11 Cross-border vehicle crime
| (25301)
5450/04
—
| Draft Council Decision on tackling vehicle crime with cross-border implications
|
| Legal base | Article 30(1)(a) and 34(2)(c) EU; consultation; unanimity
|
| Document originated | 27 January 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 29 January 2004
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 10 February 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
11.1 About 1.2 million motor vehicles are stolen every year in
the EU. An estimated 30% to 40% are stolen by organised crime
groups and then exported elsewhere in or outside the EU. There
are links between vehicle crime and other crimes, such as trafficking
in drugs, firearms and human beings.
The document
11.2 This draft Decision has been initiated by the Netherlands.
Its purpose is to strengthen the prevention and detection of cross-border
vehicle crime through closer cooperation and the sharing of information
between Member States' police, customs and vehicle registration
authorities.
11.3 Article I defines "vehicle" for the
purposes of the Decision as any motor vehicle with a cylinder
capacity of more than 50 cc and trailers and caravans with an
unladen weight of more than 750 kg.
11.4 Article 2 states that the objective of the Decision
is "to arrive at a common approach and cooperation within
the European Union with the aim of preventing and combating cross-border
vehicle crime". Particular attention must be given to the
relationship between vehicle theft and the illegal car trade and
other forms of crime, such as trafficking in drugs, firearms and
human beings.
11.5 Article 3 requires Member States to do what
is necessary to enhance mutual cooperation between police, customs
and vehicle registration authorities in order to combat cross-border
vehicle crime. The second paragraph of the Article provides that
"Specific attention shall be given to controlling exports
of goods, taking into account respective competences". No
definitions are given of "goods" and "respective
competences".
11.6 Article 4(1) requires Member States to do what
is necessary to organise consultations between law enforcement
agencies and vehicle registration authorities "and the private
sector (such as holders of private registers of missing vehicles,
insurers and the car trade) [so as to coordinate information and
alignment of their] activities in this area, preferably via a
permanent consultation platform".
11.7 Article 4(2) requires Member States to take
the necessary steps "with regard to the procedures to be
followed for repatriating vehicles released by law enforcement
agencies following their seizure". No definition is given
of "the procedures to be followed" and there is no definition
of the seized vehicles to which the requirement for the repatriation
applies. It is not apparent, therefore, whether the repatriation
requirement would apply, for example, to a car seized because
it had been involved in a road accident.
11.8 Article 5 requires Member States to designate
a contact point for tackling vehicle crime and to authorise the
contact points to exchange general and technical information,
experience and expertise about vehicle crime "on the basis
of existing legislation". No definition is given of "existing
legislation".
11.9 Article 6(1) requires Member States' law enforcement
agencies to enter a stolen vehicle alert on the Schengen Information
System (SIS) and Interpol's database of stolen motor vehicles
whenever a vehicle is reported as stolen. Under Article 6(3),
they must also enter an alert on SIS when blank registration certificates
are stolen.
11.10 Article 7(1) requires law enforcement agencies
and vehicle registration authorities to prevent the abuse and
theft of vehicle registration documents.
11.11 Article 7(2) requires vehicle registration
authorities, in cooperation with the police, to consult the vehicle
register of the country of original registration as well as the
databases on stolen vehicle mentioned in Article 6.
11.12 Article 7(3) provides:
"In order to prevent stolen vehicles being (re-)registered,
arrangements shall be made at national level for consultation
or linkage of the registration systems referred to in Article
6(1) and also for checking the identity of the vehicles".
This provision appears to duplicate the requirements
of Articles 6(1) and 7(2).
11.13 Article 8(1) requires vehicle registration
authorities to recover a vehicle owner's registration certificate
"if the vehicle has been seriously damaged in an accident
(total loss)". It is not clear from these words whether the
certificate recovery requirement only applies if the vehicle is
a total loss or if it also applies if the vehicle has been seriously
damaged but is not a total loss.
11.14 Article 8(2) requires the recovery of the vehicle
registration certificate if, during a check by a law enforcement
agency, "it is suspected that there has been an infringement
concerning the vehicle's identity markings". The draft does
not specify the authority on whose suspicion recovery should
be initiated and does not define "identity markings".
11.15 Article 9 requires law enforcement agencies
to keep Europol informed on "vehicle crime perpetrators (perpetrator
groups)". It is not clear from these words if the requirement
applies only to "perpetrator groups" (undefined) or
both to them and others involved in vehicle crime.
11.16 Article 10 requires Member States to ensure
that national police and customs training institutes provide specialist
training in the prevention and detection of crime.
11.17 Article 11 requires the vehicle crime contact
points to meet at least once a year and to report to the Council
"on the progress of practical police cooperation".
11.18 Article 12(1) makes provision for agreements
between third countries and the EU to include provisions on vehicle
crime and for the checking of vehicles by third countries before
registering them.
The Government's view
11.19 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State
at the Home Office (Caroline Flint) tells us that cross-border
vehicle crime is a serious problem. The Government, therefore,
welcomes this proposal for closer cooperation and improved exchanges
of information between EU law enforcement agencies and vehicle
registration authorities.
11.20 The Government agrees that the vehicle registration
certificate should be recovered if the vehicle has been involved
in a serious accident (Article 8(1)), but believes that the recovery
should be the responsibility of the vehicle registration authority,
not the law enforcement agencies.
11.21 Article 8(2) requires the vehicle registration
certificate to be recovered if it is suspected that there has
been an infringement concerning the vehicle's identity markings.
The Government considers that the offences relating to the identity
markings should be clearly defined. It believes that seizure of
the certificate would not be justified in the vast majority of
identity marking offences which relate to registration number
plates which do not conform to statutory regulations.
11.22 The Minister is content with Article 10 (Member
States to ensure that their police and customs training institutes
provide specialist training in the prevention and detection of
vehicle crime) but comments that its implementation needs to take
account of what is already being provided and that the judgement
on what is required is best made by the agencies concerned.
11.23 The Government will consider whether Article
12 (agreements with third countries on the checking and registration
of vehicles) would be consistent with another current proposal
for a Regulation to give vehicle registration authorities access
to the Schengen Information System.[27]
11.24 The Minister says that the Government foresees
no difficulty in meeting the requirements of the proposed decision
within existing national legislation. The Government is consulting,
among others, the Association of British Insurers and the Association
of Chief Police Officers about the proposal.
Conclusion
11.25 We recognise the importance of combating
cross-border crime and the contribution to improved prevention
and detection that can be achieved by cooperation between Member
States. But we have four main concerns about the present text
of the proposed Decision.
11.26 First, Article 4(1) proposes that Member
States should be under a duty to organise consultations between
law enforcement agencies, vehicle registration authorities
and the private sector, including insurers and the car trade.
Articles 30(1)(a) and 34(2)(c) of the EU Treaty are cited as the
legal base for the measure. Article 30(1) is confined to common
action in the field of police cooperation; and Article 34 is confined
to consultation, coordination and the exchange of information
between Member States and collaboration between the departments
of their administrations. Neither Article extends to the private
sector. It appears to us, therefore, that there is no legal base
for the requirement in Article 4(1) of the Decision for mandatory
consultation with the private sector.
11.27 Second, Article 10 would require Member
States to ensure that specialist training in the prevention and
detection of vehicle crime is provided by their national police
and customs training bodies. It seems to us that it is for Member
States to decide the curriculum and that the proposed duty breaches
the principle of subsidiarity.
11.28 Third, Article 5(2) requires Member States
to authorise their contact points to exchange "general and
technical" information. It is not clear if the exchange of
personal information would be precluded. In our view, the text
should leave no scope for doubt one way or the other and, if personal
data is to be exchanged, provision for its proper protection is
needed.
11.29 Fourth, since the proposed Decision seeks
to impose obligations directly on Member States' authorities,
it is essential that its terms should be precise. Yet, as our
summary of the document illustrates, important terms are undefined
and it is difficult to understand the meaning or effect of some
of the provisions. We ask the Minister, therefore, to subject
the text to rigorous examination in the light of our concerns
and to seek amendments to clarify the document and remove any
doubts about the lawfulness of its provisions.
11.30 We should be grateful for the Minister's
comments on our concerns and if she would keep us informed of
the progress of the negotiations on the draft Decision. Meanwhile,
we shall keep the document under scrutiny.
27 See (24819) COM (03) 510: HC 63-xxxiii (2002-03),
para 21 (15 October 2003). Back
| 
