Annexes to COM(2007)644 - Role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the EU - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2007)644 - Role of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in the EU. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2007)644  |
| date | October 23, 2007 |
In the longer term, in the context of a possible new legal basis, the Commission will consider conditions and machinery by which the College could:
- settle conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States and conflicts regarding the working of the mutual recognition instruments;
- initiate inquiries in a Member State and propose prosecution there, and play a role in specific investigation measures;
- initiate criminal inquiries at European level, especially regarding offences prejudicial to the financial interests of the Union.
- Changes to the structure of Eurojust
Article 29(1) should be amended to allow the Administrative Director of Eurojust to be appointed not by all of the members of the College unanimously but by a two-thirds majority. It should also provide that the selection board should include a member of the Commission. .
3. Eurojust and the other players in judicial cooperation in criminal matters
Eurojust’s relations with its partners should be clarified and simplified.
4. Relations with the European Judicial Network and the liaison magistrates
5. The European Judicial Network
As a result of its cross-cutting flexible structure, the European Judicial Network has facilitated judicial cooperation between the Member States. It has proved a useful tool: its Internet site on the systems of justice in Europe deserves special mention.
The differences in the organisation of the network in different Member States, linguistic difficulties, legal difficulties in international cooperation and frequent overlaps with the field of responsibility of Eurojust all justify a reorganisation of the network.
In order to strengthen and improve cooperation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, the Commission envisages the following structure.
The national contact point referred to in the Joint Action would also be the national correspondent of the Eurojust national member, who is referred to in Article 12 of the Decision. This national correspondent, working in the Member State, would be a member of the Eurojust national member’s team. In collaboration with the national law enforcement authorities, he or she would manage the different points of contact in the country and would act as a link for Eurojust’s policy of communication there. He or she would be the contact points’ national representative for all dealings with the Eurojust secretariat. These national contact points would assist the other contact points in their Member State in case of difficulty. The national contact point would be the Eurojust national member’s primary contact in the home country, but, of course, the national member would continue to be in direct communication with the law enforcement authorities of the country, a feature that is fundamental to the effectiveness of the system. The structure described already exists in some countries and has demonstrated its effectiveness; the Commission is accordingly proposing that it be generalised.
The proposal would require the amendment of Articles 26(2) and 12. The role of a national coordinator of this kind would be systematically to forward to the Eurojust national member any multilateral cases of which he or she might be aware and any complex bilateral cases that had not been resolved properly or promptly by the contact points. As a member of the national member’s team, he or she would immediately forward all cases falling with the competence of Eurojust to the national member.
The Commission feels that the Eurojust secretariat ought to host not just the secretariat of the European Judicial Network but also the secretariats of operational networks in the law enforcement sphere such as the network of terrorism contact points, the CARIN network and the genocide network[22].
6. The liaison magistrates
The appointment of liaison magistrates to improve bilateral cooperation has been handled differently in different Member States. This channel of communication is provided for in a joint action of 1996[23], but it is used in different ways[24]. In fact, only a minority of Member States have liaison magistrates at all[25], and yet liaison magistrates have a useful role to play in international law enforcement cooperation. In the future, Eurojust might itself designate liaison magistrates in countries outside the EU so as to facilitate cooperation between the Member States and the country in which they were to be appointed. Their functions would be similar to those of the Norwegian and United States liaison magistrates currently at Eurojust.
7. Stepping up cooperation with Europol
Since it signed a cooperation agreement with Europol[26], Eurojust has constantly improved its links with that organisation. It is worth drawing attention to the quality of the work done by these partners in organising expert meetings on joint investigation teams[27]. On 7 June 2007 a Memorandum of Understanding was signed on the setting up of a secure communications network. This will increase the exchange of information between Eurojust and Europol.
The entry into force on 18 April 2007 of the Protocol of 27 November 2003 amending the Europol Convention[28] will facilitate access to Europol’s analytical work files (AWFs) and wider participation in those analyses.
Cooperation between Eurojust and the various Europol national liaison offices is still uneven. The links should be strengthened systematically, and exchanges of information with these offices should be improved.
Development of cooperation between Eurojust and Europol in this fashion does not require amendment of Article 26, in so far as the rules on the protection of data permit Eurojust to exchange information in a satisfactory manner.
8. Stepping up cooperation with the Commission (OLAF)
Cooperation between Eurojust and OLAF[29] is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding[30], which should be modified by a cooperation agreement. The fields of responsibility of OLAF and Eurojust are separate[31]. In order to secure all of the potential benefit of cooperation between OLAF, as a specialised agency investigating Community fraud, and Eurojust, as a law enforcement cooperation agency, there is a need for exchange of information, both operational and strategic. The Commission takes the view, therefore, that the Decision should make provision for the regular exchange of information at a sufficiently early stage. Compatible rules on the protection of data should play a part in the development of closer cooperation.
The designation of contact points and the establishment of regular meetings for the exchange of information and training should continue.
9. Stepping up cooperation with Frontex
The protection of the EU’s external borders on land or sea is a question that arises in connection not just with clandestine immigration but also with organised crime such as drug trafficking and human trafficking.
In the absence of legal obstacles, the signing of a cooperation agreement between Eurojust and Frontex is to be encouraged.
10. Cooperation with non-EU countries
Eurojust has developed contacts with non-EU countries with a view to facilitating and intensifying cooperation between law enforcement authorities.
On the basis of Article 27, Eurojust has concluded cooperation agreements permitting the exchange of information and personal data in operational cases and participation in coordination meetings[32]. These agreements are reflected in the sending of liaison officers to Eurojust by Norway and the United Stats. Negotiations are in progress on similar agreements with other countries[33]. When a cooperation agreement cannot be negotiated, Eurojust seeks to develop a network of contact points; this has happened most notably in the Mediterranean[34] and with the IBER-RED network.
Conclusion
Amending the Decision so that the steps described can be taken would enable Eurojust to develop its potential for cooperation and to establish itself further as a vital player in the fight against organised crime and terrorism in Europe.
Eurojust needs to become a stronger structure acknowledged by all the Member States, who should consolidate the powers of their national members and of the College by transposing the Decision fully into their own law and expanding the powers conferred on them. This will permit progress in the fight against cross-border crime and the establishment of an area of justice, freedom and security in Europe.
Transposal of the Eurojust Decision and status of the national member |
| BE | BG | CZ | DK | DE | EE | IE | EL | ES | EN | IT | CY | LV | LT | LU | HU | MT | NL | AT | PL | PT | RO | SI | SK | FI | SE | UK | |Law enforcement or operational powers retained in home country |no |yes |yes |no |no |yes |yes |no |no |no |no |yes |yes |yes |no |no |yes |no |no |yes |no |yes |yes |yes |yes |yes |yes | |To make a request for mutual assistance |no |yes |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |yes |no |no |yes |no |no |no |yes |no |no |yes |yes |yes |yes | |To order an investigation and prosecution |no |yes |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |yes |no |no |yes |no |no |no |yes |no |yes |yes |yes |yes |no | |To authorise the setting up of a joint investigation team |no |no |yes |no |yes |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |yes |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |no |yes |no | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
[1] OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 1.
[2] OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1.
[3] Document 14123/06, 19 October 2006, Eurojust 48, limité .
[4] Joint Action of 29 June 1998 (OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4).
[5] Vision Paper, 19 September 2006, document 6053/07 EJN 6.
[6] Council conclusions, document 9920/07 COPEN 73.
[7] See annexed tables.
[8] Eurojust annual reports for 2004, 2005 and 2006.
[9] Bulgaria, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.
[10] The Czech Republic, Germany, Malta and Sweden.
[11] Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and the United Kingdom (in the UK, only in urgent cases where the proper authority is unable to act).
[12] Information supplied by Eurojust, 1 June 2007.
[13] Between Italy, France, Poland, Romania and Slovenia.
[14] Council Resolution of 9 June 1997 on the exchange of DNA analysis results (OJ C 193, 24.6.1997, p. 2).
[15] Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences (OJ L 253, 29.9.2005, p. 22).
[16] Council conclusions on the fifth Eurojust annual report.
[17] Conclusions, point 4.
[18] Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Lithuania, Hungary, Portugal and Romania.
[19] In 2004, as part of an AGIS programme (EPOC), Eurojust set up an automated data processing system known as the case management system (CMS), whose development is continuing with the aid of that programme. Technical solutions are currently being explored with a view to establishing secure connections with the Member States.
[20] Article 16(2) of the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant (OJ L 190, 18.7.2002).
[21] Figures at 15 May 2007. Teams set up by Spain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany and Sweden.
[22] Council Decision of 13 June 2002 (OJ L 167, 26.6.2002).
[23] Joint Action 96/277/EC of 22 April 1996 (OJ L 105, 27.4.1996).
[24] For example, France has 11 liaison magistrates, while some Member States have none.
[25] Germany, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Finland and the United Kingdom.
[26] 9 June 2004.
[27] Eurojust Annual Report 2006, p. 17.
[28] Council Act of 27 November 2003 (OJ C 2, 6.1.2004, p. 1).
[29] Set up by Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20).
[30] Signed on 14 April 2003, not published.
[31] The objectives and tasks of OLAF are set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1), and in Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 8).
[32] On 15 June 2007 the countries concerned were Iceland, Norway and the United States.
[33] On 15 June 2007 these were Croatia, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine.
[34] Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia .