Justice and Home Affairs policy
01 May 2004
The European Commission is currently consulting the public on "Tampere II". "Tampere I", a special EU summit in October 1999, adopted a detailed set of "conclusions", also known as the "Tampere milestones" The Tampere conclusions formed an Action Plan for the development of EU justice and home affairs policy under the Amsterdam treaty. A five-year deadline for agreement on a common EU immigration and asylum policy expired on 1 May 2004. EU police and judicial cooperation, the other aspects of the so-called "Area of Freedom, Security and Justice", have also developed rapidly under the Tampere process - hence the need for a "Tampere II".
The European Commission has produced a Communication entitled "Assessment of the Tampere programme and future orientations" and staff working papers on the "most important instruments adopted" and an the AFSJ future orientations. Interested parties and individuals are invited to submit their contributions on a new programme to the JHA Directorate in the European Commission by 31 August 2004 (e-mail: tampere-consultation@cec.eu.int).
While the Commission is busy consulting civil society, the JHA Directorate in the Council (under the guise of "the presidency") is consulting the member states on the "political orientation" of the new programme. The Council document sets out a framework for "resolutely pursuing the objective of further developing a common area of freedom, security and justice", leaving the Commission's consultation process looking like a rather redundant exercise.
Statewatch briefing on the Tampere process: "The story of Tampere – an undemocratic process excluding civil society"
Access to data by law enforcement agencies
The European Commission has produced a Communication on access to information by law enforcement agencies. The aim is:
to improve information exchange between all law enforcement authorities, i.e. not only between police authorities, but also between customs authorities, financial intelligence units, the interaction with the judiciary and public prosecution services, and all other public bodies that participate in the process that ranges from the early detection of security threats and criminal offences to the conviction and punishment of perpetrators.
The Commission says that the aim of EU policy should be to "make accessible the necessary and relevant data and information, for law enforcement authorities in order to prevent and combat terrorism and other forms of serious or organised crime as well as the threats caused by them".
Sweden has proposed an EU Framework Decision on the Exchange of police data between law enforcement services. This too cites "terrorism" as a justification but is clearly aimed at the exchange of police data across the board. It sets out rules:
under which Member States’ law enforcement authorities effectively and expeditiously can exchange existing information and intelligence for the purpose of conducting crime investigations or crime intelligence operations and in particular as regards serious offences, including terrorist acts.
This Framework Decision would add to three existing EU frameworks for the exchange of police data: the Schengen Convention (and the Sirene system for the exchange of data), the exchange of data through Europol (the reason the agency was created) and the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention (which provides for case-by-case and spontaneous exchange of data). In this context it can be questioned whether more legislation is justified or proportionate. See
Statewatch analysis: "free market" for law enforcement database access proposed
Legal and illegal immigration
The European Commission has produced a "study" on the "link between legal and illegal migration" . It concludes that "There is a l