DRAFT AGREEMENTS BETWEEN EUROPOL AND POLAND,
EUROPOL AND HUNGARY, EUROPOL AND ESTONIA , AND EUROPOL AND SLOVENIA
(a)
(22348)
—
(b)
(22594)
10168/01
EUROPOL 58
(c)
(22349)
—
(d)
(22595)
10807/01
EUROPOL 61
(e)
(22596)
10809/01
EUROPOL 62
(f)
(22597)
10810/01
EUROPOL 63
|
Draft Agreement between the Republic of Poland and the European Police Office on co-operation in combating crime.
Draft Agreement between Europol and Poland.
Draft Co-operation Agreement between the Republic of Hungary and the European Police Office.
Draft Agreement between Europol and Hungary.
Draft Agreement between Europol and Estonia.
Draft Agreement between Europol and Slovenia.
|
| Legal base:
| (a) to (f): Articles 42, 10 and 18 of the Europol Convention and the Council Decision of 27 March 2000 authorising the Director of Europol to enter into negotiations on agreements with certain third states and non-EU related bodies
|
| |
| Documents originated:
| (a) 29 March 2001
(b) —
(c) 19 March 2001
(d) to (f) —
|
| |
| Deposited in Parliament:
| (a) and (c) 30 April 2001
(b) and (d) to (f) 23 August 2001
|
| Department: |
Home Office |
| Basis of consideration:
| EMs of 8 October 2001 |
| Previous Committee Report:
| None |
| To be discussed in Council:
| October 2001 |
| Committee's assessment:
| Politically important
|
| Committee's decision:
| (All) Cleared |
Background
24.1 Agreements between Europol and third states
or non-EU bodies are intended to enhance co-operation in combating
serious forms of international crime, in particular through the
exchange of both strategic and operational information. Before
the Director of Europol can begin negotiations, a data protection
report relating to the state or body in question must be submitted.
These are considered by the Europol Management Board and the Joint
Supervisory Body (JSB) which monitors the activities of Europol
in respect of data protection issues. Following negotiations,
the Management Board and the JSB also consider each draft Agreement.
24.2 The previous Committee cleared the data protection
reports for Poland and Hungary in January[65]
and those for Estonia and Slovenia in
March.[66]
The documents
24.3 Documents (a) and (c) are early versions of
the draft Agreements with Poland and Hungary respectively, and
have been superseded by documents (b) and (d). The ADD 1 annexes
to each document contain the JSB's opinion in relation to the
draft Agreement. The COR1 annex to document (e), the draft Agreement
with Estonia, contains an amendment to that Agreement.
24.4 The draft Agreements all follow the same format
and contain provisions about areas to which the Agreement applies;
points of contact, competent authorities, and arrangements for
liaison officers; the supply of information to and from Europol;
and procedures for assessing, correcting and ensuring the security
of data.
24.5 In each of the ADD 1 annexes, the JSB states
that "no obstacles exist" which might prevent the Council
from permitting the Director of Europol to conclude the agreement.
In the draft Agreement with Estonia (document (e)), the JSB notes
that its previous opinion found that non-residents were not covered
by the Estonian Data Protection Act. In case this problem has
not been addressed, it puts forward an amendment to the draft
Agreement making an explicit reference to non-residents in the
relevant Article. COR 1 of the draft Agreement contains this amendment.
The Government's view
24.6 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
for Anti-drugs Co-ordination and Organised Crime at the Home Office
(Mr Bob Ainsworth) tells us that the Government considers each
of the draft Agreements to be important in the fight against organised
crime. He says that the Government is content with the agreements,
taking account of the JSB views and, in the case of Estonia, the
proposed amendment.
24.7 In relation to the timetable, the Minister
says:
"One other Member State
has yet to lift its Parliamentary Scrutiny Reserve. We expect
this to happen within the next two weeks. The proposals are then
likely to be taken as A points at a subsequent Council. Should
this happen the Government intends to lift its own reserve in
order not to delay things further."
Conclusion
24.8 We are pleased that the Joint Supervisory
Board's opinions have been provided with these draft Agreements
and that notice is being taken of them, as evidenced by the amendment
in the case of Estonia.
24.9 We can understand that, in the current situation,
there is a wish to conclude these Agreements swiftly. Nevertheless,
we do not appreciate being told that the Government plans to lift
the scrutiny reserve as soon it becomes the only Member State
which has not done so. Given the recent receipt of the Government's
Explanatory Memoranda, this is the first opportunity we have had
to consider the documents. If they have already been taken as
"A" points, we shall expect the Minister to write to
us with a fuller explanation of his reasons for lifting the scrutiny
reserve.
24.10 We clear all the documents.
65 (21907)14147/00 and (21908) 14148/00; see HC 28-iv
(2000-01), paragraph 10 (24 January 2001). Back
66 (22179)
- and (22180) - ; see HC 28-ix (2000-01), paragraph 14 (21 March
2001). Back
| 
