Select Committee on European Scrutiny Twentieth Report

REQUESTS BY EUROPOL THAT MEMBER STATES INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS

(a) (21207) 7369/00 (b) (21246) 7369/1/00

Draft Council Recommendation to Member States in respect of requests made by Europol to initiate investigations. Revised draft Council Recommendation to Member States in respect of requests made by Europol to initiate investigations.

Legal base:	Article 30 (2)(b); information; unanimity
Deposited in Parliament:	(b) 25 May 2000
Department:	Home Office
Basis of consideration:	EM of 2 June 2000
Previous Committee Report:	(a) HC 23-xviii (1999-2000), paragraph 9 (17 May 2000) (b) None
To be discussed in Council:	June 2000
Committee's assessment:	Politically important
Committee's decision:	Cleared

    Background

14.1  When we last considered this proposal (in May) we did not feel we had sufficient information to clear it. We had also seen a report in European Voice[13] alleging that the Presidency believed it had found a way to allow Europol to set up joint teams without waiting for the Mutual Legal Assistance Convention to be implemented. We asked the Minister of State at the Home Office (Mrs Barbara Roche) whether the report referred to the draft Recommendation.

14.2  The Minister has now deposited a revised version of the document (document (b)), together with an Explanatory Memorandum. She has also deposited a related document and Explanatory Memorandum ((21240) — see paragraph 16 of this Report) which are concerned with Europol's participation in joint teams. It seems likely that the European Voice report refers to that document rather than to the draft Recommendation.

    The amended draft Recommendation and the Government's views

14.3  In her Explanatory Memorandum on document (b), the Minister seeks to amplify her earlier comments in order to respond to the questions we raised. We had asked whether or not the proposal covered joint investigation teams, what the exact rôle of Europol was, and why the measure was considered to reflect good practice. She explains:

"The [Europol] Working Group saw no need for an obligation [to respond to requests from Europol] to be imposed because it was thought that the competent authorities would aim to respond speedily and appropriately as a matter of good practice. But the Working Group recommended that a policy be developed on responding to requests so that practices would be clear and consistent. This policy is reflected in the draft Recommendation in [document (b)]....


"The draft Recommendation is about investigations, which might, but would not necessarily or possibly even usually, involve the setting up of joint investigation teams.


"A separate Explanatory Memorandum on document [21240] explains how the Portuguese Presidency has proposed taking forward Tampere Conclusion no. 43, on joint investigation teams and Europol's participation in them".

14.4  The Minister also responds to our question about the kind of minor drafting amendments the Government wishes to see made by listing those contributed by the UK to the new text, as well as noting those made by other Member States.

14.5  The Minister summarises the Government's view as follows:

"The Government is negotiating the draft Recommendation in [document (b)] on the basis that it is acceptable. The Recommendation does not impose any obligations on the Member States, but competent authorities in the United Kingdom would in general already adhere to the principles in the Recommendation in dealing with requests from Europol through the Europol National Unit. The Government considers that, whilst it will not always be appropriate for Member States to inform Europol of the reasons for not conducting an investigation, it is good practice to do so wherever possible. The reasons for this are:

"a)  Europol may have presented the information in such a way that the Member State was unable to respond positively. If Europol were given the reasons for the response, there would possibly be an opportunity for Europol to re-submit an amended request which might be treated more favourably; and


"b)  Europol requires feedback from Member States if its support functions are to be fully effective and efficient."

14.6  Finally, she tells us that, if the Article 36 Committee agrees the draft Recommendation, the Presidency may seek to have it adopted at a Council in June.

    Conclusion

14.7  The Minister has now by and large answered our questions. The deposit of a further document, (21240), has clarified some of the confusion: we now accept that the draft Recommendation is solely concerned with implementing Tampere Recommendation 45 (authorising Europol to request Member States to initiate investigations). We recognise that the reference to "good practice" was intended to relate to Member States' responding to Europol's requests, or giving their reasons for not doing so. Although the Minister has not specifically provided more detail about the "competent authorities" or the "relevant national legislation", we understand that the former refers to the Europol National Unit and the latter to such measures as data protection legislation.

14.8  We are now content to clear both documents.

---

13  European Voice, Volume 6 no.18, 4 -10 May 2000, page 5.  Back

---

Prepared 23 June 2000