
34
EN
8
Conclusions
9
Annexes & Photographs
30.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
35
EN
31.
FOREWORD
I am delighted to present the Annual Report of the College of Eurojust for the year 2003. This is the second Annual Report prepared by the College in accordance with Article 32(1) of the Eurojust Decision and gives information about our first year of work in our premises in The Hague. Although much work remain s to be done, 2003 has been a year which has seen significant progress in establishing our organisation and developing its work within the borders of the European Union and beyond.
The College hopes the report will be circulated widely and read by all wh o have an interest in the fight against serious cross border crime. In the past twelve months we have established our organisation in The Hague and developed an infrastructure to enable us to be effective. The 15 national members and their assistants started 2003 with only an Administrative Director and three other permanent staff. At the end of December there were 29 permanent staff in post but only part of the proposed facilities were in place.
The Secretariat of the European
Judicial Network has successfully taken up its work inside the Secretariat of Eurojust as an independent part of the Eurojust Secretariat under the Decision and the College is confident this will be benefit future cooperation. In 2003 the number of case referrals to the College in creased by 50% on the figure for 2002. This is satisfying since it shows that the national judicial authorities are gaining more confidence in Eurojust which is essential for Eurojust's efficiency. It is also pleasing that there was an increase in the numb ers of multilateral cases and in the seriousness and gravity of the cases referred. In our Annual Report for 2002 we noted that our work in that year had been restricted by the lack of our own conference facilities. Unfortunately we encountered the same situation during the past year as the work to build the conference and meeting room facilities, which are so important to us, was not finished by the end of 2003. We look
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
36
EN
forward to the completion of the necessary works which will allow us to begin to achieve the objectives and tasks assigned to us. Although we could not achieve our full potential in this regard we were able to hold two very beneficial strategic meetings in Brussels on significant casework topics. The first was on fundamentalist terrorist activity and the financing of terrorism and the second dealt with the trafficking of human beings. A more detailed analysis of the figures for case referrals and the strategic meetings is contained in the Casework chapter of this report. The most significant public event of the year was the ceremony to mark the Inauguration of Eurojust in The Hague which took place on 29 April 2003. The College was delighted at the high level of attendance by Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs from the European Union and from Accession States, leaders of European institutions and by senior prosecutors and officials from across Europe.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
37
EN
This year also saw the first Eurojust Practitioner’s Seminar: “Deciding Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute ” which took place in The Hague’s National Congress Centre on 18 and 19 November 2003. Over 60 experienced delegates attended representing practitioners from all the European Union member states and accession states as well as from the European Judicial Network, Commission and the Council Secretariat. A number of academics who have written about problems in this field also made useful contributions. The seminar enabled Eurojust to produce some guidelines to apply when dealing with such problems. The seminar discussed the topic which is part of Eurojust’s work in deciding when to ask one jurisdiction to forego prosecution in favour of another under Articles 6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision. We plan to hold similar themed seminars in our calendar annually.
The past year saw Eurojust developing further its relationships with a number of bodies such as OLAF and Europol. Additionally discussions with Norway are well advanced and we hope that the negotiations will be concluded in the early part of 2004 allowing Eurojust to sign its first formal agreement with a state outside the European Union. The enlargement of the European Union is an exciting challenge for Eurojust. During 2003 we have developed closer relations with the Eurojust contact points in the Accession States. On 16 and 17 May 2003 we organised a meeting for them to visit our premises and meet the College and its staff. We have also written to each of the Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in the Accession States asking them to nominate their national member of Eurojust as early as possible. This will help us to resolve the organisational as well as the personal and practical issues that will arise as the Accession States join Eurojust and come to work with us in The Hague. In early 2004 we will continue these preparations to ensure a smooth transition as the Eurojust College increases from 15 to 25 national members. We were pleased that the final member of the Eurojust Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) was appointed in June 2003. This appointment permitted our JSB to meet for the first time in July. We have also been able to appoint our Data Protection Officer who took up post in November and has already begun work on implementing a robust data
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
38
EN
protection regime within Eurojust. We have made substantial progress to provide better support and facilities for prosecutors and investigators dealing with cross border cases. This is shown by the increasing numbers of case referrals and the ‘repeat business’ which investigators and prosecutors working in this area are referring to us. The College was also pleased to hear the decision made at the EU meeting of Heads of State and Government in Brussels on 13 December 2003 which confirmed The Hague as Eurojust’s permanent seat and so removed uncertainty about our future location.
On a more cautious note at the end of 2003 Eurojust was one of four European Union Institutions whose leaders were sent letter bombs by extremists. Our security staff identified the device before it was opened and happily no one was injured.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
39
EN
There is still much work to be done but over the past twelve months the first tentative steps have taken in our new home. We believe we have laid the foundations to provide effective and efficient support and facilities to the practitioners dealing with serious cross border crime. During the next year we need to develop and install the vitally important secure methods for the communication and processing of data. This will allow national competent authorities to transmit and receive sensitive information by secure means to and fro m their national members. The College does not feel that Eurojust’s capacity to deal with casework is being fully exploited. Many significant multilateral cases, which are being dealt with by authorities in the member states, are not being referred to Eurojust. We feel that in many of these cases Eurojust’s contribution would be very beneficial. Promulgating the message that Eurojust has the capacity to add value in the fight against organised cross border crime remains a key part of our work. A number of member states still have to change their legislation and so have not met the deadline for implementation of the Eurojust Decision. We feel sure this has had a negative effect on Eurojust’s casework. In particular, it is necessary for all national members to have access to all the information which is required for the exercise of their duties. Some national members have had very few cases referred to them by their national competent authorities; we feel this may often be due to the absence of implementing legislation. There is a need for clarity and certainty about the competence of each national member and that this is clearly defined in their domestic law. Several national members are still without this clarity and certainty and so their authority to act in their home states is restricted. Whilst the College accepts that domestic legislative programmes are busy we ask that, where their domestic law requires it, member states give priority to providing the legal framework necessary to give Eurojust’s natio nal members the authority to act in accordance with the Eurojust Decision. This will enable the College to achieve the
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
40
EN
success and efficiency which JHA Ministers expected when they initiated the Eurojust concept at the Tampere summit in 1999. In December 2003 we bade farewell to two national members. We were very sorry to say ‘good-bye’ to Vice-President of the College and national member for Sweden, Björn Blomqvist, who is to take up a senior position in the office of the Swedish General Prosecutor, and to the national member for Denmark, Anders Linnet, who became the Chief Constable of Greenland. The College thanks Björn and Anders for their work and wishes them well in their new roles. We are very pleased to welcome their replacements into the College: Solveig Wollstad from Sweden and Johan Reimann from Denmark.
31.1.
MICHAEL G KENNEDY
President of the College February 2004
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
41
EN
1
THE STRUCTURE OF EUROJUST
Eurojust is composed of 15 national members, one seconded from each member state in accordance with its legal system, being a judge, prosecutor or a police officer of similar competence. Seven member states have appointed assistants to help their national members. Some assistants are based in The Hague with their national member whilst other member states have appointed assistants who are based in their home country. These assistants visit The Hague to substitute or deputise for their national members or when otherwise required to do so.
In 2002 we established four committees to ensure that the wide range of topics to be handled by national members could be divided amongst the College and so handled more effectively in smaller groups. The committees, dealing with Casework, Strategy, Communications and Evaluation continued their work in 2003 and we remain ple ased with this method of working. However during 2004 as Eurojust’s infrastructure and administrative support grows and as the national members increase from 15 to 25 we expect to review the committees and their working methods in order to identify and imp lement the most efficient working arrangements in our changed circumstances. The Administration Group continues to operate under the control of the Administrative Director who, in accordance with the Eurojust Decision, reports to the College through the President. Administrative and support issues are described in more detail in the chapter later in this report dealing with Administration.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
42
EN
2
THE DECISION, PARTNERS AND THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT
To fight successfully against organised cross border crime require s efficient linkages between a series of intelligence gathering, analytical, investigative, prosecutorial and judicial processes.
The European Union has put in place a range of decisions,
instruments, legislation and a JHA acquis which, if fully harnessed, could have a significant impact on the fight against cross border crime. As one of those instruments Eurojust believes that close co-operation and coordination with Europol and between police and judicial authorities are vital factors for success. Although different legal systems in the EU sometimes discourage close working, too often when it is possible, police and judicial authorities lack the desire to work with one another and so fail to capitalise on the potential benefits of powerful organisations working more closely together. In the fight against serious cross border organised crime we must remember that: without intelligence there will be no information, without information there will be no evidence. Without evidence there will be no prosecution. Without prosecution there will be no trial and of course without a trial there will be no prospect of convicting criminals.
These are linked processes and achieving successful results requires an integrated approach. Europol and Eurojust must provide a lead for police and judicial authorities to work closely together with due regard to their responsibilities and to the human rights of individuals. European Judicial Network (EJN) The excellent and privileged relationship between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN) has been enhanced during 2003. During 2003 the EJN secretariat was firmly established in the Eurojust premises in The Hague. Mr Angel Galgo, a Spanish judge and EJN contact point was appointed as secretary. A webmaster and secre tary have also been engaged. The Eurojust Administration has also given support to assist in the implementation of the EJN budget. The EJN secretariat meets regularly with the Eurojust administration and the College. These arrangements work well allowing the EJN the independence it requires but developing a mutually beneficial and supportive atmosphere. During 2004 it will be important to work out how the meetings and projects of EJN can be supported by Eurojust. A clearer definition of the specific roles of the two bodies may also be needed in the future. Some steps in that direction were taken during the Danish Presidency. During 2003 co-operation and consultation between the College and the EJN has continued.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
43
EN
National members for United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France, Greece and Italy, have attended EJN meetings in Athens, Rome and Brussels at the invitation of the Network.
Members of the College frequently work with EJN contact points on cases. In the region of 25 mainly bilateral cases have been referred to EJN by Eurojust national members. Similar numbers of cases have been referred to Eurojust by EJN contact points.
We would also
report
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
44
EN
that several EU states have appointed liaison magistrates, many of whom also serve as EJN contact points, and Eurojust national members have developed comparable relationships and systems with them for case referral. Many countries which have implemented the Eurojust Decision, have appointed an operational correspondent who is also a contact point for the European Judicial network.
Europol We reported last year that Europol is one of Eurojust’s leading partners in the European Union’s fight against organised crime. It is important that the investment made to create both Eurojust and Europol produces a significant return. At the end of 2003 after prolonged negotiations, Eurojust concluded a draft agreement with Europol to enhance and facilitate co-operation between the two bodies. The draft agreement was submitted to the Council for approval in December 2003. We hope the agreement can be approved and fully implemented as quickly as possible although we acknowledge that this must await the approval of Eurojust’s rules for the processing of personal data and the completion of technical and organisational arrangements to provide appropriate levels of security.
Whilst the College is pleased that an agreement has been concluded, there is disappointment that the negotiations have not produced a more comprehensive outcome. The different structures of Eurojust and Europol have led to the negotiation process being more bureaucratic than we would have wished. The College sees this draft as a first step which it hopes will be implemented quickly but leading to a more ambitious agreement in the medium term. One example of a more positive approach would be to enable the rapid use of the analytical work file (AWF) by prosecutors, which we feel could enhance the communication of valuable data to Europol by national authorities. The cumbersome procedure for Europol to set up an AW F in a case dealt with by Eurojust was disappointing. More importantly closer collaboration between Eurojust and Europol is required in other operational activities. The setting up and support of Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) together with competent
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
45
EN
authorities in the Member States should help to demonstrate our capacity to work together more effectively. We are pleased to report that the two organisations have continued to develop a close working relationship. Invitations have been made asking repres entatives to participate in meetings of common interest where their respective experience and expertise can add value. Examples include meetings on terrorism, on fraud in time -share investments, and on the trafficking of human beings. This allows broad discussion on the opportunity to open analytical work files at Europol to support the investigations and, where needed, to reflect on the best place to prosecute any offences. For the coming year Eurojust has decided to try to improve co-operation with Europol and to find ways to avoid excessively long delays and operational overlaps and to be able to benefit from the analytical work files prepared by Europol. An increased exchange of information will enable more meaningful reports to be prepared and
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
46
EN
better communication concerning topics related to the fight against organized crime. Many Eurojust national members are developing closer contacts with their national desks at Europol particularly with a view to avoiding the duplication of work. But also to avoid action facilitated by one organisation being prejudiced by action already being taken through the other organisation. Eurojust would encourage all national authorities to allow their national members to develop stronger working relationships with their compatriots in Europol. In our Annual Report for 2002 we mentioned that one member state instructed its national member to contact his counterparts at Europol only in an emergency. We are pleased that shortly after the Annual Report was published this ins truction was rescinded.
Relationship with OLAF Eurojust maintains its desire to work closely with OLAF and in particular to coordinate investigations and prosecutions affecting the financial interests of the European Union. Eurojust has noted with interest the extent to which member states have legislated to give effect to Article 26(4) of the Decision to ensure that the national members of Eurojust are regarded as a competent authority for the purposes of investigations conducted by OLAF. Some member states have expressly designated their national member in this respect, but most states have not done so and it is not clear that it will be necessary for them to do so. On the 14 of April 2003 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by Eurojust and OLAF to give better effect to Article 26(3) of the Eurojust Decision which provides that the two bodies should establish and maintain close operational co-operation. Immediately after signature of the MOU, Eurojust and OLAF successfully collaborated in a small number of smuggling cases notably involving Spain, Portugal, Belgium and Sweden. The MOU had been in place for several months when the absence of further significant practical co-operation became a matter of concern. Eurojust and OLAF decided to commi ssion a small group, drawn from
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
47
EN
both organisations, to study the impact of the MOU and to suggest ways in which the professional relationship might be enhanced. This group is due to report and make proposals early in 2004.
The implementation of the European Arrest Warrant Eurojust is confident that the timely implementation of European Arrest Warrant (EAW) will be an important factor to enhance the effectiveness of judicial cooperation within the European Union. The Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 created the EAW and in it member states made a commitment to have the provisions implemented in their national legislation by 31 December 2003. By the end of 2003 only eight member states had their legislation in place. The provisions creating the EAW give Eurojust two specific operational roles to play
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
48
EN
in assisting with the practical implementation of the new procedures. First, when multiple requests are made in respect of the same fugitive Eurojust, if asked, can give advice on which warrant should take priority. Eurojust sees this responsibility as a natural extension of its role as a facilitator of judicial co-operation. In many ways it is a responsibility which runs parallel to Eurojust’s power to make a request asking one member state to forgo action in favour of another state which is in a better to position to investigate or prosecute. Cases of competing priorities are typical situations where coordination is needed and so fall neatly within the main tasks of Eurojust. Secondly, where in exceptional circumstances an executing state cannot observe the strict time limits set out in the Framework Decision, the failure to comply is to be reported to Eurojust. As strict time limits for action are one of the key features of the new arrest warrant Eurojust looks forward to playing its role in this regard. We encourage domestic authorities to inform us on these issues and we expect that future Eurojust Annual Reports will contain special paragraphs commenting on these matters and providing an insight into the effectiveness of the new warrant.
During 2003 national members have given presentations on the EAW to explain Eurojust’s role. The College is very willing to continue providing guidance, to promulgate good practice and to act as a centre of expertise as the provisions are implemented in practice across the enlarged European Union. We anticipate convening a meeting for practitioners on issues and problems relating to the operation of the new EAW towards the end of 2004.
Joint Investigation Teams The Eurojust Decision gives power, whether acting through its national members or as a College, to ask the competent authorities of member states to consider setting up a Joint Investigation Team (JIT).
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
49
EN
In view of these powers Eurojust was keen to assess its ability to stimulate the use of JITs. The casework committee prepared a questionnaire to determine the position in each member state with regard to implementation of JITs in national legislation, the practical way in which they will operate in each memb er state and the role expected of Eurojust in JITs. The responses received reflect the position as it was between July and November 2003 when most member states were still in the process of preparing their legislation. It is still much too early to provid e a comprehensive evaluation of JITs. On the basis of answers received JITs will operate in most member states exclusively under the overall direction of a judicial authority, whilst in other member states the effective day to day team leader will be a police officer. The approval of the Ministry of Justice, a judicial authority or Ministry of Interior will be necessary in some member states to create a JIT.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
50
EN
The participation of Eurojust national members in JITs is dependent on the powers which are to be conferred on by national legislation in accordance with the Eurojust Decision. In member states where legislation is not anticipated, Eurojust’s involvement will be decided on a case by case basis and will probably be of a supportive nature. Although competent authorities in several member states are in the process of negotiating to establish a JIT, Eurojust is not aware of any formal JIT having been established under the new rules at the time we are preparing this report. Some national members have received referrals about the possibility of setting up a JIT and at present Eurojust is aware of at least one negotiation concerning the establishment of a JIT on human trafficking involving several Member States and one non -Member State Eurojust is taking part in the preliminary work and we hope to be in a position to report more fully on this in our annual report for 2004. In addition, it would seem in the future natural that Eurojust be informed of the establishment of all JITs in the Union in order to be able to fulfil its coordinating role.
Implementation of the Eurojust Decision The Eurojust Decision was to have been implemented in member states by 6 September 2003 and if required legislation should have been in place by that date. It is disappointing that several member states who planned to adapt their national legislation have still to do so.
The powers that member states have given to their national members vary considerably. It is important that there is consistency of competence amongst the members of the College as any lack of consistency of powers amongst the national members has the potential to undermine the effectiveness of the College. This will always mean that the College can only be as strong only as its weakest link. It also seems clear that the level of aspiration for Eurojust differs in member states. It is not easy to be effective throughout the EU when national members' actions are slowed
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
51
EN
down by lack of powers vested in their colleagues. Direct contact between a national member and all the competent authorities in their member state is indispensable for swift and efficient work. It would also add to effectiveness and efficiency if all national members could be given the competence to receive and issue Letters of Request. In general the national member must be linked to the prosecutorial system in his or her country in a functional way. Another obstacle preventing Eurojust from functioning at its greatest capacity is the fact that most member states have not implemented the EU Convention of 29 May 2000 on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters together with its amending protocol of 2001 and the Framework Decision on Joint Investigation Teams. A free flow of information to and from Eurojust without any unnecessary obstacles is also crucial for Eurojust to enable to fulfil its objectives.
Data Protection Rules and the E-POC Database Project The processing of personal data and data protection are crucial issues for Eurojust because they can influence the organisation’s performance. In order to achieve its objectives Eurojust needs comprehensive information on serious cross-border crime, including details of those persons who are subject to criminal investigations and/or prosecutions. It is also necessary for Eurojust to deliver operational efficiency whilst at the same time ensuring that fundamental human rights are protected. The Council Decision setting up Eurojust deals with these matters in some detail. The Eurojust Decision sets out data protection and security measures but Eurojust is not operating within a legal vacuum because other international and European data protection instruments already apply to the Unit’s activities of covering. For example provisions in the Treaty on the European Union and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Additionally the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union which, although not yet binding, may have some impact. Furthermore, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data 1981 is especially important as the Eurojust Decision sets it as the benchmark against which the level of data protection within Eurojust should be measured. Eurojust has appointed a Data Protect ion Officer (DPO) who took up post in November 2003. The DPO has been given priorities to review current data protection
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
52
EN
procedures, to prepare and establish a provisional data protection regime and to draft data protection rules to be agreed by the College and submitted to the Council for approval by mid 2004. Currently, in the absence of specific rules on data protection, the national members are adopting basic organisational arrangements, including physical security measures and working methods to ensure the handling of personal data complies fully with the legal rules which are in force and in particular with the Eurojust Decision. Security of data is very important and it is vital to ensure adequate protection of personal data in relation to operational work. This means that the specific data protection rules shall guarantee a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided for in the Council of Europe Convention of 1981. The Eurojust Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) on data protection is comprised of three members rotating with EU presidency and met several times during the last six months of 2003. The JSB offered helpful guidance to the College prior to the appointment of the DPO. Eurojust will have developed general data protection and security guidelines which will be presented to the JSB when it meets with the other 12 nominated members meet for the first time in March 2004. The second stage of the process is to draft comprehensive rules, including more detailed provisions to provide technical and security measures. These rules will reflect the results and input received both from the E-POC database project and from the internal discussions regarding the new filing system and related issues. Drafting the data protection rules and designing a database system are the main priorities.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
53
EN
The development of data protection rules is linked to a range of ongoing activities such as the provisional filing system, to organise case files more efficiently; the building of the database system, the organisation of work and the negotiation of agreements with Europol and third countries. It is important to progress these activities in parallel because of their obvious connections. With these objectives in mind, Eurojust has an advisory role as a final user in association with a project known as E-POC, which is partially funded by the EU Grotius II penal programme. The partners in the project are led by Italy with support from the French, Romanian and Slovenian Ministries of Justice. The project is being developed from work and software solutions devised to create an information system Italy’s Direzione Nazionale Antimafia. The main objectives are the delivery of a feasibility study to define a software system to support both the tasks performed by Eurojust and to exchange information and to develop a corresponding software prototype. Preparatory work done during the year has defined our basic requirements and a structure for the computer system. The project will also enable us to improve the working methods and efficiency of the Unit. The database we envisage will provide a capacity to create temporary work files for the individual use of national members including information related to cases under investigation or being prosecuted by national authorities. It will also provide the possibility to create an index of data with references to temporary work files containing personal data and non -personal data. The system will automatically identify possible links between different cases enabling national members to work better together. The potential structure of temporary work files and a data index is being analysed and developed in accordance with the existing rules, with special consideration given to the security of data. During 2003 a number of important steps relating to data protection were taken. •
Preparatory work to draft the data protection rules of procedure was concluded which took into account the development of the Unit;
•
The functional analysis of the database was concluded allowing the technical design of the system’s prototype to begin;
•
The first meetings of the JSB took place; and,
•
The DPO was appointed and become involved in this important work.
This work should lead to the final draft of the data protection rules being prepared by the middle of 2004.
Further institutional developments In the coming year Eurojust will look forward to the conclusion of the Convention on the future of the European Union. Eurojust expects the new Treaty will clarify its role 8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
54
EN
operationally in terms of the investigations an d prosecutions in the European Union.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
55
EN
It is ready to play its part in the fight against serious organised cross border crime and in creating an area of freedom, security and justice in partnership with other EU organisations especially Europol.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
56
EN
3
CASEWORK
The Provisional Eurojust Annual Report for 2001 and the Eurojust Annual Report for 2002 identified a number of impediments to effective mutual legal assistance. A very important aspect of Eurojust’s work is to continuously seek to alleviate and overcoming such barriers. The Eurojust Annual Report for 2002 suggested some possible improvements in this respect. In short the proposals were: • • • •
Early implementation of the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention of 2000 and its Protocol; Ensuring the use of standard models for the handling of requests for mutual legal assistance; Improving quality in the drafting, preparation and translation of letters of request; and Enhanced mutual recognition and approximation of legislation.
As part of the continued efforts to ensure the effectiveness of mutual legal assistance, in 2003 Eurojust focused on identifying good practice and working methods to enhance judicial co-operation across different jurisdictions. Using an internal questionnaire the Casework Committee pooled national members’ experience on: possible barriers to mutual legal assistance, reasons for success or failure, on promoting Eurojust and encouraging referral of relevant cases, together with experiences with casework, co-operation with Europol and ot her matters. The answers revealed that for the individual Eurojust members good relations and contacts with national authorities are very important. Working actively to create and maintain personal contacts and acquaintances between the national member and other partners was also important. A lack of knowledge of Eurojust, inflexible administrative practices, disputes of competence or authority and even jealousies have to some extent been barriers to the effective functions of Eurojust. National members may overcome such barriers by building close and trusted contacts with practitioners in their own member state, in other member states and in organisations such as Europol. This helps to ensure that relevant casework is referred to Eurojust and avoids duplication of work. Establishing a better understanding of Eurojust can be achieved through regular consultation with relevant officials, by participating and giving 8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
57
EN
presentations at educational and training activities for practitioners and at relevant confere nces and meetings. This is often time consuming due to the number of magistrates and prosecutors in some larger countries and also because of different administrative and regional levels. But it is an effort which should in the long term bring an increase in the number and quality of the cases sent to Eurojust and thus increases the value it adds to judicial cooperation in Europe. It is also important to ensure on the national level that the rules and procedures governing mutual legal assistance, not least the role of Eurojust and the Eurojust Decision, are well known and well integrated into all the structures of the administration of justice. The importance of speedy implementation of the Eurojust
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
58
EN
Decision into national legislation cannot be underestimated. Similarly we must also emphasise the value of the member states giving instructions and making administrative provisions for co-operation with Eurojust as an additional means of enhancing knowledge of our organisation and to create channels to secure the rapid referral to Eurojust of problems. It is also important to emphasise the benefits of effective working relationships between Eurojust, Europol and other institutions working in this area. The Eurojust Decision anticipates that close co -operation and coordination should exist and this is especially true for the relationship between Eurojust and Europol. The diverse legal systems in Europe mean that judges, prosecutors and police officers in each member state have different and often very diffe rent, responsibilities and authority. There is important work to be done to clarify the needs and possibilities for co-operation through direct contact and overcoming possible duplication and uncertainty or disputes of competence. The entry into force of the Eurojust – Europol agreement will offer an opportunity for renewed progress in this respect. Last but not least the College recognises the great importance of demonstrating additional value to the police and the judiciary in the member states when dealing with casework referred to Eurojust. Special efforts should be made to make certain that Eurojust’s procedures are speedy, effective and of high quality. Additionally, Eurojust should continue to work to achieve a wider analytical capacity, both in its own structure and by information sharing with Europol amongst others. Eurojust is still a very young and developing institution. Much progress has been made and with the development of initiatives such as those mentioned above, the College feels sure that Eurojust will be able consolidate its role and add value as a key player in the field of judicial co-operation and co-ordination.
A New Case Filing System Eurojust’s caseload is varied. It ranges from relatively minor bi-lateral cases to large
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
59
EN
cases of very serious crime often involving several member states. As a consequence the extent of Eurojust involvement with cases also varies greatly. The meetings and arrangements required to facilitate or coordinate the investigation and prosecution will differ according to the nature of the case. There can be meetings of the College; restricted meetings attended only by the national members involved in the case; or, broader based meetings to which those national authorities handling the cases are also invited. These differences in caseload meant it was of great importance to develop a system to create an overview on the nature and extent of the cross border crimes and investigations referred to Eurojust. It was also important to be able to gather casework information in an easily accessible database. The establishment of a case filing system will allow us to generate data and statistics to be aware of trends and developments, to provide information on Eurojust’s activities for the annual report and to address specific questions of concern for the competent authorities in member states or for other interested parties.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
60
EN
Our Annual Report for 2002 confirmed that Eurojust would begin work in 2003 to establish a new case filing system. When a case is referred to the Unit the filing system records the nature of the case and identifies the authorities in the requesting and requested countries. The facts of the case and the nature of the crimes involved are also described briefly together with the type assistance required by the requesting state. When each case is opened basic information about the case is recorded in the filing system. Further information is added as the case progresses. The nature of the support given by Eurojust is described including the number and types of meetings held to facilitate or coordinate the case and other data relating to its conduct.
The outcome of the case is also recorded together with the time elapsed from the date the case started to the date Eurojust’s involvement is completed. The system also has the capacity to record the nature of the competences or powers executed by Eurojust in connection with the case, the states involved and also if appropriate the external bodies that have assisted in dealing with the case.
Importantly the filing system may also record an evaluation of the outcome of each case. This allows better identification of the obstacles or problems resolved, or not resolved, enabling them to be categorized and action taken to have such obstacles removed. The new filing system was introduced towards the end of 2003. At present it is paper based and experimental and our experience using the system is still limited. It is however clear that the new filing system will make a significant contribution to allow Eurojust to handle its casework more efficiently and to improve the quality of statistical information which is available. The system provides a tool for categorizing and keeping trace of the Eurojust cases, whether they are College cases, national member’s cases or requests for information. At the same time the system will help provide transparency. By gathering structured
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
61
EN
information, the system enables Eurojust to create better and more comprehensive information and statistics about its work. In the longer term this will enable the evaluation of Eurojust’s work, and it enhances the possibilities for Eurojust to identify new trends and to adjust resources and objectives.
The introduction of the provisional and experimental version of the new filing system is still at an early stage. There is further work to be done. The benefits of the system are obvious so the development of a more user-friendly permanent IT based filing system is a priority. This work is now in its final stages and it is expected that an electronic filing system complying with data protection rules will be operational in 2004.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
62
EN
CASE WORK ILLUSTRATIONS
To illustrate the type of work we deal with we have set out below some outlines of cases handled by Eurojust during 2003. The examples cover a range of member states and different types of criminality. Fraud and Money Laundering Eurojust was asked help to provide information to an investigator about the international background in a money laundering case against a foreign citizen resident in Austria. The defendant had been arrested in a third country following an arrest warrant issued by another European state (country X). A house had been bought in Austria using part of the proceeds of the crime committed in country X and then transferred to another person. Money laundering suspicions resulted in the Austrian Criminal Court placing a restraining order on the house. Information from country X was urgently needed to prevent the restraint order from being removed. Within a short time Eurojust national members were able to discover that the suspect had been extradited and that there was an ongoing serious fraud case in country X involving several of its own nationals and several foreign citizens. Following the first request for information, the competent authorities in country X asked for support from Eurojust because of the complexity of the cross border investigations. It became necessary to request the assistance of seven European countries to gather material and evidence of fraud and money laun dering. Connections were established between criminal offences committed in country X and in other countries and in particular forgery of documents and money laundering which were also linked to the Austrian case. The most important results of the Eurojus t intervention were: •
•
8284/04
Eurojust’s involvement it became clear that the case was not just a bilateral request but part of a case with wide ranging international dimensions and one where good use could be made of Eurojust’s capacity to co-ordinate action. Mutual legal assistance on bilateral and multilateral levels was facilitated and coordinated through constant information exchange. CD/hm DG H III
63
EN
•
The rapid receipt of information through Eurojust ensured the restraining order on the house could be maintained and a signific ant asset was available for restitution.
Serious Fraud
In February 2003 Danish police authorities requested Eurojust for assistance to establish a discreet and confidential cross -border investigation in relation to a wanted criminal. The background to the request was that after losing his appeal a Danish citizen, earlier convicted to 2½ years imprisonment for serious property crimes and tax fraud, had fled from Denmark to avoid serving his sentence. The fugitive was
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
64
EN
known to have several identities in various European countries and he was believed to have numerous sources of financial assistance. For these reasons it was thought that it would be very difficult to ensure his arrest.
The Danish police identified a trail of economic transactions leading to Spain but which had no direct connection to the wanted person although it was hoped they might possibly provide a lead to his whereabouts. The police asked Eurojust to assist in coordinating a discreet cross -border investigation. It was of paramount imp ortance for the investigation to be organized so the fugitive was unaware that the transactions had attracted the interest of the police as this would hinder his arrest. Eurojust organised for a coordination meeting between the relevant prosecutors and police officers, where the details of the investigation were discussed and arranged. The investigation was a success and the fugitive was arrested. Serious Fraud In February 2003 more than twenty competent judicial and police authorities from Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom participated in a co-ordination meeting in Finland organised by Eurojust in close collaboration with the Finnish authorities. The case was a very complex global economic crime and the proceeds of crime were estimated to be several dozens of millions of euros. Criminal activity had also taken place in countries outside the European Union. The Finnish authorities had taken their domestic investigation forward as far as possible and wanted to stimulate authorities in other member states to start and to co -ordinate action in order to collect evidence and to receive a comprehensive picture of these complicated criminal activities.
The meeting led to better and co-ordinated execution of several letters of request for mutual legal assistance in member states and some of the problems relating to the execution of the requests were removed. Judicial and police co-operation in this case has been continuing through direct contacts established and strengthened at the meeting in Finland. During the year the main suspect was also arrested in a country outside the EU.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
65
EN
Terrorism This case has been referred to the Italian national member in Eurojust by prosecutors dealing with an investigation concerning Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. It related to a subversive organisation acting with similar groups linked to Al-Quaeda, mainly in a role to support terrorist action. The Italian investigations highlighted some links with Spain, United Kingdom, France and Germany. In June 2003 as a first step the prosecutor sent letters of request to the competent judicial authorities of theses countries to gather information about specific issues under investigation. The seriousness of the alleged crimes and of the suspects meant the letters of request had to be executed urgently.
The Italian prosecutor was aware of Eurojust and its
responsibilities and so consulted Eurojust in order to obtain support to facilitate the execution of the letters of request and to hold a co-ordination meeting with the national investigating and prosecuting authorities in those countries involved in the case.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
66
EN
The meeting was held at Eurojust in November 2003 when prosecutors from the five countries attended and the immediate advantage of the exchange information on current investigations was very beneficial. Relevant information about the modus operandi of those terrorist groups was exchanged and the meeting also provided a forum for those attending to better understand the mutual legal assistance procedures in the different judicial systems and to find technical solutions to overcome obstacles and delays in the execution of the requests. As a follow up of the co-ordination meeting, a further meeting will take place between Italian and Spanish prosecutors with the competent authorities from Algeria. Serious Fraud
In April 2003 competent judicial authorities from Germany, Spain and Luxembourg participated in a co-ordination meeting organised by Eurojust at the request of German prosecutors. At a later stage the Eurojust contact point for Liechtenstein assisted. The German prosecutors were investigating a high profile German national – and are still investigating linked suspects – for fraud and other offences. Coercive measures had to be taken in several European countries and Eurojust was asked to help to co-ordinate the simultaneous execution of search warrants of residences and to examine bank accounts of the suspects at 25 locations in four countries. Following the co-ordination meeting in April 2003 a detailed strategic plan was drawn up by Eurojust and the national investigators to guarantee a strict timetable for a coordinated execution of all the warrants at the very moment the main suspect’s immunity would be removed. This happened in June 2003 when the wa rrants were successfully executed.
Trafficking in Arms This case concerns an offence of arms trafficking under investigation in the United Kingdom with links to The Netherlands. The case was referred to Eurojust for facilitation of mutual legal assistanc e requests and for internal co-ordination of enquiries within The Netherlands as assistance had been requested from two different
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
67
EN
regions by the United Kingdom. Prior to the referral to Eurojust the UK police had tried to facilitate and co-ordinate the requests on a police to police basis but found it impossible to do so. Following the referral to Eurojust a co -ordination meeting was held at which both regions of The Netherlands concerned in the case were represented. The meeting enabled a detailed strategy to be agreed for the execution of the mutual legal assistance requests and for responsibilities to be apportioned between the regions. It was also an opportunity for information to be exchanged between the various Dutch representatives. The position now is that three mutual legal assistance requests have been executed and evidence has been forwarded to the United Kingdom. The evidence is now being reviewed to consider prosecution.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
68
EN
Drug Trafficking This case began with an Italian request for information and is particularly significant because it shows Eurojust’s potential to provide national prosecution and investigating authorities with an overview about linked investigations. Those fighting against trans-national crime always benefit from a broad vie w and international perspective on what is happening in specific areas of criminal activity. Italian prosecutors dealing with a huge international network trafficking cocaine between South America and Europe discovered the possible involvement of criminal groups acting in Italy, Spain, Germany and The Netherlands. Co-ordinated action among investigative authorities from various countries was required. Sending a series of Italian mutual legal assistance requests through Eurojust allowed the competent investigating and prosecuting authorities to be identified and then led to a coordination meeting. A follow up meeting was held in July 2003 in The Hague, the Italian authorities have been able to issue a second series of mutual legal assistance requests focusing on obtaining the relevant information which was made known to them at the meeting.
One key outcome of Eurojust’s involvement in the case is the establishment of a stable network of prosecutors dealing with the same case in different countries and so allowing constant co-operation to take place. Time Share Fraud Swedish authorities found a large number of Swedish citizens had reported being the victims of a fraud when purchasing time share apartments in Spain. Eurojust was asked to assist and national members made checks to try to identify any similar frauds in their own countries. Victims of a similar fraud appeared in France, Germany, United Kingdom, Belgium, and Finland. During the spring and summer of 2003 over cases from Finland and more than 20 cases from Sweden were considered for transfer via Eurojust to an ongoing criminal process in Spain.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
69
EN
Those attending a subsequent coordination meeting held in March 2003 learned new information from other jurisdictions about current investigations and related cases already investigated, prosecuted and tried. They also learned about organisations operating this kind of fraud, convicted offenders and how victims might seek reimbursement. An action plan was agreed to share information to help identify victims and gather evidence to assist the Spanish judge detect the identities of all the possible perpetrators, and on the basis of this information a proposal was made to Europol to open an analytical work file. Trafficking in Human Beings
This case concerns trafficking in human beings where girls coming from Romania were recruited offering them good employment in Spain. In fact they were to work as
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
70
EN
prostitutes for a criminal network operating in France and Spain. The girls were sold to procurers to exploit them as prostitutes and they were also subjected to serious sexual assaults and other violence.
Initially the competent judge sent one of the minors back home but once in Romania she was subjected to threats for co -operating with the authorities and Eurojust was requested to organise a program of witness protection. One of the procurers had been arrested in France and a coordination meeting between competent authorities in France, Spain and Romania was held in February 2003. At the meeting an action plan was agreed: • • • •
Spain should transmit to Romania all the information it had discovered about the organisation that was recruiting girls in Romania and transporting them to Europe; As the procurer arrested in France was also suspected of murder, and was to be tried there, some coordination was required of the prosecutions in France and Spain to deal with the non bis in idem principle. Measures to facilitate on going and future mutual legal assistance between Spain and France, and between France and Romania, allowing the French magistrate to be present in Romania when evidence was gathered. Action to set up a witness protection program was to be coordinated between Spain and Romania.
All the measures agreed have been implemented and additionally new contacts have been appointed between the French Ministry of Justice and the Romanian judicial authorities to deal with this case and similar problems should they arise in the future. Sea Pollution France has requested Eurojust for assistance to speed up the transmis sion of information and facilitation of mutual legal assistance in a well known case of environmental pollution. The case followed the shipwreck of “The Prestige” in the Atlantic Ocean off the north west coast of Spain in November 2002. Investigations are led by two investigating magistrates in France and in Spain. There are also peripheral links to Greece and the United Kingdom. Eurojust organized two coordination meetings in 2003, the first in May in La Corunna 8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
71
EN
in Spain and the second in November at Bres t in France, both in close co-operation with the European Judicial Network and the liaison magistrates. The purpose of the first meeting was to assist the magistrates in gathering experience about how to manage such a case, in which hundreds of victims ha ve suffered loss. Colleagues leading similar investigations such as the shipwreck of “Erika” investigated in the Court of Paris and “Mar Egeo” investigated in the Court of La Corunna were invited to share their experience. The purpose of the second meeting was to explore the possibility and draw on legal expertise to decide if it was possible, and if so how, to centralize the ongoing prosecutions into a single proceeding, to be
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
72
EN
led by one of the countries. This discussion is ongoing and will draw on the results of the Eurojust seminar on “Deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute” held in November 2003 in The Hague.
Bank card fraud This case started for Eurojust in February 2003 following a Dutch request to France for the transfer of criminal proceed ings in several cases concentrated in The Netherlands which had a notable modus operandi: A group of French citizens had been suspected for years of working throughout Europe to obtain money from automatic cash dispensers outside the normal bank opening times.
The suspects, by means of a deception obtained details of the
customer’s credit cards by posing as bank clerks and by pretending to help they discovered the customer’s PIN. This deception is internationally known as ‘collet Marseillais’. When preparing the request the Dutch prosecutor asked his colleague at Eurojust to obtain some similar information from Germany. Following that the German member at Eurojust found out that several prosecution offices in Germany had been investigating the same circle of suspects in a series of cases which were independent from each other. Co-operation through Eurojust achieved two objectives quickly. First, a decision by the board of German Prosecutors General was made so that, after some years of separate and isolated investigations, in June 2003 all the German cases could be dealt with by one office. Secondly in March 2003 Eurojust had already developed an international network to co-ordinate action between The Netherlands, France, Austria and Switzerland as Eurojust discovered that one of the main suspects was in preliminary custody in Switzerland. In July 2003 Germany joined the group. Despite these successes the numbers of offences and defendants meant it was impossible to have the suspects tried in one state for all the offences committed in all
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
73
EN
member states concerned.
Comments on Casework Statistics
In 2003 the number of cases dealt with by Eurojust increased by 50% see figure [XX]. Although the main increase was in bilateral cases, the increase in the number of multilateral cases referred to the College was also significant and is worthy of comment. Some national authorities are more willing to refer such cases to Eurojust for better coordination of their investigations and proceedings or to be able to d iscuss with other authorities the question of an international strategic approval to their cases. More than half of the coordination meetings, organised by Eurojust involved at least three countries (see figure XX). As Eurojust is now settled in its new premises it can offer
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
74
EN
better support to the national authorities. Even though the new conference and meeting room facilities were not available in 2003 two thirds of the coordination meetings were held in Eurojust’s premises by bringing in temporary translators booths and other equipment. Eurojust’s capacity to organise more such meetings will be significantly improved from the early part of 2004. The increase in cases referred is also reflected in the statistics for requesting and requested countries. Overall the involvement of the national members in operational work increased. However, the statistics do not reflect the quality or seriousness of the cases or the level of Eurojust input required to resolve them. Some cases can be dealt with very quickly, others require more work, time and effort. Nevertheless the national members overall view is that the quality of the cases is improving and they are eager to improve this still more with the assistance of their national authorities. Improving the quality of cases referred is a higher priority than improving the quantity. However as the Eurojust Decision has not been implemented in all member states this affects the numbers of cases referred to national members by their national authorities. Figure [XX] deals with the types of offences referred to Eurojust. Drug trafficking and fraud cases make up the largest categories of cases dealt with by the College and such cases have significantly increased in the number of drug trafficking cases doubling those referred in 2002. Fraud cases are a broad category and include various different types of fraud: tax fraud, serious fraud, embezzlement, investment fraud, insurance fraud They do not include VAT fraud or fraud against the financial interests of the Community. Many of these cases are complex and require coordination meetings for problems to be resolved, Terrorist cases fall into a similar category. Some other types of offences, such as money laundering and trafficking in human beings (including three cases of illegal immigration) have also increased over those referred in 2002. The category “others” represents 24 offences which concern less than 10 cases per offence (the most numerous: fraud against the financial interests of the Community, smuggling, robbery, organised crime, trafficking in cars, corruption, counterfeiting,
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
75
EN
homicide and embezzlement). A significant improvement in ICT during 2004 should allow Eurojust to give more detailed and significant statistics in next year’s Annual Report. This will allow us to emphasise the important aspects of our work and to focus more on the needs expressed by the national authorities, our own activities and criminal links between countries.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
76
EN
Table I Member States Date and place of meeting
Number of States
10-01-03
2
AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
GR
Other countries IE
IT
LU
x
NL
PT
SE
UK
ISR
ROM
x
Eurojust premises 27-01-03
4
x
x
x
x
France 7-02-03
2
x
x
Sweden 10-02-03
6
x
x
x
x
x
x
Finland 24-02-03
2 EU+1 non EU (candidate)
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 27-02-03
3
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 4-03-03
7
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 10-04-03
2
x
x
Belgium 15-04-03
3
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 21-05-03
3
x
2
x
3
x
x
x
Spain 12-06-03
x
Spain 17-06-03
x
Spain
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
77
EN
x
USA
24-06-03
10 EU+1 non EU
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 2-07-03
4
x
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 10-07-03
2
x
x
The Netherlands 7-08-03
2
x
x
Eurojust premises 16-09-03
2
x
x
Eurojust premises 17-09-03
2
x
x
Eurojust premises 3-10-03
3
x
x
x
Spain 21-10-03
11 EU+1 non EU
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 4-11-03
2
x
x
Eurojust premises 6-11-03
3
x
x
x
Eurojust premises 25-11-03
2
x
X
Eurojust premises 26-11-03
5
x
x
x
3
x
x
2
x
x
x
Eurojust premise 26-11-03
x
France 2-12-03
x
Portugal TOTAL: 26
8284/04
For each
1
3
7
2
CD/hm DG H III
14
4
11
4
78
EN
1
11
4
9
5
3
13
1
1
1
Member States
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
79
EN
4
RELATIONS WITH NATIONAL AUTHORITIES
It is an important part of Eurojust’s work to ensure that regular contact is maintained between the national members and the competent authorities in the member states. It is crucial to the successful development of Eurojust that national investigating and prosecuting authorities understand what facilities Eurojust can offer and have confidence and trust both in our organisation and in their own national member. To help achieve this aim the College continues to meet in The Hague for three days each week, allowing two days for contact with national investigators, prosecutors and ministries. The College continues to arrange one week every two months to allow national members to devote time to dealing with casework and building relations with national agencies. Although in 2003 case referrals increased by fifty per cent over the number of cases referred to Eurojust in 2002, for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this report, the College still feels that Eurojust has additional capacity to handle increased numbers of more serious cases. We concluded in the Annual Report for 2002 that in spite of encouraging signs, there was a patchy awareness of Eurojust, the European Judicial Network and other EU organisations operating in the area of judicial co-operation in criminal matters. We are confident that Eurojust is now better known particularly amongst senior investigators and prosecutors where support for our organisation is strong. However more needs to be done to raise levels of awareness amongst more junior members of the competent authorities in member states. The Casework chapter of this report sets out some examples of the cases dealt with by the Unit. We have found that successful outcomes of the work referred to Eurojust have shown investigators and prosecutors that Eurojust can add value to their work. One real success often helps to publicis e Eurojust in ways which cannot be achieved simply by organising meetings or giving presentations to publicise our organisation. Some member states have increased awareness of Eurojust amongst their national authorities by arranging visits to Eurojust fo r delegates to meet their national
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
80
EN
members in The Hague. This helps to raise Eurojust’s profile and the college is keen to welcome visitors to its premises. During 2003 almost all member states sent delegations to Eurojust. The Swedish authorities for example incorporated visits to Eurojust as part of their national training programme for prosecutors.
Many more staff in national authorities are now familiar with what Eurojust has to offer. Furthermore, although the numbers of case referrals are improving, cooperation in general and exchange of information can be further enhanced. But whilst co-operation with many national and European organisations has improved, the situation in particular with OLAF at present remains unsatisfactory. We are working with OLAF to improve this situation.
During 2003 National members continued their efforts to raise Eurojust’s profile and to encourage a better awareness of its existence and work in the member states. All Eurojust members held meetings with their national authorities, prosecutors and investigators, police and customs officials to improve practitioners’ knowledge.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
81
EN
The College is pleased that most of the member states have complied with the Council Decision of December 2002 and appointed a Eurojust national correspondent for terrorist matters. This will greatly enhance cooperation on terrorism matters with Eurojust.
Elsewhere in this report we emphasised the need for implementation of the Eurojust Decision in national legislation. We anticipate that, where it is required, implementation will allow the national members to interact and serve their domestic authorities and Eurojust much more effectively. It is equally important, in those states where no legislation is needed, that the Eurojust national members are actually given the capacity to comply with the commitments and obligations set out in the Eurojust Decision.
National members continue to participate in meetings of the European Judicial Network on both the national and international stage. A key part of maintaining strong associations with national authorities means building a good understanding between Eurojust and the EJN at national level.
Some national members also wrote articles about Eurojust and judicial co-operation for legal reviews and magazines. Others made presentations during training sessions arranged for their judiciary, magistrates, prosecutors and police schools. These are seen to be particularly effective if the national member brings a colleague with them from another jurisdiction who is able to explain in parallel the impact of Eurojust from their own country’s perspective. During 2003 as an organisation Eurojust was asked much more frequently to send speakers to participate in various conferences and seminars on cross -border crime issues. These tasks are shared according to the availability and linguistic expertise of the national members. This is helping to raise Eurojust’s profile and increasing its workload by promoting the unit as an effective facilitator of judicial co-operation and co-ordination in the European Union. It is very demanding on our limited resources but, in particular in our initial phase, it is necessary and an important part of our work.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
82
EN
The information technology system, which is now installed in our premises allowed Eurojust to create a basic Website in 2003. This is a useful tool which Eurojust will develop further in 2004. It will create a more effective means through which the College can publicise its work and raise its profile both nationally and internationally. Through it, national authorities will also be able to gain access to Eurojust and materials relating to the work of the organisation.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
83
EN
5
EU ENLARGEMENT AND THIRD STATES
The European and international environment, in which the legal systems and the investigation and prosecution responsibilities within them change as frontier controls are crossed, requires the capacity to co-operate and co-ordinate law enforcement action in all countries. Crime and criminals do not have to recognise int ernational frontiers. Eurojust has continued its work to develop a better awareness of its facilities not only inside the member states of the EU but also in the EU accession and candidate countries and in third states both within and outside Europe.
During 2003 Eurojust maintained its objective of working to ensure a smooth transition as our organisation prepared for EU enlargement in May 2004. We have introduced a system of “godparents” to link accession and candidate states to current Eurojust national members. These links draw on historical, geographical and cultural associations to enable the College to offer a better welcome to our new EU partners. In February 2003 the President of the College and the national member for Germany were pleased to accept an invitation to visit the Polish Deputy Minister of Justice, the Deputy Prosecutor General for Poland, and other senior prosecutors in Warsaw and Gdansk. We were happy to be able to thank some prosecutors who had been coordinating action on one of our cases and to speak to prosecutors and the media about our work and the possibilities offered by Eurojust now and in the future. Our inauguration on 29 April 2003 followed two weeks after signature of the Treaty of Athens and we were delighted that many Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs from EU accession and candidate countries chose to attend. A meeting of the College with our contact points in the candidate and accession states took place in our new premises in May 2003. This continued to cement the close relationships Eurojust has developed with them and gave the College and the contact points the opportunity to better appreciate the issues of the development of the EU JHA acquis in the candidate states and the practical problems which need to be
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
84
EN
resolved. A good example of Eurojust’s preparation for enlargement was a seminar inter alia on Eurojust in September 2003 organised in Estonia by the national member for Finland and the Finnish liaison magistrate in Estonia and the Estonian authorities. The Ministers of Justice from Finland and Estonia were key note speakers and the seminar was chaired by the Prosecutor General of Estonia. The national member for Sweden also made a presentation. There were more than 120 participants from Estonia, Denmark, Sweden and Finland. The office of the Prosecutor General, local prosecution offices and the Estonian Supreme Court were well represented. Senior government officials also took part. The seminar was well received in the media.
In December 2003 our President wrote on behalf of the College to all Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs in the accession states asking them to consider the early nomination of their Eurojust national member. The request also invited the Ministers
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
85
EN
to consider sending their nominees before 1 May 2004 to allow an easier transition as the College grows from 15 to 25 national members. We are pleased that several states have appointed a national member and that some will join us as observers well before 1st May 2004. We also offered to provide further support and assistance both in The Hague and in the accession states to help establish Eurojust in their systems as a tool in the fight against cross border crime. The Eurojust Decision allows Eurojust to conclude co -operation agreements with third states. Such agreements can provide for and facilitate the exchange of personal data and make it possible for third states to send a liaison officers or magistrates to Eurojust. The first negotiation of this type began in the summer of 2003 when Eurojust took forward a proposal to discuss a co -operation agreement made by the Minister of Justice for Norway. These negotiations are well advanced and linked to the adoption of our Data Protection rules. We expect that a final agreement will be reached and submitted to the JHA Council for approval during 2004. We expect that, once concluded, this agreement will provide a template for future negotiations and form the basis for further agreements with some other countries a number of whom have expressed interest in having formal co-operation agreements with Eurojust.
We continue to enhance the practical links with third countries. For example in April 2003 we held a co-ordination meeting on terrorism and the financing of terrorism. The event was attended by senior expert representatives from all EU states; also present were specialist from the competent authorities of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and the United States of America. We also held a meeting on European activity thought to be financing terrorist action in the Middle East attended by European investigators and a representative from Israel.
In our Annual Report for 2002 we indicated that many countries including Canada, Norway, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the USA and Japan had nominated contact points to work with Eurojust. That report also highlighted Eurojust’s efforts to increase awareness of our actives both inside and outside the European Union. Several contact points have been in regular liaison with Eurojust to resolve casework problems and to assist in the co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
86
EN
The College sees the Russian Federation as an important future partner in the fight against organised cross border crime. Following an earlier request to the Russian Federation to appoint a contact point to work with Eurojust, we were particularly pleased to welcome a high level delegation from the Russian Federation to our premises in The Hague in October 2003. The delegation was led by the deputy head of the President’s Administration Office. These positive discussions have resulted in the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation agreeing to nominate a Russian contact point from within his office. The nomination was made in December 2003 and the contact point is due to visit Eurojust in March 2004 to lay the foundations for future work.
In November 2003 the President of the College was invited to address the joint Ministerial Meeting of Justice and Home Affairs Ministers from all the EU States and from the Western Balkans. Eurojust’s capacity at present is limited and our priorities
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
87
EN
are focussed on establishing our organisation within the EU and dealing effectively with the challenges presented by EU enlargement. The College is able to offer some help and to share its experience and so we have nominated a prosecutor who is the deputy to one of our national members to take lead responsibility for links with Balkan states. Developing the theme of contacts the President invited the Ministers to nominate contact points from within their respective prosecutors’ offices to work with Eurojust. We were pleased to receive a response from the authorities in Serbia and Montenegro who nominated a contact person immediately. We look forward to developing a relationship with him and to receiving no minations from other states in the region. Eurojust has also developed contacts and good working relationships with international organisations and bodies such as the office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court and the Council of Europe (Conference of Prosecutors).
We expect much of our work in 2004 will be focussed on making EU enlargement a success. We will not, however, overlook the important work we must do to develop and strengthen our capacity to facilitate action with investigating and prosecuting authorities from outside the EU.
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
88
EN
6
ADMINISTRATION
Within Eurojust the role of the Administrative Director and his staff is to support the College and to provide the wide range of facilities and services necessary to achieve the objectives set out in the Eurojust Decision. In addition to those responsibilities, the Secretariat of the European Judicial Network (EJN) forms part of the Eurojust Administration in accordance with Article 26(2) of the Eurojust Decision. Staffing and Organisational Structure: Eurojust moved into its premises in The Hague on 14 December 2002 so 2003 has been a year during which the organisation has grown significantly.
At the beginning of 2003, all the administrative tasks were overseen by the Administrative Director and implemented by him together with a small task force of six and some interim staff. Two members of the task force left Eurojust during 2003. As a consequence, apart from ensuring the maintenance of the operations of the College, a major commitment was to employ experienced staff. By the end of 2003, 25 new statutory staff members were recruited. Three other members of staff have been offered contracts which they will take up early in 2004. This recruitment has allowed the Administration to build up a basic infrastructure for the main services needed. These include budgets and finance, information management (including ICT), security and general services, EJN secretariat and human resources. Additionally, almost all the national members now have permanent secretarial support which they all lacked at the beginning of the year. Other key appointments were made towards the end of the year when a Press Officer and a Data Protection Officer joined the organisation.
The strengthening of these administrative services and the establishment of a legal service and the appointment of a Secretary to the College (currently provided on a temporary basis by a member of the French desk) will be important tasks in 2004. To 8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
89
EN
that end, further recruitment procedures were launched at the end of 2003. Information on the recruitment for vacant positions is available on the Eurojust website (http://www.eurojust.eu.int).
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
90
EN
8284/04
CD/hm DG H III
91
EN
Internal Legal Framework and Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) for Data Protection The Administration gave high priority to developing an internal legal framework for Eurojust during 2003. By the end of the year drafts of a number of important documents had been prepared including: Eurojust’s Financial Regulation, rules for Public Access to Eurojust Documents and for any investigations conducted by the European antifraud office (OLAF). We expect these documents to be approved and adopted early in 2004. The Eurojust JSB also met for the first time in 2003 and a Data Protection Officer was appointed. Infrastructure When Eurojust first moved to The Hague in December 2002 only a very basic infrastructure could be established. These basic arrangements were consolidated and developed du ring 2003, laying the foundations for the present 15 national members of Eurojust and from 1 May 2004, for an enlarged Eurojust with 25 national members. The necessary construction and refurbishment work for enlargement has been initiated. An infrastructure will be in place to host the ten new national members. Although negotiations are well advanced we are disappointed that Eurojust has still not been offered a finalised Seat Agreement for signature by the Dutch government.
The Secretariat to the Europ ean Judicial Network (EJN) The EJN Secretariat has been staffed with a Secretary, a personal secretary and a webmaster in accordance with the prior agreement of EJN. Working closely with the Secretary the EJN Secretariat has successfully integrated with t he Eurojust Administration. Structures and procedures to implement Article 26(2) of the Eurojust Decision have been were developed and grant agreements were concluded with various external partners in order to co-finance EJN meetings and to ensure the further development and maintenance of the EJN projects including the “Judicial Atlas” and the “Fiches belges”. Budget Management
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
92
NL
Eurojust’s budget for 2003 was prepared and granted on the assumption that the organisation would move to The Hague by mid-2002 and would be able to create its own infrastructure by the same date. One direct consequence of the delayed move, a situation which was beyond the control of Eurojust, was that the timetable to build up the organisation had to be delayed by six months. The execution of the 2003 budget was also affected by the delay of the host state to provide Eurojust with the meeting facilities which had been planned. This restricted Eurojust’s ability to carry out one of its core activities, to host co -ordination meetings, in 2003. The overall effect of these factors was that in 2003 Eurojust executed approximately €5.9 million or about 70% of its total budget. We were pleased that the Court of Auditors stated in its report on the financial affairs of Eurojust for the year 2002 that the annual accounts for 2002
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
93
NL
“are reliable and that the underlying transactions, taken as a whole, are legal and regular”. The Administrative Director will issue a Financial Management Report with more detailed information. The Inauguration of Eurojust in The Hague The preparations for the inauguration of the Eurojust premises in The Hague constituted a major challenge for the College, the Administrative Director and his small team during the early months of 2003. The ceremony was held on 29th April 2003 and was attended by over 200 people. Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs, Ambassadors from EU member states and EU candidate countries, together with the leaders of various EU institutions, high -ranking officials and senior prosecutors and investigators and others from the European judicial environment were present. Speeches were made by Michael Kennedy, President of the College, Mr. Philippos Petsalnikos, Minister of Justice for the Hellenic Republic and President of the JHA Council; Mr António Vitorino, the EU Commissioner responsible for Justice and Home Affairs; Mr J P H Donner, Minister of Justice for the Kingdom of The Netherlands; Mr Jorge Hernandez Mollar Chairman of the European Parliamentary Committee for Citizens Rights and Freedoms and Justice and Home Affairs; and, Mrs L Engering, Deputy Mayor of the City of The Hague. The official event was followed by lunch and a programme organized by the City of The Hague. Eurojust received many positive reactions indicating that the inauguration was a great success. In October 2003 Eurojust appointed a Press Officer who is in charge of internal and external communications. An initial communication and press strategy was developed and approved by the College and an internal weekly magazine created. A basic website was established in 2003 which will be further developed in 2004. The website’s contact email address received 304 requests for information about Eurojust during the year. In 2003, a new logo was created approved and brought into use. The new logo will help to create and develop a clear identity and a bolder style for our new organisation.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
94
NL
7
EUROJUST’S OBJECTIVES FOR 2004
The success of the Eurojust planning event held in 2002 led the College to hold a further planning event in The Netherlands in October 2003 to review progress and to define the main objectives for 2004. The College is grateful to members of the Management and Audit Service Team from the Crown Prosecution Service for again facilitating the event. We expect that a planning event will become a regular feature in the Eurojust calendar. The key objectives agreed by the College for 2004 are: Ø To prepare and submit to the Council for approval Data Protection Rules in accordance with the terms of the Eurojust Decision. Ø To establish a programme of meetings and other action to develop further the existing relationships between the College and the European Union Accession States to ensure a smooth transition as the College grows from 15 to 25 national members when EU enlargement takes place on 1 May 2004. Ø To continue at every opportunity the work to encourage the early and full implementation of the Eurojust Decision in all the member states with appropriate legislation where necessary being adopted. Ø To review and renew the Eurojust strategy for marketing and increasing the numbers of serious multilateral cases referred to Eurojust. The strategy will make clear and detailed reference to ensuring full attention is paid to developing an effective programme to promote case referrals from the new member states in the enlarged European Union. Ø To improve the quality of appropriate interaction between Eurojust and Europol by: o driving forward the adoption and implementation of the agreement which is being negotiated with Europol; o in appropriate circumstances, where Eurojust can add value and in close co -operation with Europol, Eurojust should aim to generate its own cases; o encouraging individual national members of Eurojust to develop and improve their relationships with the members of their national desks at Europol. This is with a view to ensuring the combined resources of Eurojust and Europol national desks are used to best effect and particularly to guard against duplication of work and so that action taken by one organisation does not prejudice the work of the other.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
95
NL
Ø To continue to work to improve the quality of co-operation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN) and to ensure that both organisations are fully aware of the work of the other; ensu ring full use is made of the opportunities for working together with the EJN Secretariat. Ø To review and evaluate the existing Eurojust Memorandum of Understanding with OLAF and to use this evaluation to begin to plan and prepare a new agreement with OLAF with the view to improving the co -operation and effectiveness of both organisations Ø To establish a framework to provide Eurojust with a new ICT system which can be developed to allow the secure transmission of electronic communications to competent authorities in the Member States and the provision of a casework database.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
96
NL
8
CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS
The College would like to thank the European institutions and all those who in the past year have helped to improve Eurojust’s work and to establish our org anisation in its new premises The Hague. We also want to thank those competent authorities in the member states who have demonstrated confidence in our work by referring cases to Eurojust for facilitation and other assistance.
31.2.
The statistics presented in this report show a fifty per cent increase in the number of case referrals and so clearly demonstrate that Eurojust has made a promising start in The Hague.
31.3. 31.4.
Nevertheless much remains to be done if Eurojust is to deliver the expectations which were allocated to the organisation when it was conceived during 1999 at the EU summit in Tampere, Finland. Some of these issues can be identified as:
•
The completion during 2004 of the facilities which should have been finished in December 2003, required for Eurojust to organise effective co-ordination meetings in specially constructed rooms in our own premises.
•
To have in place a data base system and rules on Data Protection which are to be sent to the Council for approval in 2004.
•
The national members of Eurojus t must be able to receive all the information from the competent authorities in the member states needed for them to carry out their tasks and responsibilities given to them in the Eurojust Decision.
31.5. •
More large and complex cases, specifically within Euro just competence, such as fraud against the financial interests of the EU are not referred to the College to benefit from Eurojust’s input.
•
The role and responsibilities of all Eurojust national members must be recognised and empowered within their legal own systems. If necessary this should be achieved by passing national legislation to confirm the commitment required from member states when they agreed to the implement the Eurojust Decision. The work to implement the Decision should have been completed by September 2003 but even at the end of 2003 many countries have still to fulfil these obligations.
31.6. •
In the light of experience gained Eurojust must seek to comply with the Decision and to make firm proposals for improving judicial cooperation in Europe
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
97
NL
•
The Mutual Legal Assistance Convention of 2000 and its Protocol are key parts of the EU JHA acquis and essential for more effective mutual legal assistance. It is very disappointing that the Convention has been brought into force only three
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
98
NL
31.7.
member states . Similarly the European Arrest Warrant should have been in force in all member states by the beginning of 2004 but at that time only eight member states had completed implementation. The other member states expect to implement these provisions in the early months of 2004. These are examples of instruments which must be in force to create the judicial environment in which Eurojust can begin to achieve its full potential.
•
Eurojust’s work with Europol has already made significant progress but more operational cooperation is needed particularly in the mutual support of Joint Investigation Teams. Similarly we feel that judicial authorities should be able to make more use of the analyses made by Europol through Eurojust. We hope that the agreement between the two organisations will be approved without any further delay.
•
During 2003 the level of effective co-operation with OLAF has been unsatisfactory. We feel this must change in 2004 as the two units work more closely together. National competent authorities must contribute by playing their part and utilising fully the facilities that Eurojust can offer when OLAF reports matters to Eurojust.
•
For its part Eurojust must demonstrate more clearly the action it takes, the results it achieves, and work more effectively with the competent authorities in member states. Inter alia this will increase the use of the powers given to the College and national members under Articles 6 and 7 of the Eurojust Decision.
•
Finally during the coming year we look forward to welcomi ng the ten new national members who will join Eurojust. EU enlargement will enrich the unit and we must work to ensure that we build faith and confidence to meet the challenges of developing better judicial co-operation and co-ordination in the new European Union.
9
ANNEXES & PHOTOGRAPHS
Annex Pen picture for under photograph.
1. Mike Kennedy has more than 20 years of experience as a prosecutor. He has dealt with a wide range of serious cases at the headquarters of Crown Prosecution Service where he was also the Head of the International Branch handling MLA and extradition matters. Before joining Eurojust he was the Chief Crown Prosecutor for Sussex in England.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
99
NL
2. Olivier de Baynast de Septfontaines is an Avocat General and has 28 years of judicial experience. He has been a juge d’instruction then secretary general to the Cour de Cassation. He was also sub–Director of the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature and chief of the service responsible for European and International Affairs at the French Ministry of Justice (central authority) for civil and penal matters and co -operation, negotiations, and human rights issues. 3. Björn Blomqvist has over 20 years’ experience as a prosecutor. He was appointed as Principal Judicial Officer at the Prosecutor General’s Office in 1989 and worked as an advisor to the Ministry of Justice. In 1995 he was appointed as State Prosecutor, specializing economic crime and later as Chief District Prosecutor at the Economic Crime Bureau. In 2001 he became Sweden’s representative at Eurojust and in 2002 he was appointed as a deputy Director of Prosecutions. 4. Ulrike Haberl-Schwarz started her career as a judge in Salzburg in 1990. When dealing with major economic and financial crime cases as an investigating judge for six years she gained experience both in international co-operation matters and in organized crime. She joined Eurojust in January 2003. 5. Jose Luis Lopes da Mota has 25 years of experience in the judiciary as a prosecutor and as an assistant to the Portuguese Prosecutor General where he was responsible for matters related to management of the prosecution services at a national level and for international co-operation. He was a lecturer at the Portuguese national school for magistrates and a deputy Minister of Justice in charge of a range of issues including European affairs. 6. Michèle Coninsx has more than 15 years experience as a prosecutor. She worked for nine years for the International Civil Aviation Organisation and was responsible for antiterrorism relating to aircraft sabotage and hijacking. Before joining Eurojust she was a National Prosecutor in Belgium dealing with terrorism and organised crime. 7. Hermann von Langsdorff has 30 years experience as judge and prosecutor. Before becoming the National Member for Germany he worked as a Federal Prosecutor dealing with terrorism and espionage cases. 8. Georges Heisbourg has been a member of the judiciary in Luxembourg since 1976. He has worked for more than 20 years as a prosecutor. He was appointed a deputy chief prosecutor in 1993 and was head of the organized crime branch in charge of major money laundering cases and international judicial co-operation matters.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
100
NL
9. Micheál Mooney was enrolled as a solicitor in Ireland in 1990. He became an Assistant Solicitor in the Office of the Chief State Solicitor in 1990 and was appointed a Professional Officer to the Director of Public Prosecutions in 1995. In March 2001 he was seconded as Ireland’s representative to Eurojust in Brussels. 10. Tuomas Oja has more than 10 years experience as a prosecutor and a judge following his previous career in the private sector. Prior to his appointment to Eurojust he worked for several years as a counsellor at the Finnish EU representation in Brussels on criminal and judicial co-operation matters in the EU. 11. Roelof-Jan Manschot has more than 30 years experience as a prosecutor. He was advocategeneral at the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam from 1985 where he worked specifically on organized and financial crime. He was appointed as a Chief Prosecutor in 1995 and he joined Eurojust in June 2001. 12. Cesare Martellino started his career as a prosecutor in 1969. Until 1988 he acted as deputy prosecutor in Rome and later as Chief Prosecutor in Terni. During his career he has dealt with sensitive cases concerning organized crime, corruption, murder and kidnapping. In Italy he is currently entrusted with a significant role as a judge in the field of sports justice. 13. Ruben Jimenez was appointed as an examining judge in 1973. In 1996 he was appointed and served for 6 years as a member of the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary. Whilst in this post he was responsible for organising the EJN in Spain. 14. Stavroula Koutoulakou worked in private practice as a lawyer before entering the Greek judiciary in 1997. She served as a Deputy Public Prosecutor in Athens and in Corinth until her secondment to Eurojust in June 2002. 15. Anders Linnet has more than 25 years experience as a prosecutor inter alia specialising in the prosecution of organised crime. For more than a decade he held a part-time position as an external associate professor at the University of Copenhagen. After leaving Eurojust he was appointed as Commissioner of Police in Greenland
Deputies & Assistants 1. Jürgen Kapplinghaus has more than 29 years experience at different levels in the prosecution service. From 1975 to 1989 he was a local prosecutor and then he spent 10 years at the General Prosecutor’s office. Between 1999 and 2001 he was attached to the Ministry of Justice in North Rhine-Westphalia. Overall he has specialized for more than 15 years in Mutual Legal Assistance and combating Organized Crime. Before joining Eurojust in 2001 he was Head of Division in the Ministry responsible for MLA and extradition matters.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
101
NL
2. Paola Fiore has a background in judicial and in ternational matters in the Ministry of Justice since 1992. She worked for seven years as legal assistant to a prosecutor in the Direzione Nazionale Anti-mafia where she dealt with co -ordination of issues related to organised crime. In 2000 she was involved in the inter-ministry working group set up to implement the Italian law on Immigration and Trafficking in Human Beings. She has been the assistant to the Italian National Member in Eurojust since 2001. 3. Jean-Francois Bohnert has 19 years experience in the French judiciary. He began his career as a prosecutor in Strasburg and worked afterwards as an investigating magistrate at the French military court in Germany. Subsequently he was for nearly five years the French liaison magistrate in Germany based in Bonn and later in Berlin. 4. Jolien Kuitert is the deputy national member for The Netherlands. She is a Public Prosecutor based at the National Public Prosecutor’s Office in the Netherlands where she deals with international co-operation in the fields of combating organised crime she is also the contact point for the Public Prosecutors Service in the European Judicial Network. 5. Sanna Palo is a Finnish police officer with a legal background. She was a legal secretary in the Ministry for Foreign Affairs for two years and a judge in criminal cases for a year in Helsinki. She has also spent four years in Helsinki working on mutual legal assistance matters in Finnish National Bureau of Investigation. 6. Ola Löfgren has been working as a prosecutor for 10 years. He has experience of prosecuting all types of serious crime and he spent time working at the Economic Crimes Bureau in Stockholm. He has several years experience of international co -operation at the Office of the Prosecutor General in Sweden. He was also part of the Swedish team in the negotiations in Brussels to agree the Council Decision setting up Eurojust. 7. Rajka Vlahovic has 12 years experience as a prosecutor in central London and is a Higher Court Advocate. At the Crown Prosecution Service she dealt with a wide range of serious cases including as the prosecution of war crimes. Prior to joining Eurojust she was at Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise Solicitor’s Office where she was responsible for international mutual legal assistance and extradition cases. 8. Ann den Bieman has been a prosecutor with Scotland's prosecuting authority, the Procurator Fiscal Service, since 1996. In March 2000 she was seconded to the Netherlands as one of the prosecutors involved in the Lockerbie trial. She subsequently joined Eurojust, where she works as an Assistant to the national member for the United Kingdom.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
102
NL
9. Anne Delahaie has a background in the Ministry of Justice since 1979, she graduated in law in 1986. In the Ministry of Justice she was involved in International Judicial Co-operation in criminal matters and in bi-lateral and multi-lateral negotiations (Schengen EU, Council of Europe, and the UN). Since 2001 she has been an assistant to the French National Member in Eurojust.
Joining the College in 2004 1. Johan Reimann has worked for 25 years in the Danish judiciary, inter alia as a prosecutor with the district attorneys of Copenhagen and of Zealand, as head of the police office in the Ministry of Justice and as a police auditor. Prior to his appointment to Eurojust he was deputy permanent secretary in the Ministry of Justice with responsibility for the general administration of budget and personnel for the Danish police and prosecutions. 2. Solveig Wollstad has over 15 years experience as a prosecutor dealing inter alia with organised drugs and other serious crime cases. Before becoming the national member for Sweden she was a Chief Public Prosecutor in Sweden and head of the international unit of the Public Prosecution Authority for Linköping in Sweden. She was also a Swedish EJN contact point. 3. Natalie Barclay Stewart has almost five years prosecuting experience and is replacing Ann den Bieman whilst she is on maternity leave. Natalie is seconded from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland on a part –time basis. At Crown Office she works in the International Division which deals with mutual legal assistance and extradition cases.
Administration 1. Ernst Merz graduated in law in 1981 and was appointed and served as a judge in Germany until 1987. He was then detached to the Ministry of Justice of Rhineland-Palatinate and Thuringia. Between 1992 and 1999 he was the Director of the Academy of European Law (ERA) in Trier. In 2000 he was appointed as President of the Social Court Koblenz and acted as first Secretary General of the European Judicial Training Network. In May 2002 he became provisional Administrative Director of Eurojust and in September 2002 he was appointed as Administrative Director.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
103
NL
ANNEX
GUIDELINES FOR DECIDING “WHICH JURISDICTION SHOULD PROSECUTE?”
In November 2003 Eurojust organised a seminar to discuss and debate the question of which jurisdiction should prosecute in those cross border cases where there is a possibility of a prosecution being launched in two or more different jurisdictions. The objective of the seminar was to establish some guidance which would assist Eurojust when exercising its powers to ask one state to forgo prosecution in favour of another state which is better placed to do so.
The seminar delegates included practitioners from all EU Member States from most of the EU Accession Countries as well as representatives from the Commission, the Council Secretariat, Europol and OLAF. There were a series of presentations and four workshops with case studies to help discuss potential criteria. The debates were enriched by the presence, as speakers and participants in the workshops, of several delegates who were university professors and or academics with an interest in this area of law. We are grateful to all the seminar delegates for their contributions. The Eurojust College offers the following guidance:
Generally When reference is made to ‘prosecutors’ in this guidance it is intended to refer to not only to prosecutors but also to judges and other competent judicial authorities. Each case is unique and consequently any decision made on which jurisdiction is best placed to prosecute must be based on the facts and merits of each individual case. All the factors which are thought to be relevant must be considered. The decision must always be fair, independent objective and it must be made applying the European 6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
104
NL
Convention of Human Rights ensuring that the human rights of any defendant or potential defendant are protected. Any decision should be reached as early as possible in the investigation or prosecution process and in full consultation with all the relevant authorities in each jurisdiction. The complex question of “forum shopping”, which we would define as the arbitrary selection of the venue for prosecutio n, has different meanings in different legal systems and is not dealt with in this guidance. It is likely to be the subject of future discussion within Eurojust as our experience in handling this type of case develops.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
105
NL
As part of their discussions to res olve these cases prosecutors should explore all the possibilities provided by current international conventions and instruments for example to transfer proceedings and to centralize the prosecution in a single Member State. A number of conventions and other instruments, which have been signed but not yet ratified, could also provide assistance in the future when they have been fully implemented. 31.7.1. 31.7.2. Ne bis in idem A basic principle of international criminal law and the law of national criminal jurisdictions is that a defendant should not be prosecuted more than once for the same criminal conduct. This applies even if the defendant has been acquitted of that conduct in one jurisdiction. This guidance fully supports, adheres to and endorses that principle.
Initial Considerations The first consideration should be: “Where can a prosecution take place?” This decision should be considered at as early a stage as possible and in any event as soon as it is realised a prosecution might take place in more than one jurisdiction. Prosecutors must identify each jurisdiction where a prosecution is not only possible but also where there is a realistic prospect of successfully securing a conviction. Making this assessment will require expertise and knowledge, which can o nly be provided by experienced practitioners from the relevant jurisdictions. 32.
33.
MEETING TO DISCUSS ACTION
If the criminality occurred in several jurisdictions whose competent authorities could each institute proceedings in their own courts, there should be a meeting between nominated senior prosecutors representing each jurisdiction involved to discuss and agree where the prosecution should be mounted.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
106
NL
Each of the prosecutors nominated to attend such a meeting must be fully competent to discuss the issues and make decisions on behalf of the prosecuting authorities in the jurisdiction they represent. The prosecutors should apply the following guidance criteria in reaching their decisions.
33.1.1. 33.1.2. Reference to Eurojust Eurojust would expect any cases of this type, particularly where the representatives of the respective jurisdictions cannot reach agreement on where the case should be prosecuted, to be referred to it for assistance.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
107
NL
Eurojust would be happy to offer advice and to facilitate such meetings. If required the relevant national members of Eurojust would be pleased to be involved in these discussions. Eurojust would actively encourage all competent authorities to consider referring this type of case to it for assistance.
Making the Decision – “Which Jurisdiction Should Prosecute?”
33.1.3. A Presumption There should be a preliminary presumption that, if possible, a prosecution should take place in the jurisdiction where the majority of the criminality occurred or where the majority of the loss was sustained. When reaching a decision, prosecutors should balance carefully and fairly all the factors both for and against commencing a prosecution in each jurisdiction where it is possible to do so. There are a number of factors that should be considered and can affect the final decision. All these factors should be considered at the meeting of prosecutors from the relevant states affected by the criminality concerned. Making a decision will depend on the circumstances of each case and this guidance is intended t o bring consistency to every decision making process. Some of the factors which should be considered are:
33.1.4. The Location of the Accused The possibility of a prosecution in that jurisdiction and whether extradition proceedings or transfer of proceedings are possible will all be factors that should be taken into consideration.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
108
NL
34. 35. 36.
EXTRADITION AND SURRENDER OF PERSONS
37. The capacity of the competent authorities in one jurisdiction to extradite or surrender a defendant from another jurisdiction to face prosecu tion in their jurisdiction will be a factor in deciding where that defendant may be prosecuted
37.1. 37.2. 37.3.
Dividing the Prosecution into cases in Two or More Jurisdictions
The investigation and prosecution of complex cases of cross border crime will often lead to the possibility of a number of prosecutions in different jurisdictions.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
109
NL
In cases where the criminality occurred in several jurisdictions, provided it is practicable to do so, prosecutors should consider dealing with all the prosecutions in one jurisdiction. In such cases prosecutors should take into account the effect that prosecuting some defendants in one jurisdiction will have on any prosecution in a second or third jurisdiction. Every effort should be made to guard against one prosecution undermining another.
When several criminals are alleged to be involved in linked criminal conduct, whilst often it may not be practicable, if it is possible and efficient to do so, prosecutors should consider prosecuting all those involved together in one jurisdiction.
38.
THE ATTENDANCE OF W ITNESSES
38.1.1.1.Securing a just and fair conviction is a priority for every prosecutor. Prosecutors will have to consider the willingness of witnesses both to give evidence and, if necessary, to travel to another jurisdiction to give that evidence. In the absence of an international witness warrant, or the possibility the court receiving their evidence in written form or by other means such remotely (by telephone or video-link) will have to be considered. The willingness of a witness to travel and give evidence in another jurisdiction should be considered carefully are likely to influence the decision as to where a prosecution is issued.
38.1.1.2. 38.1.1.3.The Protection of Witnesses Prosecutors should always seek to ensure that witnesses or those who are assisting the prosecution process are not endangered. When making a decision on the jurisdiction for prosecution factors for consideration may include, for example, the possibility of one jurisdiction being able to offer a witness protection programme wh en another has no such possibility.
38.1.1.4.Delay A maxim recognised in all jurisdictions is that: “Justice delayed is justice denied”. Whilst time should not be the leading factor in deciding which jurisdiction should prosecute, where other factors are balanced then prosecutors should consider the length of time which proceedings will take to be concluded in a jurisdiction. If several states have 6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
110
NL
jurisdiction to prosecute should always consider how long it will take for the proceedings to be concluded.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
111
NL
39.
INTERESTS OF VICTIMS
Prosecutors must take into account the interests of victims and whether they would be prejudiced if any prosecution were to take place in one jurisdiction rather than another. Such consideration would include the possibility of victims claiming compensation.
39.1. 39.2. 39.3.
Evidential Problems
Prosecutors can only pursue cases using reliable, credible and admissible evidence. Evidence is collected in different ways and often in very different forms in different jurisdictions. Courts in different jurisdictions have different rules for the acceptance of evidence often gathered in very diverse formats. The availability of evidence in the proper form and its admissibility and acceptance by the court must be considered as these factors will affect and influence the decision on where a prosecution might be brought. These are factors which prosecutors must consider when reaching any decision on where a prosecution should be instituted. 40.
41.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Prosecutors must not decide to prosecute in one ju risdiction rather than another simply to avoid complying with the legal obligations that apply in one jurisdiction but not in another. All the possible effects of a decision to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another and the potential outcome of each case should be considered. These matters include the liability of potential defendants and the availability appropriate offences and penalties.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
112
NL
41.1.1. 41.1.2. Sentencing Powers The relative sentencing powers of courts in the different potential prosecution jurisdictions must not be a primary factor in deciding in which jurisdiction a case should be prosecuted. Prosecutors should not seek to prosecute cases in a jurisdiction where the penalties are highest. Prosecutors should however ensure that the potential penalties available reflect the seriousness of the criminal conduct which is subject to the prosecution.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
113
NL
42.
PROCEEDS OF CRIME
Prosecutors should not decide to prosecute in one jurisdiction rather than another only because it would result in the more effective recovery of the proceeds of crime. Prosecutors should always give consideration to the powers available to restrain, recover, seize and confiscate the proceeds of crime and make the most effective use of international co-operation agreements in such matters. 42.1.1.1. 42.1.1.2.Resources and Costs of Prosecuting The cost of prosecuting a case, or its impact on the resources of a prosecution office, should only be a factor in deciding whether a case should be prosecuted in one jurisdiction rather than in another when all other factors are equally balanced. Competent authorities should not refuse to accept a case for prosecution in their jurisdiction because the case does not interest them or is not a priority the senior prosecutors or the Ministries of Justice.
Where a competent authority has expressed a reluctance to prosecute a case for these reasons, Eurojust will be prepared to consider exercising its powers to persuade the authority to act.
Matrix The factors which should be considered in making decisions on which jurisdiction should prosecute are set out in this guidance. The priority and weighting which should be given to each factor will be different in each case. The intention of this guidance is to provide reminders and to define the issues that are import ant when such decisions are made. During the Eurojust seminar on this topic a number of delegates found it useful to apply a matrix. Whilst applying a matrix rigidly may be too prescriptive, some may find a more structured approach to resolving conflicts of jurisdiction helpful. The matrix allows a direct comparison and weighting of the relevant factors which will apply in the different possible jurisdictions.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
114
NL
ANNEX
EUROJUST LOGO
The College adopted a logo for Eurojust in November 2003. The logo uses strong colours and a modern style which represent Eurojust as a strong new organisation. The logo brings together a representation of Eurojust in blue as an organ of the European Union (EU) and the different interlocking shapes and colours represent the very different EU legal systems working together. Red is added to the blue and gold colours of the EU to represent the strongly contrasting legal systems within the EU and additionally to represent our will to fight against cross border crime. The scales overlay the shapes and colours and are a world -wide symbol of justice they are a consistent theme in the very different legal systems represented within Eurojust. The sword ‘restant’ represents both our fight against organised crime, which is at the heart of Eurojust’s objectives, and the potential sanction of the legal systems. All this is within the EU circle of stars to show Eurojust is an EU body. The circle of stars is open and the interlocking shapes are mainly within the circle and wit hin the EU, but also spread outside to show that Eurojust works within the EU as well as with cases and legal systems outside the EU. The open circle of stars also represents our openness to working with
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
115
NL
other systems beyond the EU and it adds to the sense of flexibility and co-operation which are key parts of our work.
We hope the logo is like Eurojust – new, modern, fresh and dynamic; we are confident that, like Eurojust, it will have significant impact.
______________________________
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
116
NL
RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE
Brussel, 20 april 2004 (22.04) (OR. en)
6627/3/04 REV 3 LIMITE CRIMORG 10
RESULTAAT BESPREKINGEN van: het Comité van artikel 36 d.d.: 20 april 2004 nr. vorig doc.: 16320/03 CRIMORG 96 + COR 1 nr. Comv.: 6627/2/04 REV 2 CRIMORG 10 Betreft: Ontwerp-resolutie van de Raad over een modelprocotol voor de totstandbrenging in de lidstaten van partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector ter beperking van de schade van georganiseerde criminaliteit
Tijdens de vergadering van 20 april 2004 heeft het Comité van artikel 36 een consensus over dit initiatief van het voorzitterschap bereikt. […]
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
117
NL
Achtergrond In de strategie van de Europese Unie voor het begin van het nieuwe millennium ter voorkoming en bestrijding van de georganiseerde criminaliteit, met name in hoofdstuk 2.3, is de nadruk gelegd op het belang van versterking van de preventie van georganiseerde criminaliteit en versterking van partnerschappen tussen het strafrechtelijke apparaat en de civiele samenleving. Tijdens de vergadering van de Multidisciplinaire Groep georganiseerde criminaliteit van 7 januari 2004 heeft het voorzitterschap de bevindingen van de Conferentie van Dublin van november 2003 over georganiseerde criminaliteit gepresenteerd. Het voorzitterschap maakte ook het voornemen kenbaar om, als eerste stap ter uitvoering van de aanbevelingen van de verklaring van Dublin, met een initiatief te komen voor de ontwikkeling van een modelprotocol om de lid staten te helpen op nationaal niveau partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector tot stand te brengen. Het voorzitterschap is van mening dat de ontwikkeling en toepassing op nationaal niveau van op het voorgestelde modelprotocol gebaseerde protocollen zal bijdragen tot een meer samenhangend optreden in de gehele Europese Unie. Tijdens de informele zitting van de JBZ -Raad in Dublin van 22/23 januari 2004 is de ministers verzocht nota te nemen van de aanbevelingen van de verklaring van Dublin en na te gaan of een partnerschapsaanpak waarbij de overheid en de particuliere sector betrokken zijn, kan bijdragen tot de bestrijding van de georganiseerde criminaliteit door een rol te spelen in de beperking van de schade die de georganiseerde criminaliteit de samenleving en de economie berokkent op gebieden zoals namaak van goederen, diefstal van intellectuele eigendom, smokkel, enz. De ministers juichten de aanpak toe en bij de besprekingen is gebleken dat dergelijke partnerschappen in een aantal lidstaten al in een of andere vorm aanwezig of in wording zijn. De noodzaak om de particuliere sector bij dit initiatief te betrekken en die te benutten als bron van inlichtingen, was een van de voornaamste punten die tijdens de conferentie naar voren zijn gekomen. Sommige ministers benadrukten het belang van flexibiliteit. Men was ook van mening dat de regelingen voor partnerschappen/samenwerking pragmatisch moeten zijn.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
118
NL
Doel van de ontwerp-resolutie van de Raad Deze ontwerp-resolutie van de Raad heeft betrekking op de ontwikkeling van een modelprotocol dat ten doel heeft de lidstaten te helpen op nationaal niveau partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector tot stand te brengen. Doel van het voorgestelde modelprotocol is, de belangrijkste elementen te formuleren die nodig zijn om binnen de Europese Unie doeltreffende partnerschappen tot stand te brengen waardoor belanghebbenden in de particuliere sector en wets handhavings- en overheidsinstanties kunnen samenwerken om door de georganiseerde misdaad aangerichte schade tot een minimum te beperken. Tijdens de conferentie van Dublin zijn een aantal belangrijke elementen naar voren gekomen. In de eerste plaats was men van mening dat de protocollen bepalingen moeten omvatten voor melding en scoping vanuit de particuliere sector, va n gevallen van criminaliteit, aan de bevoegde overheidsinstanties en ook betrekking moet hebben op door de particuliere sector verzamelde gegevens die van belang zijn voor sectoriële kwetsbaarheidsstudies op lokaal, nationaal en internationaal niveau. Ten tweede dienen samenwerking en partnerschap tussen wetshandhavings diensten en de particuliere sector bij de ontwikkeling van gemeenschappelijke en onderling uit wisselbare inlichtingenmodellen en het uitwisselen van de inlichtingen in die modellen te worden gestimuleerd, rekening houdend met nationale en internationale bepalingen inzake gegevens bescherming en vertrouwelijkheid. Ten derde is, om de penetratie van de georganiseerde criminaliteit in de legale zakenwereld te onderzoeken, vaak vaardigheid op het gebied van forensische accountancy of financiën of een andere sectorspecifieke deskundigheid vereist. De wetshand havings- en opsporingsdiensten beschikken niet altijd over dergelijke vaardigheden, en goed omschreven partnerschappen zullen gebrek aan kennis of vaardigheden kunnen verhelpen, zodat de georganiseerde criminaliteit doeltreffender kan worden bestreden. In het ontwerp -modelprotocol in de bijlage bij dit document is getracht deze belangrijkste elementen te behandelen. In sommige lidstaten zijn al in een of andere vorm en met positieve resultaten, partnerschaps regelingen ter bestrijding van de georganiseerde criminaliteit aanwezig of in wording. Die regelingen omvatten partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector die met succes op een informele basis functioneren. Bijgevolg is het niet wenselijk een modelprotocol vast te stellen dat op enigerlei wijze rigide, prescriptief of verplicht zou zijn, noch om van de lidstaten te verlangen dat zij hun bestaande structuren aanvullen of d ie vervangen door nieuwe structuren. Doel van het modelprotocol is, richtsnoeren te bieden op basis van de tijdens de conferentie van Dublin en door de Multidisciplinaire Groep georganiseerde criminaliteit bepaalde beste praktijken voor de totstandbrenging op nationaal niveau van partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector. 6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
119
NL
Met andere woorden: het is de bedoeling een kader te bieden. De mate waarin het voorgestelde modelprotocol wordt gebruikt, moet worden bepaald door de lidstaten, op grond van de nationale omstandigheden en prioriteiten.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
120
NL
Resolutie van de Raad van …. 2004
DE RAAD VAN DE EUROPESE UNIE, Overwegende hetgeen volgt: (1)
Een van de doelstellingen van de Europese Unie is, de burgers in een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en rechtvaardigheid een hoog niveau van zekerheid te verschaffen.
(2)
Deze doelstelling wordt verwezenlijkt door het voorkomen en bestrijden van georganiseerde criminaliteit door middel van nauwere samenwerking tussen politiediensten en andere bevoegde autoriteiten in de lidstaten.
(3)
In de strategie van de Europese Unie voor het begin van het nieuwe millennium ter voorkoming en bestrijding van de georganiseerde criminaliteit, met name in hoofdstuk 2.3, wordt opgeroepen tot versterking van de preventie van georganiseerde criminaliteit en versterking van partnerschappen tussen het strafrechtelijke apparaat en de civiele samenleving.
(4)
In de aanbevelingen in het verslag van de EU over de georganiseerde criminaliteit in 2003 worden partnerschappen tussen de overheid en particuliere organisaties als een belangrijke aanpak van criminaliteitspreventie aangemoedigd.
(5)
Aanbeveling 8 van het eindverslag van de tweede ronde van wederzijdse evaluaties roept de lidstaten op te overwegen instrumenten te ontwikkelen die formele overeenkomsten tussen wetshandhavingsinstanties en particuliere ondernemingen vergemakkelijken.
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
121
NL
(6)
Dit onderwerp wordt ook behandeld in de bevindingen van de conferentie "Gedeelde aanpak van georganiseerde criminaliteit" (20-21 november 2003, Dublin), medegefinancierd in het kader van het AGIS-programma van de Europese Gemeenschap en ontwikkeld door een partnerschap van het komende Ierse en Nederlandse voorzitterschap van de Raad met steun van Europol en de Commissie.
(7)
Als er niet wordt opgetreden, zal de georganiseerde misdaad steeds meer ernstige sociale en economische schade berokkenen aan overheid en bedrijfsleven en tevens de kwaliteit van het bestaan van de burgers ernstig aantasten.
(8)
De gehele samenleving heeft er belang bij dat het oprukken en steeds verder doordringen van de georganiseerde criminaliteit in de maatschappij wordt voorkomen; deze kwestie moet op lokaal, nationaal en EU -niveau worden aangepakt.
(9)
Overheid en particuliere sector hebben een gemeenschappelijk bela ng bij het zoeken naar manieren om schade als gevolg van activiteiten van de georganiseerde criminaliteit vast te stellen en te voorkomen. In sommige lidstaten zijn al in een of ander vorm en met positieve resultaten partnerschapregelingen ter bestrijding van de georganiseerde criminaliteit aanwezig of in wording. Die regelingen omvatten partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector die met succes op informele basis functioneren.
(9 bis) De partnerschapsregelingen waarin deze resolutie voorziet, laten de wettelijke en bestuurs rechtelijke verplichtingen van de particuliere sector op het gebied van de bestrijding van de georganiseerde criminaliteit en met name de bestrijding van het witwassen van geld, onverlet. (10)
Succesvolle partnerschapsstructuren op douanegebied hebben geleid tot meer inlichtingen en lagere kosten voor het bedrijfsleven,
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
122
NL
SPOORT de regeringen van de lidstaten HIERBIJ AAN: te bevorderen dat waar dat dienstig is het modelprotocol in de bijlage bij deze resolutie wordt gebruikt door hun bevoegde autoriteiten die partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector tot stand willen brengen of willen ontwikkelen, gebaseerd op wederzijds vertrouwen en de gemeenschappelijke doelstelling om de door de georganiseerde criminaliteit aangerichte schade te beperken. Gedaan te Brussel, …. 2004
Voor de Raad De voorzitter
6627/3/04 REV 3
van/KS/jg DG H III
123
NL
BIJLAGE Modelprotocol voor partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector ter beperking van door de georganiseerde crimi naliteit aangerichte schade Nationale partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector zouden bepalingen betreffende de volgende aangelegenheden kunnen omvatten, zonder dat zij daartoe beperkt behoeven te worden: A.
Structuur en lidmaatschap
Wat de structuur en het lidmaatschap van partnerschappen tussen de overheid en de particuliere sector betreft, zouden de lidstaten kunnen overwegen het volgende op te nemen: Nationale platforms om toezicht te houden op het partnerschapsproces 1.
De nationale platforms zouden kunnen bestaan uit passende leden van wetshandhavings instanties, leden van representatieve organisaties van het bedrijfsleven en/of toonaangevende bedrijven/ondernemingen/industrieën, consumentenorganisaties, verkozen overheids vertegenwoordigers, ambtenaren van de relevante ministeries en overheidsinstellingen, vertegenwoordigers van slachtoffers en van niet -gouvernementele organisaties. Indien daar overeenstemming over bestaat, zouden ook vertegenwoordigers van universiteiten of andere onderzoeksinstellingen met deskundigheid op het gebied van de georganiseerde criminaliteit en de preventie daarvan in de platforms kunnen worden opgenomen.
2.
De instelling van subgroepen van deskundigen, die bevoegd kunnen zijn voor een specifieke bedrijfstak of een specifieke vorm van georganiseerde criminaliteit (bijvoorbeeld namaak), en die verslag uitbrengen aan het nationale platform. De eventuele noodzaak om gebrek aan kennis of vaardigheden te verhelpen op gebieden zoals forensische accountancy, financiën, informatietechnologie enz. zou hierbij een belangrijke overweging kunnen zijn.
3.
De subgroepen van deskundigen zouden kunnen bestaan uit leden van wetshandhavings diensten en leden van representatieve organisaties van specifieke sectoren van het bedrijfsleven/de zakenwereld of van grote bedrijven die op het betrokken gebied werkzaam zijn. Indien er regelgevende autoriteiten zijn, zouden die ook kunnen worden opgenomen.
8605/04
NP/ml DG H
124
EN
B.
Mandaat en taak
a.
Het mandaat van het nationaal platform zou kunnen zijn:
1.
de samenwerking, contacten, en uitwisseling van informatie en ervaringen tussen de autoriteiten van een lidstaat en de particuliere sector te vergemakkelijken;
2.
prioriteiten voor de subgroep van deskundigen te bespreken en overeen te komen;
3.
toezicht te houden op het werk van de subgroepen van deskundigen;
4.
geregelde voortgangsverslagen van de subgroepen van deskundigen te bespreken;
5.
door de subgroepen van deskundigen voorgestelde initiatieven te bespreken;
6.
op basis van analyse en bespreking van de verslagen van de subgroepen van deskundigen nationale strategieën ter voorkoming van door georganiseerde criminaliteit aangerichte schade te ontwerpen.
b.
Het mandaat van de subgroepen van deskundigen zou kunnen zijn:
1.
onderwerpen van wederzijds belang te bespreken die relevant zijn voor de specifieke sector van het bedrijfsleven/de zakenwereld;
2.
gemeenschappelijke inlichtingenmodellen te ontwerpen en de inlichtingen met gebruikmaking van die modellen uit te wisselen, rekening houdend met de wettelijke verplichtingen van de partners en de relevante binnenlandse en internationale bepalingen inzake gegevens bescherming en geheimhouding;
3.
informatie uit te wisselen over specifieke gevallen van criminaliteit, met name georganiseerd e criminaliteit, waardoor bedrijven getroffen zijn;
4.
informatie en gegevens uit te wisselen die zijn verzameld in het kader van overheidsstudies en door het bedrijfsleven uitgevoerde sectoriële kwetsbaarheidstudies;
8605/04
NP/ml DG H
125
EN
5.
afspraken te maken over het gevo lg dat aan de uitwisseling van informatie wordt gegevens, met inbegrip van preventieve maatregelen in de particuliere sector;
6.
middelen te vinden om de beste praktijken in de gehele particuliere sector te verspreiden;
7.
preventieve maatregelen te bepalen die kunnen worden genomen door bedrijven die door georganiseerde criminaliteit worden getroffen;
8.
maatregelen te bepalen voor criminaliteitsbestendigheid die helpen producten en diensten te beschermen tegen de activiteiten van georganiseerde criminelen;
9.
bij te dragen tot de ontwikkeling van de evaluatie van de economische schade;
10.
bij te dragen tot de ontwikkeling van programma's ter bewustmaking van het publiek ten einde het publiek alert te maken op de gevaren van georganiseerde criminaliteit en de middelen om die te voorkomen;
11.
de mogelijkheden te bepalen/te onderzoeken van wederzijdse cursussen, bijvoorbeeld in bankprocedures voor onderzoekers van witwasoperaties;
12.
uitvoeringsstrategieën te ontwerpen voor vastgestelde maatregelen ter preventie van criminaliteit.
C.
Procedures
1.
Indien daarom wordt verzocht door een lid van het nationaal platform of van een subgroep van deskundigen, moet de verstrekte informatie als vertrouwelijk worden behandeld. Informatie zou ook kunnen worden uitgewisseld op basis van anonimiteit: een representatieve organisatie zou bijvoorbeeld informatie over een van haar leden kunnen verstrekken zonder vermelding van de naam van het bedrijf of de persoon.
8605/04
NP/ml DG H
126
EN
2.
Er moeten geen sancties komen voor particuliere b edrijven of vertegenwoordigers van het bedrijfsleven die informatie willen verstrekken over misdrijven waardoor zij zijn getroffen en die niet eerder aan de bevoegde wetshandhavingsinstanties zijn gemeld, bijvoorbeeld om redenen die verband houden met de geheimhoudingsplicht of geloofwaardigheid tegenover de klant.
3.
Er moet geen verplichting op de leden van een nationaal platform of van een subgroep van deskundigen rusten om informatie te verstrekken. Uitwisseling van informatie moet op vrijwillige basis geschieden, maar mag wel door de wetshandhavingsinstanties voor onderzoeksdoeleinden worden gebruikt.
D.
Door de groepen van deskundigen te bestrijken sectoren
Financiën en bankwezen Informatietechnologie en internet Design artikelen Muziekindustrie Farmaceutische industrie Autoindustrie Vervoer Wapenindustrie Detailhandel algemeen Dienstensector (amusement, horeca) Tabaksindustrie, en Iedere andere relevante sector.
_______________
8605/04
NP/ml DG H
127
EN
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Brussels, 20 April 2004
8605/04
SIRIS 58 COMIX 278
I/A NOTE from : Council Secretariat to : Coreper/Council No. prev. doc. : 8273/04 SIRIS 55 CATS 11 COMIX 253 9808/03 SIRIS 47 CATS 34 ASIM 31 COMIX 330 Subject : Draft Council Conclusions on the location, management and financing of SIS II
1.
The Council Conclusions of 5-6 June 2003 on the functions of the SIS and SIS II architecture mandated the respective Council Working Groups to prepare conclusions on the location, management and financing of the SIS II as soon as possible and in due time for adoption by the Council at the latest by May 2004.
2.
Following an initial exchange of views on these issues on the basis of a Presidency orientation paper (document 7118/04 SIRIS 34 COMIX 160) at its meeting on 11/12 March 2004, the Article 36 Committee, at its meeting on 19 April 2004, agreed on the draft Council Conclusions set out in document 8273/04 SIRIS 55 CATS 11 COMIX 253 with one modification.
3.
Coreper is invited to request the Council to approve the draft conclusions as set out in the annex.
8605/04
NP/ml DG H
128
EN
ANNEX Draft Council Conclusions on Location, Management and Financing of SIS II The Council Conclusions of 5-6 June 2003 on the functions of the SIS and the SIS II architecture mandated the respective Council Working Groups to prepare conclusions on the location, management and financing of the SIS II as soon as possible and in due time for adoption by the Council at the latest by May 2004. The Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament (doc. 16106/03 SIRIS 111 VISA 205 COMIX 765 – COM (2003) 771 of 11 December 2003) indicated the need, in the Commission's view, for early decisions to be taken on certain matters relating to the location and operational management of SIS II during the development phase so as to meet the overall timetable for development of SIS II.
The Declaration on Combating Terrorism adopted by the European Council on 25 March 2004 also called for decisions on the lo cation, management and financing of SIS II to be taken by May 2004 in order to allow the Commission to take forward its full development. The Council, accordingly, now agrees on the following conclusions for the purpose of the development phase of SIS II:
1.
The central part of SIS II shall be located in Strasbourg and the operational management and responsibility for liaison with the Commission for this site shall be the responsibility of France.
2.
The Business Continuity Site shall be located in Salzb urg subject to certain arrangements that will be necessary before the site becomes operational. In that event, operational management and responsibility for liaison with the Commission for this site shall be the responsibility of Austria.
7016/1/04 REV 1 BIJLAGE
las/GRA/KS/dm DG H II
129
NL
3.
Appropriate Service Level Agreements shall be put in place between Commission and the Member States hosting the Central System and the Business Continuity Site as soon as practicable but in any event before the commencement of work at either site. These Service Level Agreements will, in particular, specify the conditions governing the relationships between the different parties, access to the sites for relevant bodies and personnel and the local support to be provided by the hosting Member States.
4.
Decisions now being taken on the location and management of SIS II during the development phase are without prejudice to subsequent Council conclusions on the longer term management, financing and location of SIS II.
5.
The relevant Council Workings Groups are requested to prepare Council Conclusions on the longer term strategic and operational management, financing and location of SIS II by June 2005 following an evaluation at the relevant level of the relative merits of different options, associated costs and any legal issues arising.
7016/1/04 REV 1 BIJLAGE
las/GRA/KS/dm DG H II
130
NL
