28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Vol 4 no 5, May 2004
* Irish Presidency & the institutions
* Negotiations on draft EU Constitution
* PNR & the surveillance of air travel
* Immigration & asylum: Amsterdam five year "transition period" ends
* Eurodac fingerprints database: first annual report
* Counter-terrorism, security & civil liberties
* Policing & criminal law
* Europol work programme 2005
* Civil law
* Resources on JHA issues
* PASSWORD REQUIRED
The Statewatch European Monitor is a monthly, web-based publication covering developments in EU justice and home affairs policy. This page contains links to material on the SEMDOC website which is PASSWORD CONTROLLED. Document references have been removed from this version of the monitor. Subscribers to the Statewatch European Monitor get unlimited access to SEMDOC website which contains full-text documents, extensive background material and systematically covers every single measure. For more information about SEMDOC and to take out a subscription to the Monitor, click here
IRISH PRESIDENCY & THE INSTITUTIONS
1. There was an EU Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29 April 2004, see Council press release, agendas and background and texts adopted (listed on SEMDOC's latest documents). The next JHA Council will be held on 6 June 2004, the fourth under the Irish presidency.
2. The SEMDOC legislative observatory has been updated with all JHA policy developments during April 2004.
3. On 1 May 2004 ten more countries joined the European Union: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. The European Commission has an enlargement website (link).
4. The Annual Report for 2003 of the EU Network of Independent Experts on Fundamental Rights has been published, see full report for 2003, synthesis report, thematic report (pdf files) and full national reports from each of the 25 EU countries.
5. Election of members of the European Parliament will take place on June 10-13, see EP elections website (link).
6. A European Council summit will be held on 17-18 June. Justice and home affairs and terrorism are high on the agenda, see draft summit agenda.
NEGOTIATIONS ON DRAFT EU CONSTITUTION
7. The IGC negotiations on the draft EU Constitution have been focussing most prominently on the key political issues of Council voting weights, the number of MEPs per Member State and the composition of the European Commission. Another key issue is the scope of qualified majority voting, as there are still disputes over whether to apply it to aspects of criminal justice, taxation, budget decisions, social security for migrant workers and foreign policy. The legal effect of the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights is still an issue, along with the issue of enlarging the EU's powers over international trade and investment, the balance between the European Parliament and the Council in the EU's annual budget procedure, the possibly enlarged role of the Court of Justice in policing the EU's Stability Pact, and the details of planned changes to the system of rotating the Council Presidency between Member States.
A further batch of issues have been discussed in the IGC, but have been less controversial and apparently have been largely agreed. These include the details of EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, the scope of the EU's powers over economic coordination, civil law, research and public health, voting on certain economic and monetary issues, EU powers over energy and tourism, the powers of Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor, simplified amendment procedures for the Constitution, the "flexibility" rules applied to foreign policy, defence cooperation and the details of new EU powers to freeze assets of persons or groups within the EU who are deemed to be terrorists.
For latest IGC documents and background see Statewatch Observatory on the draft EU Constitution.
SURVEILLANCE OF MOVEMENT: EXCHANGE OF PASSENGER DATA (PNR)
8. Statewatch has reported all developments leading to the adoption of the EU-US Treaty on the exchange of passenger data ("PNR"). The controversial treaty was opposed by EU Data Protection Commissioners and the European Parliament (EP), but EU governments ignored their views (and those of civil society) and adopted the Treaty anyway.
The EP first passed a Resolution opposing the agreement on 31 March 2004. Three weeks later the EP voted to go to the European Court of Justice for an opinion on the legality of the Treaty (21 April). Fearing a likely ECJ ruling against the Treaty, the Council (member states) simply demanded that the EP vote again, invoking an "urgency procedure" in an attempt to overturn a majority of just 16 in favour of legal action. In a vote that included an additional 175 representatives from the ten parliaments of the new EU member states, MEPs rejected the EU-US PNR deal by an even bigger majority on 4 May.
On 17 May 2004, the General Affairs Council adopted the EU-US "light" international agreement which obliges European airlines to give access to passenger name record data to US agencies (this followed the Commission's finding of "adequacy" of the US "Undertakings" on data protection a week earlier). This decision effectively annuls the case that the European Parliament had sent to the Court of Justice for an opinion on the legality of the measure. However, the new parliament can still exercise its rights under Article 230 of the EC Treaty to seek the annulment of the international agreement or of the "adequacy" finding or both.
See: "EU agrees PNR deal" (Statewatch news online) and Statewatch observatory on EU-US PNR agreement.
9. The EU-US agreement closely followed the adoption of the EU's own PNR scheme, nodded through by EU Justice and Home affairs ministers on 29 April 2004. Had it not been agreed by the 1 May 2004, the Directive - which was also opposed by the European Parliament - would have been subject to the "co-decision" procedure (under the Amsterdam Treaty the EP has a vote on some immigration and asylum measures after 1 May, see below).
National parliaments were also ignored - a UK parliamentary scrutiny reserve was simply "overridden" by the UK government; the UK parliament was not even sent the final version of the draft Directive. See Statewatch observatory on EU PNR scheme.
IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM POLICY: AMSTERDAM FIVE YEAR "TRANSITION PERIOD" ENDS
10. The 1 May 2004 was the end of the five year "transitional period" for the implementation of the Amsterdam Treaty provisions and "Tampere milestones" on a common EU immigration and asylum policy. "Normal" EU decision-making procedures for binding EC Regulations and Directives were suspended during this time because of the "political sensitivity" of immigration and asylum issues and the role of European Parliament in co-deciding policies was limited to "consultation" on proposals. There is a feature article examining the key decisions, how they were taken and what they will mean for asylum-seekers in the latest issue of the Statewatch bulletin (vol 14 no 2).
11. The most controversial measure is the draft asylum procedures Directive. Despite almost four years of negotiations, Member states were only able to agree on the "general approach" at the 29 April JHA Council. In March a coalition of NGOs called for the withdrawal of the Directive because of its incompatibly with the Geneva Convention and international human rights law. Although it has missed the deadline for agreement set by the Amsterdam Treaty, the Council has decided that because it has agreed the general approach, it need only reconsult the new parliament after the European elections in June. The growing coalition of civil society groups opposed to the Directive will resume its campaign for it to be scrapped after the elections.
12. The EC Directive on definition of a refugee and content of status was formally adopted by the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 29 April, having been agreed a month earlier. A feature article analysing this Directive appears in the latest issue of the Statewatch bulletin (vol 14 no 2).
13. The other key asylum measures agreed under the Amsterdam Treaty are on the European Refugee Fund, the "Eurodac" fingerprints database, "temporary protection", "reception conditions" and, asylum responsibility ("Dublin II"). Proposals on "safe third countries" and "internal readmission" lapsed on 1 May 2004 when the transition period in Article 67 of the EC Treaty expired.
14. The 29 April JHA Council also agreed on two amendments to the Schengen common manual, concerning a standard form for refusals (6388/04, 23.3.04) and the treatment of minors (6994/04, 23.3.04).
15. These measures may ultimately, however, be annulled by the European Court of Justice. In 2001, the Council adopted two Regulations, giving itself sole responsibility for amendment of the Common Consular Instructions (CCI) on visa issue (2001/789/EC) and Common manual on border controls (2001/790/EC) drawn-up in the Schengen framework. This excluded both the Commission and Parliament from further decisions. The EP voted to reject the draft Regulations, while the Commission lodged an application with the Court of Justice to have them annulled. The Advocate General's opinion released last month (Case C-257/01) suggests the ECJ will rule that the Regulations are invalid, along with various amendments to the border and visa rules subsequently adopted by the Council under the terms of these regulations. More than a dozen sets of amendments have been agreed (see SEMDOC Legislative observatory: Title IV EC, adopted measures).
16. A host of measures concerning illegal immigration have also been agreed under the Amsterdam Treaty, including detailed rules on EU expulsion policy and procedure. The most controversial measure is a Decision authorising joint expulsion flights, which are prohibited under a protocol to the ECHR, also adopted just before the 1 May deadline (6379/04). For what it was worth, the European parliament voted to reject the proposal, its report describing "collective returns" as "a deplorable practice".
17. The other key expulsion measures adopted under Amsterdam are the EU-wide enforcement of expulsion decisions, "Carrier sanctions", expulsion by air and financing expulsions.
18. In the field of legal migration there was agreement under Amsterdam on entitlement to social security benefits for legally resident third country nationals, family reunion rules and the status of long-term residents. Proposals on "Economic migrants" and the migration of students and volunteers, and researchers are still on the table.
19. A Directive on granting temporary residence permits to "victims" of trafficking if they cooperate with the police (by informing) was adopted by the 29 April JHA Council.
20. The EP has decided to leave its opinion on the proposals on the introduction biometric data in EU documents (visas, residence permits and passports) for the next parliament, its rapporteur concluding that the "European Parliament is not in a position to endorse the proposals… as long as the commission does not put its cards on the table and fully inform us of its strategy. We need proper democratic scrutiny of this far-reaching legislation". The Council, meanwhile, is continuing negotiations on biometrics and has produced a revised draft of the Regulation on biometrics in EU passports (7372/1/04).
21. The EP also voted to reject the proposal on the creation of the EU Visa Information System, which will contain the personal details from all visa applications submitted to EU member states. The Council intends to ignore the EP's opinion and adopt the proposed Decision anyway (see revised draft Decision in 8430/04). Because of the changes bought about by the end of the five-year "transition period" under Amsterdam it will now be subject to qualified majority voting in the Council. This is assuming that Article 66 of the EC Treaty is the correct "legal base" for this proposal, which is questionable to say the least. If the legal base is correct, QMV without co-decision means there is no prospect of democratic control at either the European Parliament level or by national parliaments of national governments, as the latter could be outvoted.
22. The EC treaty with China on approved destination status entered into force on 1 May 2004.
23. The JHA Council on 29 April 2004 adopted a final Decision on EU participation in the UN Convention on trafficking in persons.
24. And the Agriculture Council of 21 April adopted a Decision to conclude the EC-Macao readmission treaty.
25. The European Commission has published its first annual report on asylum and migration statistics, for the year 2001. The report covers all 25 EU member states plus Norway, Iceland (Schengen members), Bulgaria and Romania (candidate countries) and includes data on EU immigration and asylum policy, trends in asylum across the EU 1986-2001,migration flows 1999-2002, the legally resident (recorded) population is presented, population by citizenship, residence permits, decisions on applications for asylum, the Dublin Convention, number of refused aliens 1997-2001, total number of apprehended aliens illegally present 1997-2001, number of removed aliens and country by country background information on national policy and legislation.
26. The draft Regulation on the EU Border Agency and development of EU border police now appears ready for adoption (9018/04).
27. The EU's Asylum Working Party has been discussing the Commission proposal on the extension of the European Refugee Fund (Outcome of Proceedings, 8730/04).
28. The EU has created a new website on the transitional rules governing the free movement of workers from the new EU member states: "European Job Mobility Portal" (link).
EURODAC FINGERPRINTS DATABASE - FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
29. The European Commission has published the first annual report on the operation of Eurodac and the activities of the Eurodac Central Unit (see also Annex). It presents some analysis of the data collected since Eurodac came into operation on 15th January 2003.
Eurodac is an EU-wide electronic system for comparing the fingerprints of asylum seekers and of people apprehended illegally crossing a border or found to be illegally present in a member state. It was set up to support the operation of the Dublin and Dublin II Conventions. All EU member states except Denmark are subject to the Dublin II Regulation, whilst Denmark is still subject to the original Dublin Regulation. The UK and Ireland have opted in to the system and Norway and Iceland are additional non-EU participants.
Since 15th January 2003, the fingerprints have been taken of all people aged over 14 years who apply for asylum or are apprehended for illegally crossing borders or are found to be illegally present in the Member States. The data are recorded and sent electronically to the Eurodac Central Unit where an automatic comparison is made with data already held by the Unit. Information is sent back to the member state on the "hits" which indicate that a person's fingerprints have already been registered (once or more times).
The report focuses on the efficiency of the system as a management tool in the determination under Dublin II of the state responsible for the examination of an asylum application in a member state. The tables presented in annex allow some analysis of this efficiency.
What we do not learn from this report is detailed information on the actual implementation of the Dublin II Regulation. How many of the Eurodac "hits" result in the removal of asylum seekers to other member states?
COUNTER-TERRORISM, SECURITY & CIVIL LIBERTIES
30. Statewatch is monitoring the implementation of the EU's counter-terrorism plans, set out in a far-reaching Declaration on combating terrorism (pdf). See Statewatch's analysis which found that 27 out of 57 proposals they include have little or nothing to do with tackling terrorism – they deal with crime in general and surveillance: Statewatch Scoreboard (pdf). See also Statewatch timetable on implementation of EU Declaration on combatting terrorism (pdf file).
31. Two new "counter-terrorism" measures have been proposed: a Decision on the exchange of information on terrorism (proposal released 29 March 2004, COM (2004) 221) and a Framework Decision on data retention (see below).
32. On 22 April 2004, the Irish presidency signed on behalf of the EU an agreement with the US on "container security". According to a Presidency press release, the objective of the Treaty (pdf file) "is to ensure that this mode of transportation is not used to conceal terrorist weapons" (pdf file). For background see Statewatch news online: Member States by-pass Commission (February 2003) and EU-US negotiations start (March 2003).
33. In May, Amnesty International published "EU arms exports threatening global security": AI Report (pdf) and press release (link). It describes how "EU arms, security equipment and services are contributing to grave human rights abuses and the scale of potential abuse is now enormous. The major EU arms exporting countries - France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and the United Kingdom - account for one third of the world's arms deals. With ten new Member States, the EU now has over 400 small arms companies in 23 countries, almost as many as the USA".
POLICING AND CRIMINAL LAW
34. On 28 April 2004 the governments of the UK, France, Ireland and Sweden resurrected a proposal for an EU Framework Decision on data retention. If adopted it will see all communications location and traffic data stored by service providers for law enforcement access for between 1 and 3 years, or longer, should the member states choose. The proposal was endorsed by the EU summit on 25 March 2004 as part of a raft of proposals to combat terrorism in the wake of the Madrid bombings (see above). This proposal (like many others) is in no way limited to terrorism, and will apply to the "prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of crime or criminal offences including terrorism".
The proposal brings home to roost long standing demands by the law enforcement community for the compulsory retention, and thus surveillance, of all telecommunications. In August 2002, Statewatch leaked a confidential draft of this Framework Decision drawn-up by the Belgian government. The new version is broader in scope than the 2002 version and grave gaps in civil liberties protection remain. The data to be retained is extended from "traffic data" to traffic and "location data", the scope of the Framework Decision has been extended from 32 specific offences to any crime and from specific investigations and prosecutions to the "prevention and detection" of crime. See Statewatch News Online: "Data retention comes to roost".
35. The JHA Council on 29 April 2004 adopted a Decision on the conclusion by the EC of the UN Organised Crime Convention and two Protocols.
36. That Council also adopted an EC Regulation on new functions for the Schengen Information System (7575/04, 31.3.04), amending the SIS provisions falling under Title IV. A parallel EU Decision on new functions for SIS dealing with the Title VI provisions has not yet been adopted. See Statewatch report on SIS, SIS II and VIS (January 2004, pdf file).
37. The "general approach" of the draft EU Framework Decision on the execution of confiscation orders was also agreed at the 29 April JHA Council (9098/04, 7.5.04).
38. On 31 March the European Parliament adopted amendments to its Committee report on the European Evidence Warrant.
39. The European Commission has finally produced its proposal for a Framework Decision on suspects' rights (COM (2004) 328; see also Impact Assessment Report, SEC (2004) 491). The proposal is part of the EU programme of measures to implement the principle of "mutual recognition" of pre-trial orders and decisions in criminal matters. At the Tampere summit in 1999, the EU promised a "twin-track approach" to enhancing police and judicial cooperation on the one hand, and safeguarding the rights of suspects and defendants on the other. By May 2004, the EU had adopted 14 Framework Decisions and proposed a further 12 which, with two exceptions, all concern police and judicial cooperation, see SEMDOC legislative observatory: Title VI.
Not only is the Commission's proposal some three years late, the apparent refusal of a number of member states to accept a set of rules offering meaningful protections mean that the "minimum standards" proposed by the Commission may do little to protect suspects and defendants in practice. Statewatch will be preparing a submission to the UK parliament on the proposed Framework Decision.
40. The Commission has also produced a Green Paper on the mutual recognition and enforcement of criminal sanctions (COM (2004) 344, pdf file).
41. Discussions on a the Greek proposal for a Framework Decision on the "ne bis in idem", or "double jeopardy" principle, which should guarantee that suspects can not be tried twice for the same offence (i.e. prosecuted in one member state after being acquitted in another) are to be suspended until a ruling by the European Court of Justice on the Miraglia case (C-469/03-1). This concerns the definition of "final decision". It relates to a mutual assistance request made by Italy to the Netherlands regarding the sale, supply and transport of heroin in Italy and the Netherlands. The Netherlands had previously closed the case in view of the Italian proceedings, and refused the request as, under its law, the closure of the case rendered it a "final decision". Here, the question is whether Article 54 of the Schengen Convention on "double jeopardy" applies when the decision of the court in the first Member State appears to discontinue prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the case and on the sole premise that proceedings are taking place in another State. Another case on Article 54 (Hiebeler, C-491/03) was withdrawn on 30 March 2004, see SEMDOC legislative observatory: Schengen case law.
42. The Schengen Evaluation Working Party is examining a draft Council Decision on UK partial application of the Schengen Convention (7331/2/04, pdf file). In 2000 the UK applied to participate in the police and judicial framework created under Schengen, including the SIS.
43. In May Statewatch News Online reported that the European Arrest Warrant has now been implemented by 17 of the 25 EU member states. Links to the implementing legislation and procedures applied by each country are now provided on the Council website, see SEMDOC legislative observatory: European Arrest Warrant.
44. The European Commission has produced an implementation report (COM (2004) 230) on the 2001 Framework Decision on money laundering.
45. It has also produced an implementation report (SEC (2004) 532) on the 2001 Framework Decision on combating credit card fraud and counterfeiting non-cash means of payment.
46. And a Commission Communication discusses the financial aspects of organised crime (COM (2004) 262, pdf file).
47. In April the Netherlands reported ratification of the EU Mutual Legal Assistance Convention. The MLA Convention has also been ratified by Denmark, Portugal, Spain and Finland and is being provisionally applied in Portugal, Spain and Finland. The Netherlands has also ratified the Protocol to 2000 MLA Convention and is the first EU member state to do so.
EUROPOL - WORK PROGRAMME 2005
48. Statewatch has obtained a copy of the 2005 Europol work programme (9546/04, not available on the EU public register of Council documents). Here is a summary of the key points:
- the Europol Counter-Terrorism Task Force is to be "reactivated". The mandate for the CTTF, created after 'September 11', was inexplicably allowed to expire and all counter-terrorism work was taken over by the Serious Crime Unit.
- "Ensuring that Europol is provided by Member States law enforcement authorities with all relevant criminal intelligence related to terrorism as soon as it is available" is a priority. Some member states are clearly reluctant to share intelligence.
- "Further to the discussions of the Commission to identify whether Europol should play a role to accomplish Computer Assisted Passenger Screening (CAPS) based on Passenger Name Record (PNR) Data for all EU Member States, Europol will contribute to the feasibility study and facilitate the discourse on the way forward under advice of Management Board of Europol." This shows the extent of discussions on the use of the EU PNR scheme (see above) for law enforcement purposes and further undermines its credibility as an "immigration" measure.
The "main objectives" for 2005 are divided into different headings. Each includes the human resources (full-time Europol employees, FTEs) and planned expenditure from the operational budget (in euros). The objectives are:
1. Operational Support, 178 FTEs, 1,795,500 (including "joint teams")
2. Targeting Organised Crime Groups, 12 FTEs, 132,900
"The major projects targeting organised crime groups will focus on: East European Organised Crime; Western Balkans Organised Crime with special focus on Ethnic Albanian Criminal Groups; Outlaw motorcycle gangs"
3. Specific Priority Crime areas for 2005:
- Drugs trafficking, 13 FTEs, 154,000
"targeting organised criminal groups engaged in and activities linked to the production and/or trafficking of heroin, cocaine, synthetic drugs and precursors"
- Counterfeiting of the Euro, 12 FTEs, 115,200
"Operational Prioritisation will be given to specific relevant geographical focal areas (Baltic and Balkan Regions and Poland); production and distribution networks (target groups in Eastern Europe and the Balkans)"
- Crimes against Persons and Facilitated Illegal Immigration, 12 FTEs, 163,000
"The two Action Plans on THB [trafficking in human beings] and Illegal Immigration concerning Bulgaria and Ukraine will be further implemented and may involve the initiation of and participation in Joint Investigation Teams. Further source and/or transit areas of interest will be the Balkans, Eastern Europe, North Africa, Russia, the Middle East and the Far East."
- Terrorism, 16 FTEs + 1 member state "expert" (unspecified), 169,000
"Europol will in 2005 focus its counter terrorism work on the Islamic Extremist Terrorist Threat by providing operational support to ongoing investigations, analysis or specific expertise concerning the various kinds of threats possible. Another important part of the work will cover other active terrorist groups and organisations in, or posing a threat to the European Union, its representatives and institutions. Both activities are combined in the so called Counter Terrorism Programme"
- Counter Terrorism Task Force (CTTF), 20 FTEs (18 new posts and 2 re-allocated posts) + 25 MS Experts (includes 7 existing seconded experts), 222,000
- Financial and Property Crime, 12 FTEs, 131,900
"Europol will combat money laundering using AWFS [Analysis Work Files] such as Sustrans in order to detect cross-border links between suspicious transactions and related persons, or links between suspicious transactions and MS on-going investigations or information stored within the Europol AWFs, and to ensure appropriate co-ordination of the fight against money laundering within the EU context. Within AWF Sustrans, target groups will be identified based on on-going money laundering investigations being carried out by MS"
- Analysis, 74 FTEs (Operational analysis: 60 FTEs - Strategic analysis, training and administration: 14 FTEs), 258,300
"A minimum of 80% of all human resources within the analytical work of Europol will be concentrated on supporting operational projects in order to satisfy the increasing demand from the Member States. Operational analysis includes support to short-term specific operations and Joint Teams. Concerning analytical support, it is presumed that with the current resources the number of Analysis Work Files would stay at the level of 2004 (ca. 20) as it is likely that the trend of an increase of quantity of data flowing into the files will continue. Enlargement will place additional demands not only in a further increased data flow but, for example, dealing with information in the new different languages"
4. Europol stakeholders and partners, 3 FTEs (2 x USA, 1 x Interpol)
"Operational and strategic key partners include: Law Enforcement Agencies of the Member States; Non-EU Law Enforcement Agencies (e.g. Bulgaria, Colombia, Norway, Romania, Russia and USA); EU bodies and organs (e.g. Eurojust, The Commission, CEPOL and OLAF , European Agency for the Management of Operational Co-operation at the External Borders, European Central Bank, EMCDDA); Interpol, UNODC and WCO from a global perspective)"
5. Information Management, 34 FTEs, 224,400
"It is essential to ensure the full implementation of a Europol Information System (whether this is the EIS or EISA) and to aim for a single point of search within Europol for all information except the contents of AWFs"
6. Technology Services, 67 FTEs, 703,600 (in addition to the dedicated Europol Computer System budget)
"The main objectives in IT support are to give all Europol user groups the agreed IT support in the fields of activities (defined as daily recurring work as a result of the growth of the IT support technical management of information flow and infrastructures) such as project and application support as well as operational support; and projects based on agreed priorities and possibilities. These will be contained within an ICT Strategy, developed in 2004 and continuing through 2005. For example Europol will contribute to the co-ordination and integration of other EU crime related data bases (e.g. SIS, CIS, EuroDac) into a common EU data base concept"
7. European Union Developments and Enlargement, 2 FTEs ("Enlargement team"), 45,000
"due to procedural requirements set by the Europol Convention, [the] new Member States will be unable to join Europol before 1st September 2004. Whilst all the new Member States are working towards membership in the final third of 2004, it is possible that integration of one or more will be delayed until 2005"
8. Corporate Governance and Business Excellence, 33.5 FTEs, 612,400
"Europol's efforts will be principally orientated towards increasing awareness of its operational activities across the European law enforcement community by pro-actively promoting Europol's mission and activities in combating international organised crime"
- The level of resources dedicated to the "support" of joint investigations teams is questionable. The protocol to the Europol Convention authorising Europol's participation in joint investigation teams has only been ratified by Germany, Spain and Austria; the distinction between support and participation is highly ambiguous.
- Europol's involvement in "the co-ordination and integration of other EU crime related data bases (e.g. SIS, CIS, Eurodac) into a common EU data base concept" is extremely controversial. Any "integration" of the separate EU databases would require wholesale changes to EU law and should be subject to prior democratic debate rather than the agreement on common "concepts" by law enforcement officials.
- On Europol's Analysis Work Files see Statewatch news online report on Europol analysis files (April 2004).
49. EU Council Decisions amending the Europol staff regulations and Europol staff salaries (two Decisions: "correction", "update") and a Council Act amending the Europol financial Regulation were adopted at the April JHA Council.
50. In April 2004 the EC Regulation on a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims in civil law matters was signed by the EP and Council.
51. The JHA Council of 29 April 2004 adopted the Directive on compensation for victims of crime.
52. The European Parliament has decided to leave its opinion on the Commission proposal for Regulation on "Rome II" (non-contractual obligations) until after the elections in June.
53. A Green paper on maintenance claims was published by the Commission on 15 April 2004 (COM(2004) 254, pdf file).
KEY RESOURCES on the SEMDOC website
a. For all new material added to SEMDOC, see: What's New
b. Observatory on the draft EU Constitution
c. Key Texts, all the primary texts for reference: Key Texts
d. Justice and Home Affairs acquis: 1993 - ongoing: JHA Acquis
e. Justice and Home Affairs Councils (Agendas, Background Notes, Press Releases and minutes) are added as soon as they become available
f. The main Legislative Observatory is listed on the SEMDOC home page: Legislative Observatory
g. Back issues of this version of the Statewatch European Monitor:
PO Box 1516, London, N16 0EW. UK
tel: +44(0)20-8802-1882; fax: +44(0)20-8880-1727
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.
Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement. Registered UK charity number: 1154784. Registered UK company number: 08480724. Registered company name: The Libertarian Research & Education Trust. Registered office: MayDay Rooms, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH. © Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals "fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.