COM(2000)746 - Establishment of Eurojust

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

Contents

  1. Key information
  2. Key dates
  3. Related information
  4. Full version
  5. EU Monitor

1.

Key information

official title

Communication from the Commission on the establishment of Eurojust
 
Legal instrument Communication
reference by COM-number51 COM(2000)746 EN
Additional COM-numbers COM(2000)746
CELEX number54 52000DC0746

2.

Key dates

Document 22-11-2000
Online publication 22-11-2000

3.

Related information

 

4.

Full version

This page is also available in a full version containing the latest state of affairs, the summary of the European Parliament Legislative Observatory, the legal context, other dossiers related to the dossier at hand, the stakeholders involved (e.g. European Commission directorates-general, European Parliament committees, Council configurations and even individual EU Commissioners and Members of the European Parliament) and finally documents of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the European Commission.

The full version is available for registered users of the EU Monitor by ANP and PDC Informatie Architectuur.

5.

EU Monitor

The EU Monitor enables its users to keep track of the European process of lawmaking, focusing on the relevant dossiers. It automatically signals developments in your chosen topics of interest. Apologies to unregistered users, we can no longer add new users.This service will discontinue in the near future.

  • 1. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 2. 
    See Article 2 of the initiative of Germany, OJ C 206 of 19.7.2000. A more clear-cut definition of the term 'major' (or serious) offences would, however, be desirable in order to avoid unfruitful debates on the right of Eurojust to deal with certain cases.

     
  • 3. 
    See Article 2 of the initiative of Germany, OJ C 206 of 19.7.2000. A more clear-cut definition of the term 'major' (or serious) offences would, however, be desirable in order to avoid unfruitful debates on the right of Eurojust to deal with certain cases.

     
  • 4. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 5. 
    Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms: The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: a European Prosecutor, 29 September 2000, COM (2000) 608 final.

     
  • 6. 
    Established by Joint Action of 29 June 1998, OJ L 191/4.

     
  • 7. 
    For instance, Eurojust could provide information on national legislation implementing Conventions, protocols, reservations and relevant case law, perhaps by establishing a database.

     
  • 8. 
    See the Italian position paper, Council document n° 6412/00 CATS 15: 'A preliminary to the exercise of the co-ordination function is the collection of signs of relationships or connections between the various national investigations.' In this paper, it is also explained that national investigating authorities will be required to communicate information and data on offences 'regularly and promptly' to Eurojust.

     
  • 9. 
    See infra 4.6.

     
  • 10. 
    Council document n° 7384/00 CATS 21 EUROJUST 1.

     
  • 11. 
    See Article 13 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of May 29, 2000, OJ C 197/1.

     
  • 12. 
    Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms: The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: a European Prosecutor, 29 September 2000, COM (2000) 608 final.

     
  • 13. 
    See also Article 21 of the initiative of Portugal, France, Sweden and Belgium, OJ C 243 of 24.8.2000.

     
  • 14. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 15. 
    To a certain degree, their status would, on one hand be comparable to the liaison officers according to Article 5 of the Europol Convention (OJ C 316/5 of 27.11.1995), on the other hand, they would also fulfil tasks comparable to those of the members of the Europol management board (Article 28 of the Europol Convention).

     
  • 16. 
    See infra 4.3.

     
  • 17. 
    Nevertheless, delegates could make use of Eurojust's administrative structure for such tasks. It will have to be examined whether delegates should be equipped with personal assistants, and what status those assistants should have (Eurojust staff, national detached officials and/or national experts).

     
  • 18. 
    For example, in cases of drug trafficking, routes of transport or communication channels can quickly be changed from one State to another.

     
  • 19. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 20. 
    At its meeting on 28 September 2000, the JHA Council agreed to fully associate the Commission with the work of the Provisional Judicial Co-operation Unit (see Article 1(5) of Council document n° 11344/2/00 EUROJUST 12).

     
  • 21. 
    See Commission decision of 28.4.1999, OJ L 136/20 of 31.5.1999.

     
  • 22. 
    The financial provisions could be parallel to those of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, see Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93, OJ L 36 of 12/02/1993.

     
  • 23. 
    The data protection aspects arising from the proposed activities of Eurojust (such as data processing, data exchange, co-operation with Europol and access to its database) will have to be properly addressed.

     
  • 24. 
    See the document presented by the Belgian delegation on this issue (Council document n° 11209/00 EUROJUST 11).

     
  • 25. 
    However, as has been explained above, Eurojust's scope of activity should not be limited to the types of crime, which are currently conferred to Europol.

     
  • 26. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 27. 
    See Article 2 of the initiative of Germany, OJ C 206 of 19.7.2000. A more clear-cut definition of the term 'major' (or serious) offences would, however, be desirable in order to avoid unfruitful debates on the right of Eurojust to deal with certain cases.

     
  • 28. 
    See Article 2 of the initiative of Germany, OJ C 206 of 19.7.2000. A more clear-cut definition of the term 'major' (or serious) offences would, however, be desirable in order to avoid unfruitful debates on the right of Eurojust to deal with certain cases.

     
  • 29. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 30. 
    Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms: The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: a European Prosecutor, 29 September 2000, COM (2000) 608 final.

     
  • 31. 
    Established by Joint Action of 29 June 1998, OJ L 191/4.

     
  • 32. 
    For instance, Eurojust could provide information on national legislation implementing Conventions, protocols, reservations and relevant case law, perhaps by establishing a database.

     
  • 33. 
    See the Italian position paper, Council document n° 6412/00 CATS 15: 'A preliminary to the exercise of the co-ordination function is the collection of signs of relationships or connections between the various national investigations.' In this paper, it is also explained that national investigating authorities will be required to communicate information and data on offences 'regularly and promptly' to Eurojust.

     
  • 34. 
    See infra 4.6.

     
  • 35. 
    Council document n° 7384/00 CATS 21 EUROJUST 1.

     
  • 36. 
    See Article 13 of the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of May 29, 2000, OJ C 197/1.

     
  • 37. 
    Additional Commission contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference on institutional reforms: The criminal protection of the Community's financial interests: a European Prosecutor, 29 September 2000, COM (2000) 608 final.

     
  • 38. 
    See also Article 21 of the initiative of Portugal, France, Sweden and Belgium, OJ C 243 of 24.8.2000.

     
  • 39. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 40. 
    To a certain degree, their status would, on one hand be comparable to the liaison officers according to Article 5 of the Europol Convention (OJ C 316/5 of 27.11.1995), on the other hand, they would also fulfil tasks comparable to those of the members of the Europol management board (Article 28 of the Europol Convention).

     
  • 41. 
    See infra 4.3.

     
  • 42. 
    Nevertheless, delegates could make use of Eurojust's administrative structure for such tasks. It will have to be examined whether delegates should be equipped with personal assistants, and what status those assistants should have (Eurojust staff, national detached officials and/or national experts).

     
  • 43. 
    For example, in cases of drug trafficking, routes of transport or communication channels can quickly be changed from one State to another.

     
  • 44. 
    OJ C 221/11 of 19.7.1997. See also the relevant explanatory report, OJ C 91 of 31.3.1999.

     
  • 45. 
    At its meeting on 28 September 2000, the JHA Council agreed to fully associate the Commission with the work of the Provisional Judicial Co-operation Unit (see Article 1(5) of Council document n° 11344/2/00 EUROJUST 12).

     
  • 46. 
    See Commission decision of 28.4.1999, OJ L 136/20 of 31.5.1999.

     
  • 47. 
    The financial provisions could be parallel to those of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, see Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 302/93, OJ L 36 of 12/02/1993.

     
  • 48. 
    The data protection aspects arising from the proposed activities of Eurojust (such as data processing, data exchange, co-operation with Europol and access to its database) will have to be properly addressed.

     
  • 49. 
    See the document presented by the Belgian delegation on this issue (Council document n° 11209/00 EUROJUST 11).

     
  • 50. 
    However, as has been explained above, Eurojust's scope of activity should not be limited to the types of crime, which are currently conferred to Europol.

     
  • 51. 
    De Europese Commissie kent nummers toe aan officiële documenten van de Europese Unie. De Commissie maakt onderscheid in een aantal typen documenten door middel van het toekennen van verschillende nummerseries. Het onderscheid is gebaseerd op het soort document en/of de instelling van de Unie van wie het document afkomstig is.
     
  • 52. 
    De Raad van de Europese Unie kent aan wetgevingsdossiers een uniek toe. Dit nummer bestaat uit een vijfcijferig volgnummer gevolgd door een schuine streep met de laatste twee cijfers van het jaartal, bijvoorbeeld 12345/00 - een document met nummer 12345 uit het jaar 2000.
     
  • 53. 
    Het interinstitutionele nummer is een nummerreeks die binnen de Europese Unie toegekend wordt aan voorstellen voor regelgeving van de Europese Commissie.
    Binnen de Europese Unie worden nog een aantal andere nummerseries gebruikt. Iedere instelling heeft één of meerdere sets documenten met ieder een eigen nummering. Die reeksen komen niet overeen met elkaar of het interinstitutioneel nummer.
     
  • 54. 
    Deze databank van de Europese Unie biedt de mogelijkheid de actuele werkzaamheden (workflow) van de Europese instellingen (Europees Parlement, Raad, ESC, Comité van de Regio's, Europese Centrale Bank, Hof van Justitie enz.) te volgen. EURlex volgt alle voorstellen (zoals wetgevende en begrotingsdossiers) en mededelingen van de Commissie, vanaf het moment dat ze aan de Raad of het Europees Parlement worden voorgelegd.
     
  • 55. 
    Als dag van bekendmaking van een Europees besluit geldt de dag waarop het besluit in het Publicatieblad wordt bekendgemaakt, en daardoor in alle officiële talen van de Europese Unie bij het Publicatiebureau beschikbaar is.