18 Eurojust Annual Report 2005
| (27487)
7318/06
—
| Eurojust annual report 2005
|
| Legal base | — |
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 24 May 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
18.1 Eurojust is a European Union body, established by Council
Decision 2002/187/JHA[57]
to support investigations and prosecutions by Member States of
serious cross-border or transnational crime. The objectives of
Eurojust are to improve coordination between competent authorities
in the Member States in relation to investigations and prosecutions,
to facilitate the execution of requests for international mutual
legal assistance and for extradition, and otherwise to provide
support so as to render more effective investigations and prosecutions
involving two or more Member States.
18.2 The type of crime with which Eurojust may be
involved is defined in Article 4 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA
and includes crimes falling within the competence of Europol together
with computer crime, fraud and corruption and any criminal offence
affecting the European Community's financial interests, laundering
of the proceeds of crime, "environmental crime", and
participation in a criminal organisation. Eurojust may also assist
in investigations and prosecutions of other crimes at the request
of a competent authority of a Member State.
18.3 The President of Eurojust is required by Article
32 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA to report on its activities
and management to the Council. The present report is the fourth.
The previous Committee has considered reports for 2002 and 2003
finding them to provide a valuable insight into the practicalities
of ensuring co-operation between the Member States in the administration
of justice. We considered the report for 2004 when we drew attention
to the "guidelines" adopted by Eurojust for deciding
which authority should prosecute in cases where there is a positive
conflict of jurisdiction. We shared the concerns expressed by
the previous Committee that Eurojust should not adopt any directing
role, since to do so would cut across the national accountability
for prosecution decisions, as well as being unjustified under
the terms of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA. The Minister explained
to us that the guidelines were not designed to be (and were not)
binding on the Member States. We welcomed the explanations given
to us by the Minister, which to a large extent reassured us that
Eurojust was not assuming a role of directing national prosecuting
and investigating authorities.
The Eurojust report for 2005
18.4 The report for 2005 is a substantial document
covering the structure and legal environment of Eurojust, its
relations with national authorities and third states and with
a major section devoted to casework. In the foreword to the report,
the President of Eurojust notes that the number of cases referred
to Eurojust rose by 54%[58]
by comparison with the total for 2004, with an increase in the
proportion of cases involving only two Member States.
18.5 In its discussion of the legal environment,
the report notes that a number of Member States have not given
effect to a number of Framework Decisions and other instruments
in the field of criminal justice. This is the case with Greece,
Italy and Luxembourg in relation to the Framework Decision of
13 June 2002 on Joint Investigation Teams, Lithuania and Cyprus
in relation to the Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating
terrorism, Greece and Luxembourg in relation to the Framework
Decision of 26 June 2001 on money laundering and the freezing
and confiscation of proceeds of crime. The report also notes that
the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta
and the Slovak Republic have not ratified the Convention of 29
May 2000 on mutual assistance in criminal matters between the
Member States and that Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,
Malta, Portugal and the Slovak Republic have not ratified the
2001 Protocol. The report also notes that, despite the deadline
of August 2005 set by the European Council for implementation
of the Framework Decision of 22 July 2003 on the execution of
orders freezing property or evidence Belgium, Czech Republic,
Germany, Estonia, Spain, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania,
Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom have
not done so. The report also notes that Germany and Cyprus do
not extradite their own nationals under a European Arrest Warrant.
18.6 The report discusses co-operation with Europol,
the European Judicial Network and OLAF and, as with previous reports,
contains a substantial section on casework. The proportion of
cases involving only two Member States was 78%, with fraud and
drug trafficking representing the highest percentage of criminal
activity referred. The report notes that there has been an increase
in people trafficking cases referred, from 19 in 2004 to 33 in
2005. A statistical survey shows that Germany and Italy have made
the most requests for Eurojust assistance, followed by France,
Portugal and the UK. Most requests, by some margin, are made in
relation to assistance from Spain (136), followed by the Netherlands
(95), Italy (84) and the UK (82).
18.7 In its narrative discussion of casework, the
report notes that Eurojust acted for the first time as a College
under the provisions of Article 7(a) of the Council Decision establishing
Eurojust.[59] In the
first case, Eurojust requested Spain to undertake an investigation
and, if appropriate, a prosecution in relation to a fraud case
where the United Kingdom, as the other Member State concerned,
was unable to establish jurisdiction to prosecute. In the second
case, which arose from the sinking of the tanker Prestige
off the northwest coats of Spain in November 2002, Eurojust requested
Spain and France to accept that Spain was the better placed to
deal with all the criminal proceedings arising from the sinking
of the ship.
18.8 The report contains a number of illustrations
to show the variety of case in which Eurojust may become involved,
including drug trafficking, terrorism, carousel fraud, money laundering,
illegal immigration and trafficking in human beings. A number
of these cases were referred to Eurojust by the UK, including
the smuggling of Turkish Kurds into the UK by Turkish organised
crime groups where arrests were coordinated between the UK and
Belgium, and the activities of Albanian criminal groups involved
in the trafficking of human beings from Lithuania to the UK. In
another case involving the smuggling of Turkish Kurds, France
and the UK agreed to delay acting so that arrests could be coordinated
with arrests in Turkey, Greece and Italy.
18.9 The report also notes the first prosecution
in Sweden for terrorist financing, in a case in which evidence
originating in another Member State was adduced in Sweden. Two
Iraqi nationals were convicted following an exchange of information
and the execution of requests for mutual legal assistance coordinated
through Eurojust.
18.10 The report devotes a section to relations with
third states, recording the conclusion of co-operation agreements
with Norway, Romania and Iceland and their approval by the Council
in the course of 2005. Negotiations with the United States have
continued, but the report notes that "differences in legal
systems, and especially in data protection regimes, mean that
there are still some significant differences to overcome".
Negotiations may also commence with Switzerland, if an agreement
can be negotiated within the structures of the Swiss legal system,
and also with Ukraine. Eurojust is also hoping to establish a
more formal basis for co-operation with the Russian Federation.
The Government's view
18.11 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 24 May 2006
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Joan Ryan) welcomes the achievements of Eurojust in 2005. The
Minister explains that these "have consolidated its organisational
structure and reinforced its contribution to effective judicial
co-operation in the EU". The Minister summarises the report
and notes the increased number of coordination meetings on individual
cases and the holding of strategic meetings on various topics
in the field of organised crime, including a number of successful
meetings for terrorism investigators and prosecutors from EU Member
States and increased collaboration with terrorism investigators
and prosecutors from third States.
18.12 The Minister also notes a number of significant
developments during the year, including the reliance by the Eurojust
College on the provisions of Article 7 of the Council Decision,
the conclusion of formal co-operation agreements with Romania
and Iceland and the negotiations with the United States and Switzerland,
and improvements in the infrastructure and working methods of
Eurojust.
Conclusion
18.13 As on previous occasions, the report provides
a helpful insight into the practicalities of judicial co-operation
within the EU and shows that the work of Eurojust has been of
real benefit.
18.14 We draw attention to the passages in the
report dealing with the failure of many Member States to give
effect to the measures they have agreed in Council. This must
call into question the utility of launching so many legislative
initiatives at the EU level, and suggests that efforts might be
better spent in ensuring that existing measures are implemented
and enforced.
18.15 We now clear the document.
57 OJ No. L 63 of 6.3.2002, p.1. Back
58
588 cases. Back
59
Article 7 (a)(i) and (ii) of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA provide
that Eurojust may, acting as a College, request a Member State
to undertake an investigation or prosecution, or to accept that
a Member State may be in a better position to undertake an investigation
or prosecution. Back
|
