House of Lords - European Union - Minutes of Evidence

Select Committee on European Union Minutes of Evidence

Memorandum by EUROPOL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. STRATEGIC COORDINATION

1.1 EU Architecture of Internal Security, intelligence-led policing and the European Criminal Intelligence Model

1.2 Europol's relationship with other EU/EC Agencies

1.3 Europol and the Police Chiefs' Task Force (PCTF)

2. BILATERAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE

2.1 Overall MS bi/multilateral exchanges

2.2 Bi/multilateral exchanges per Member State

3. COMBATING ORGANISED CRIME

3.1 Involvement of Member States' law enforcement agencies in Europol's organised crime tasks

3.2 Europol's role in training

4. COMBATING TERRORISM

5. EUROPOL INFORMATION SYSTEM

5.1 Progression of the IS content

5.1.1 IS content on 1 April 2008

5.1.2 Number of IS users per Member State

5.1.3 IS searches

5.1.4 Matches between IS objects

6. EUROPOL'S INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH THIRD PARTIES

6.1 Operational information exchange with Third Parties

7. GOVERNANCE AND METHODOLOGIES

7.1 The extent to which Europol's objectives and governance structure are open to wide interpretation

7.2 Member States' appreciation of Europol's products.

7.2.1 Value attributed to the AWF and OCTA

7.2.2 Value attributed to the TE-SAT

7.3 Joint Supervisory Body and data protection

7.4 Definition of analysis in the Europol framework

8. IMPACTS OF THE COUNCIL DECISION

9. TABLES, CHARTS AND ACRONYMS

1. STRATEGIC COORDINATION

1.1. EU Architecture of Internal Security,[13] intelligence-led policing and the European Criminal Intelligence Model

The European Union (EU) Architecture of Internal Security is the reference framework under which the EU intends to develop all activities relating to its internal security, starting with organised crime. In the longer term, subject to a review of its success in the field of organised crime, the objective is to expand this framework to other fields of internal security (including terrorism, illegal immigration, cross-border crime, risk and crime assessment connected to major events), in order for it to gradually become a global approach encompassing other subjects and relevant actors to internal security.

Europol plays an important role in this EU Architecture of Internal Security. The various threat assessments produced by the organisation, on the basis of information and intelligence sent by the Member States, constitute the cornerstone of a European intelligence-led policing system for the fight against organised crime. Europol's analytical input sets in motion the execution of the European Criminal Intelligence Model (ECIM). Based on the experience of the National Intelligence Model (NIM) currently in use in the UK, the ECIM is a four-step cyclical process which starts by an assessment of the threat at European level from which political priorities in internal security are drawn. By anticipating better the criminal developments, the intelligence-led policing approach enables the political level to decide about the priorities while the operational level use resources more effectively.

Europol actively participates to the first stage of this European intelligence cycle, by collecting, storing and analysing data received from the Member States and other parties, and by producing the Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA). Europol's analytical and assessment role provides a unique operational support by identifying criminal trends under development at European level.

In the second phase of the ECIM, Ministers in the Council use Europol's threat assessments, together with those from SitCen and Frontex, to set out political and regional priorities for EU internal security.

In the third phase, the priorities set by the Council provide the reference framework for both the work of the different EU agencies and the plans of the Member States' competent authorities. These priorities should be reflected in their strategic planning, working programmes, budgets, annual reporting and external relations. With the support of the Police Chiefs' Task Force (PCTF), EU agencies and Member States' law enforcement authorities implement the priorities by means of the COSPOL[14] projects and by using Joint Investigation Teams (JITs) if needed. The intelligence generated by the investigations are reported—as early as possible—to Europol and then "recycled" and used by Europol to produce enlarged and actual analysis for ongoing investigations and other analytical products. The responsibility for implementing the EU internal security priorities mainly remains at national level.

In the fourth phase of the ECIM, an evaluation is conducted in order to feed the next cycle of the ECIM. Reflections are currently taking place in the Council on how best to conduct this evaluation phase.[15]

To summarize, Europol's responsibilities in the ECIM mainly lie in the first phase of the process, that is to say assessing the threat Europe-wide (OCTA). The organisation also plays an important role in the implementation phase by providing an operational support to the PCTF and, generally speaking, by producing intelligence in the framework of its AWFs, based on the contribution of the Member States.

In addition, it should be born in mind that the EU Internal Security Architecture is still being further developed under the auspices of the Council of Ministers, in particular in light of the new provisions of the Lisbon Treaty with regards to internal security, establishing the internal security committee (COSI).

1.2. Europol's relationship with other EU/EC Agencies

House of Lords' requested information

Europol cooperates extensively with other Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) EU/EC agencies and bodies (Frontex, Eurojust, SitCen, OLAF and CEPOL). The first type of cooperation relates to horizontal coordination and alignment of planning activities between agencies with a view to implement the Council's priorities on internal security in a coherent and consistent way. Furthermore, Europol fosters more specific relationships with some of these EU/EC agencies either in the framework of its threat assessment activities or in habitual exchange of information.

It is worth mentioning the novelties created by the so-called Danish protocol amending the Europol Convention.[17] This protocol adds a new paragraph 9 to article 10 of the Europol Convention, which provides for the possibility, for Europol, to invite third parties/bodies to be associated with the activities of an analytical work file (AWF). The association of third parties experts is nonetheless subject to two conditions: firstly the existence of an operational agreement between Europol and the third party concerned and secondly an explicit consent from the participating Member States to that specific AWF (that can further specific aspects of the participation). Eurojust is the only EU body with which an operational cooperation agreement is in place. Eurojust currently participates to six Analysis Work Files and has been formally invited to participate to six more.

Horizontal coordination and planning

First and foremost with regards to horizontal coordination and planning of activities, Europol initiated in December 2007 a round of meetings with EU/EC agencies and bodies active in the field of JHA. It is the intention that the planning teams from the above mentioned agencies discuss the ways in which they can improve the cross-horizontal coordination of their respective work programmes and take into account the priorities set out by the Council for EU internal security. The standardisation of the actual format and layout of the respective work programmes, and their alignment, where possible, of terminology and supporting methodologies will also be addressed in a meeting planned to be held in September 2008. Europol's objective is to "institutionalise" these "horizontal coordination meetings".

Participation of EU/EC agencies in the preparation of the OCTA and TE-SAT

Regarding the OCTA, both Eurojust and Frontex are consulted by means of a questionnaire (intelligence requirements). For the 2008 OCTA, both agencies have sent constructive contributions. In addition to Eurojust and Frontex, other EU bodies and agencies were consulted including the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction (EMCDDA), the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Moreover, Europol also uses input from international organisations such as Interpol, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the World Bank. A questionnaire is equally sent to third countries with which Europol has an information exchange agreement.

Concerning the TE-SAT, Europol's cooperation with EU/EC agencies is limited to SitCen and Eurojust. Europol has set up an advisory board consisting of representatives from these two agencies and from the Member States holding the EU Presidency at the time of the production of the report—namely the Portuguese and Slovenian Presidency for the 2008 TE-SAT. The advisory board meets three to four times during the production period and provides Europol's officials with advice on proposed intelligence requirement, collection procedures and Europol's draft report. It must be noted that Eurojust's contribution to the TE-SAT is very substantial since it collects data on convictions and penalties.

Europol's cooperation with Eurojust

Eurojust and Europol signed an operational agreement in 2004 (allowing the exchange of personal data). A "Europol-Eurojust Steering Committee" was established and meets every three months in order to discuss cooperation between the two institutions. In addition, the President of the College of Eurojust and the Director of Europol meet on a regular basis.

Eurojust is currently associated to six Analysis Work Files (see above). Two concomitant policy initiatives recently called for a more systematic access of Eurojust to Europol's AWFs, by the Council Working Group reviewing the Council Decision establishing Eurojust and by the Counter-Terrorism Coordinator (CTC). The matter is still being discussed in the Council working groups.

Eurojust and Europol have cooperated on the implementation of the legislation on the JIT. Firstly they have jointly developed a legislative guide on JIT legislation on the basis of questionnaire sent to all Member States where they were asked how they dealt with the JIT legislation. Secondly Europol and Eurojust jointly established a common website on the issue. Thirdly they have drafted a JIT manual, for the practitioners on the establishment of JIT, with the help of national prosecutors. Lastly, they organise an annual meeting for the network of national JIT experts. The meeting takes place in turn at Europol and Eurojust. There have been three so far.

Europol's cooperation with Frontex

A strategic cooperation agreement was signed in 2008 (excluding the exchange of personal data because Frontex does not process personal data). Since the establishment of Frontex in 2006, the cooperation with Europol has been very productive. Meetings are held frequently at Directorate's level and are complemented by frequent visits at "technical level". Furthermore, Europol and Frontex regularly conduct joint assessments and operations. These activities have included: a joint strategic intelligence project to determine the high-risk migration routes regarding illegal immigration in the Western Balkans, the planning of a joint operation focusing on smuggling or trafficking of minors into the EU, or a joint operation on Chinese illegal migration arriving at the EU external borders by air.

As Frontex is planning to establish a Frontex Information System in 2008, Europol will also support Frontex in setting its information system to make it compatible with the Europol Information System and allow data sharing between the two organisations.

1.3. Europol and the Police Chiefs' Task Force (PCTF)

House of Lords requested information:

Distribution of tasks between Europol and the Police Chiefs' Task Force (PCTF) and other EU level institutions.

The Police Chiefs' Task Force was established at the European Council of Tampere in 1999. Its main purpose is "to exchange, in cooperation with Europol, experience, best practices and information on current trends in cross-border crime and contribute to the planning of operative actions."[18] However, the Member States could not agree on the institutional positioning of the PCTF within the Council structures until May 2004. In the wake of the Madrid terrorist attacks, a compromise was found respecting the will of those Member States which favoured a policy-making role and those who favoured a more operational role.[19]

The agreement established the current distinction between on the one hand, the operational tasks of the PCTF, which requires that it is brought closer to Europol in order to get functional support (eg threat analysis, specialist crime investigation support, expert support on operational debriefing etc.), and on the other hand, the strategic tasks with regards to European police co-operation. The second aspect requires that the "highest representatives of the police of the Member States meet within the Council structures. This will allow them to discuss strategies and issues related to structural problems as well as provide a clear operational point of view in the Council's proceedings. Moreover, it will ensure the accountability of the European operational co-operation."[20] The agreement thereof established that PCTF strategic meetings would be held in Brussels within the Council's premises, as a "Council Committee", while operational meetings would take place at Europol.

In addition, the PCTF was asked to present the Council with a Comprehensive Operational Strategy Plan (COSPOL). COSPOL projects seek to identify criminal targets to be monitored by law enforcement agencies of the Member States. The idea is to set up "frontrunner groups" of Member States to concretely implement PCTF's decisions. COSPOL can be summarised as the appliance of project management to ensure intelligence led law enforcement policing. It also contributes to the implementation of the Council working priorities in the framework of the ECIM (see above).

Europol actively supports the PCTF by several means. Europol supports the organisation of the PCTF operational meetings in The Hague and hosts the PCTF Support Unit (composed by representatives of the Tro-ka Member States) in its premises. A Europol staff member is fully dedicated to working as a link to the PCTF Support Unit. Europol also supports the operational activities of the PCTF by aligning its AWFs on the COSPOL Projects. Europol also contributes to specific projects of the PCTF (eg support to the "Atlas network" gathering the special intervention units of the MS) and to the strategic discussions of the PCTF (eg concerning the inter-operability of the various information systems across the EU).

Furthermore, Europol interacts with the EU political institutions (Council of Ministers, European Commission and European Parliament). Due to the inter-governmental character of the Justice and Home Affairs domain at EU level, a hierarchical relationship exists with the Council while the contacts with the Commission and the Parliament are limited to consultations and exchanges of views. This institutional setting will change with the entry into force of the Europol Council Decision. Europol will be financed on the Community budget[21] proposed by the Commission and co-decided by the Council and the Parliament. Changes would also occur with the possible entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.[22]

2. BILATERAL INFORMATION EXCHANGE

House of Lords' requested information

Bilateral information exchange: the extent to which Europol Liaison Officers (ELOs) make use of Europol's information exchange network rather than operating bilaterally.

This section presents statistical information on Europol, Member States and third party activity from 2003 until 2007. Following the EU and consequently the Europol enlargement developments which have been taken place since 2004, the number of Europol MS (and by consequence the number of third party) changed during the last years (details in Table 1). For Member States which joined Europol after 2003 the annual figures of the year of accession were used.[23]

One of the tasks of Europol is to facilitate the exchange of operational information between the Member States. In addition to the Europol Information System and the information exchange taking place in the framework of the Analysis Work Files, a secure information exchange tool (InfoEx) was established to connect all the Member States (via the Europol National Units and the Europol Liaison Bureaux) without necessarily involving Europol (ie the organisation) to the specific information exchanges.

At present Europol is investing in its communication channel by replacing the current Information Exchange application by a more advanced tool (SIENA) which meets the requirements of the revised Europol Convention, the Council Framework Decision on simplifying the exchange of information (2006/960/JHA) and the future requirements of the Europol Council Decision. Meanwhile, the Member States are exploring the possibilities to increase their use of the Europol channel in the context of the strategic objective to make Europol the first platform of choice for the exchange of information through a strengthened ENU/ELO network. It should also be further explored what could be the role of Europol in supporting new initiative aiming at increasing bilateral information exchange between Member States (eg Prüm Treaty).

Regarding the bilateral exchange of information, Europol can only report on the use of the InfoEx. These statistics do not include direct contacts between Member States performed via other tools or networks (eg National liaison officers posted abroad, Interpol network, Schengen network). It is estimated that, out of the total volume of information exchange taking place via the Europol network, approximately 80% is done among the Member States (ie via the Info-Ex) without sharing the content of the information exchange with the organisation.

It should also be noted that the InfoEx is a tool based on cases. Every case initiated with the InfoEx receives a reference number. All messages exchanged in the frame of a case contain the same reference plus an extension indicating the order of creation. The following statistics are only based on the number of cases initiated. Therefore, they do not reflect the total number of messages exchanged.

Table 1

OVERVIEW OF EU MEMBER STATES' MEMBERSHIP TO EUROPOL


2003	2004	2005	2006	2007

Austria	Austria	Austria	Austria	Austria
Belgium	Belgium	Belgium	Belgium	Belgium
Denmark	Cyprus	Cyprus	Cyprus	Bulgaria
Finland	Czech Republic	Czech Republic	Czech Republic	Cyprus
France	Denmark	Denmark	Denmark	Czech Republic
Germany	Finland	Estonia	Estonia	Denmark
Greece	France	Finland	Finland	Estonia
Ireland	Germany	France	France	Finland
Italy	Greece	Germany	Germany	France
Luxembourg	Hungary	Greece	Greece	Germany
Netherlands	Ireland	Hungary	Hungary	Greece
Portugal	Italy	Ireland	Ireland	Hungary
Spain	Latvia	Italy	Italy	Ireland
Sweden	Lithuania	Latvia	Latvia	Italy
United Kingdom	Luxembourg	Lithuania	Lithuania	Latvia
	Malta	Luxembourg	Luxembourg	Lithuania
	Netherlands	Malta	Malta	Luxembourg
	Poland	Netherlands	Netherlands	Malta
	Portugal	Poland	Poland	Netherlands
	Slovak Republic	Portugal	Portugal	Poland
	Slovenia	Slovak Republic	Slovak Republic	Portugal
	Spain	Slovenia	Slovenia	Romania
	Sweden	Spain	Spain	Slovak Republic
	United Kingdom	Sweden	Sweden	Slovenia
		United Kingdom	United Kingdom	Spain
				Sweden
				United Kingdom

Member States which joined Europol after 2003 appear in bold.

2.1. Overall MS bi/multilateral exchanges

Since 2003 a total of 25,674 cases were initiated by the Member States via Europol (See Table 2). From these cases 53.95% were bilateral cases and 46.05% were multilateral cases. The total number of messages exchanged by the Member States during the same period of time in the frame of these 25,674 cases is 622,831 messages.

Table 2

OVERVIEW OF BI/MULTILATERAL INFORMATION EXCHANGES


	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007

Number of bilateral cases	2,151	2,052	2,492	3,876	3,412
Number of Multilateral cases	1,858	2,756	2,945	1,901	2,231
TOTAL NUMBER OF CASES INITIATED BY THE EUROPOL MEMBER STATES	4,009	4,808	5,437	5,777	5,643

2.2. Bi/multilateral exchanges per Member State

Table 3

BI/MULTILATERAL EXCHANGES PER MEMBER STATE


MS	2003		2004		2005		2006		2007
	MULTI	BI	MULTI	BI	MULTI	BI	MULTI	BI	MULTI	BI

Austria	217	249	292	179	235	244	123	259	246	254
Belgium	91	98	261	163	238	121	92	836	86	265
Bulgaria									16	25
Cyprus			20	1	60	18	79	63	134	62
Czech Republic			23	6	67	21	45	51	37	33
Denmark	101	143	154	125	132	110	98	134	51	113
Estonia					7	15	16	38	16	34
Finland	37	32	41	40	57	42	28	61	32	56
France	296	203	581	87	544	201	330	369	301	377
Germany	351	304	408	496	436	481	255	376	283	279
Greece	99	41	66	62	45	64	54	62	51	108
Hungary			16	13	65	70	66	135	92	245
Ireland	22	36	22	29	11	40	18	59	24	45
Italy	45	122	144	107	104	90	56	69	87	52
Latvia			4	0	21	7	30	16	24	17
Lithuania			21	5	76	43	54	89	80	59
Luxembourg	13	2	15	4	4	8	7	7	7	15
Malta			0	0	11	13	16	23	12	13
Netherlands	31	135	53	128	79	165	63	253	63	224
Poland			1	0	20	65	14	59	23	64
Portugal	62	162	83	173	50	223	55	202	74	192
Romania									44	8
Slovak Republic			9	1	74	13	39	24	20	27
Slovenia			11	4	54	23	39	12	65	20
Spain	101	82	138	91	191	143	132	249	122	228
Sweden	129	2	173	9	160	10	81	141	123	147
United Kingdom	263	540	220	329	204	262	111	289	118	450
Total	1,858	2,151	2,756	2,052	2,945	2,492	1,901	3,876	2,231	3412

3. COMBATING ORGANISED CRIME

House of Lords' requested information

— The extent to which Member States' law enforcement agencies are involved in Europol's organised crime tasks, including the Europol National Unit (ENU).

— Europol's role in training.

3.1. Involvement of Member States' law enforcement agencies in Europol's organised crime tasks

The priorities for Europol are laid down in the Annual Work Programme approved by the Council. The programme covers all forms of serious and organised crime and terrorism within Europol's mandate.

In relation to forms of serious and organised crime, the Council defined the following priorities:

— Drugs trafficking, especially in synthetic drugs;

— Smuggling and trafficking in human beings, especially linked to illegal immigration;

— Fraud, especially in the area of highly taxed goods and Value Added Tax carousels;

— Euro counterfeiting;

— Commodity counterfeiting and intellectual property theft;

— Money laundering.

These priorities are based on the OCTA 2007 while the OCTA 2008 is currently still being discussed within the Council structures.

With reference to article 4 and 5 of the Europol convention Europol National Units (ENUs) and their liaison offices (function as the extended arm of the ENU at Europol headquarters) shall be the sole liaison body between the MS competent law enforcement agencies and Europol. The principle has been slightly amended by the entering into force of the three protocols to the Europol convention in spring 2007, which now allows direct contact between Europol and Member States law enforcement agencies provided the contacts have been approved by the ENU and the ENU is kept informed about the communications between Europol and the competent authorities. The concept of Europol National Unit is not defined in a harmonised way. It is the responsibility of each Member State to identify the competent authorities to work with Europol and to organise their work with the organisation via the Europol National Unit. The Heads of Europol National Units (HENUs) meet regularly at Europol in order to discuss the operational activities of the organisation.

Europol has established an annual Client Survey, which gives the EU member states law enforcement organisations the possibility to express their satisfaction of the Europol products and services, respectively to propose future products and services. The annual client survey and results which were obtained from a questionnaire sent to the Heads of ENUs show satisfying results. These results are taken into consideration in the future planning cycles of the work programmes in as far as they meet the requirements of the priorities set by the council.

3.2. Europol's role in training

The strategic cooperation agreement between Europol and CEPOL was signed in 2007. The aim is to enhance training activities for senior police officers through close cooperation on training courses and the development of training material, also for the benefit of Europol (awareness and sharing of expertise).

The Europol training curriculum has been developed and rolled out via the national training centres of the EU Member States. In 2007 Europol supported 25 courses. In 2008 so far five courses have been conducted with the support of Europol.

With regard to in-house expertise and courses developed for analysis (operational-, strategic- and financial- analysis) Europol delivered training at the request of several Member States and to one non-Member States. In 2007 Europol supported three operational analysis courses, four strategic analysis courses and two financial analysis courses. In 2008 one operational analysis course has been delivered until now.

4. COMBATING TERRORISM

House of Lords' requested information:

The extent to which Member States' law enforcement agencies are involved in Europol's counter-terrorism tasks, including the Europol National Unit (ENU).

With respect to terrorism, Europol places particular emphasis on supporting the Member States in identifying Islamist terrorism networks and other terrorist groups or networks posing a specific threat to the EU.

Europol develop working relationships with all law enforcement authorities competent for the fight against terrorism in the Member States and, to some extent, has also developed contacts with the security/secret services community. The definition of "terrorism competent authority" is defined by each Member State individually. All exchanges of information with Europol take place via the Europol National Units in compliance with the Europol Convention.

Europol supports investigations in Member States by providing operational and strategic analysis and assistance on site, which helps building capacity in this field. Generally speaking, there is today an increased commitment of the Member States to exchange sensitive intelligence in terrorist investigations via Europol databases and exchange systems. The current situation is in sharp contrast with the situation that prevailed a few years ago.

Europol has two Analysis Work Files focusing on terrorist activities. In addition, specific products are developed in relation to terrorism: the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, the "Check The Web" project (information sharing on the use of the Internet by Islamist terrorists), support to major international events (threat assessments and seconding of Liaison Officers), the Counter-Proliferation Programme (explosives). A "First Response Network" is also in place that allows a flexible support to Member States investigations immediately after terrorist incidents and consists of a network of more than 50 anti-terror experts from all Member States.

5. EUROPOL INFORMATION SYSTEM

House of Lords' requested information:

Europol's information exchange network: the use that is being made by MS' law enforcement authorities of the Europol Information System.

5.1. Progression of the IS content

The Europol Information System (IS) was declared operational on 10 October 2005. From this date on, Member States were able to connect to the system and started using it. The Europol Secure Network was accredited by the Security Committee on 15 January 2008.

Criminal information is stored in the IS by creating data objects and relationships between these data objects. A data object is a folder clustering all relevant information on a particular entity, event or device relevant for the description of the criminal case (suspect, crime, weapon, car, passport, etc.).

The chart below (Chart 1) presents the quarterly progression of the IS content (total number of objects stored in the system) from October 2005 until April 2008.

Chart 1

QUARTERLY PROGRESSION OF THE IS CONTENT (10/05 TILL 04/08)

5.1.1. IS content on 1 April 2008

The chart below presents the total number of objects stored in the IS on 1 April 2008 per object type.

Chart 2

IS CONTENT PER OBJECT TYPE

The chart below presents the number of objects contributed to the IS per owner.

Chart 3

IS CONTENT PER MEMBER STATES

5.1.2. Number of IS users per Member State

An IS user is a person who, by reason of his (her) duties or obligations, needs to be acquainted with such information or to handle it. Persons entrusted with the processing of information shall have undergone any necessary security clearance and shall have received special training.

The table below (Table 4) presents the total number of IS users per Member State on 1 April 2008. Member State figures include the number of users making use of the system at national level and Member State users working in the Europol premises as Member State Liaison Officers in the Liaison bureaux.

Table 4

NUMBER OF IS USERS PER MEMBER STATE


	Total

AT	102
BE	150
BG	6
CY	6
CZ	15
DE	502
DK	101
EE	13
FI	45
FR	62
GR	22
HU	11
IE	16
IT	24
LT	24
LU	2
LV	9
MT	3
NL	15
PL	10
PT	5
RO	5
SE	95
SI	15
ES	4
SK	19
UK	9
EU[24]	189
Total	1,479

5.1.3. IS searches

The IS was technically ready to be used by the Member States at national level in October 2005. However, each Member State had to sign a bilateral agreement for the interconnection of the computer networks between Europol and the competent services at national level. The deployment of the system in the Member States was progressive and completed for all Member Sates in February 2008.

The table below (Table 5) shows the progression of the IS use at Member States level per Member State.

Table 5

USE OF THE IS PER MEMBER STATE, AT MEMBER STATES LEVEL


2005	2006	2007	2008

France	France	France	France
Germany	Germany	Germany	Germany
Portugal	Portugal	Portugal	Portugal
Sweden	Sweden	Sweden	Sweden
United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom	United Kingdom
	February	Italy	Italy
	Italy	Hungary	Hungary
	March	Austria	Austria
	Hungary	Lithuania	Lithuania
	April	Cyprus	Cyprus
	Austria	Czech Republic	Czech Republic
	Lithuania	Greece	Greece
	May	Slovenia	Slovenia
	Cyprus	Finland	Finland
	Czech Republic	Slovak Republic	Slovak republic
	June	Denmark	Denmark
	Greece	Latvia	Latvia
	Slovenia	The Netherlands	The Netherlands
	July	Poland	Poland
	Finland	February	Ireland
	Slovak Republic	Ireland	Estonia
	December	April	Spain
	Denmark	Estonia	Luxembourg
	Latvia	May	Belgium
	Netherlands	Spain	Malta
	Poland	Luxembourg	Bulgaria
		Belgium	February
		September	Romania
		Malta
		October
		Bulgaria

The chart below presents the total number of searches ran in the IS by Member State users (at national level and from the Member State liaison bureaus) from 2005 until 2007.

Chart 4

TOTAL NUMBER OF SEARCHES IN THE IS

5.1.4. Matches between IS objects

The IS Cross Check (CC) functionality is an automatic detection of potential identical objects across multiple Member States (Cross Border Crime Check, CBCC). This functionality is available for four object types: Person, Means of Communication, Means of Transportations and Criminal Organisation. When data inserted triggers a CC event, the parties involved must communicate to confirm the match and allow investigation units to exchange further details.

97 cross-border matches on cases contributed by Member States and Third Parties were available in the IS on 1 April 2008 by the CC functionality. 88 matches on person objects, six on means of communication objects and three on means of Transportation objects.

6. EUROPOL'S INFORMATION EXCHANGE WITH THIRD PARTIES

House of Lords requested information:

The extent to which information is exchanged by Europol with third countries with which it has cooperation agreements.

6.1. Operational information exchange with Third Parties

The chart below presents the total number of messages exchanged with Europol Third Parties using the InfoEx from 2003 until 2007. The list of Europol Third Parties and figures used to create this chart are available in Table 6 below.

Chart 5

TOTAL NUMBER OF MESSAGES EXCHANGED WITH THIRD PARTIES

It should be noted that the success of cooperation with a Third Partner is not only reflected by the volume of information exchange. Europol conducts in-depth evaluation of its cooperation agreement that take into account all relevant factors by means of specific questionnaires and interviews of all stakeholders.

Table 6

EXCHANGE OF OPERATIONAL INFORMATION WITH EUROPOL THIRD PARTIES

This table shows the total number of messages exchanged with Europol Third Parties from 2003 until 2007 per Third Party.


2003		2004		2005		2006		2007

Bulgaria (BG)	174	Bulgaria (BG)	1,257	Bulgaria (BG)	1,844	Bulgaria (BG)	2,417	Australia (AU)	199
Cyprus (CY)	132	Estonia (EE)	1,420	Romania (RO)	2,519	Romania (RO)	3,743	Canada (CA)	1,130
Czech Republic (CZ)	784	IM1 Co-operation Unit*	33	Iceland (IS)	631	Canada (CA)	429	Croatia (HR)	1,130
Estonia (EE)	650	Romania (RO)	379	Norway (NO)	4,732	Croatia (HR)	198	Iceland (IS)	1,733
Hungary (HU)	872	Iceland (IS)	624	Colombia (CO)	2,169	Iceland (IS)	649	Norway (NO)	8,307
IM1 Co-operation Unit*	1,974	Norway (NO)	4,819	Turkey (TR)	290	Norway (NO)	6,217	Switzerland (CH)	2,284
Poland (PL)	809	Colombia (CO)	1,349	LO Europol (Washington)	1,258	Switzerland (CH)	1,082	Albania (AL)	22
Slovak Republic (SK)	63	Turkey (TR)	104	Eurojust	118	Colombia (CO)	1,699	Bosnia-Herzegovina (BA)	52
Slovenia (SI)	486	LO Europol (Washington)	1,440	LO Europol (Interpol)	340	Turkey (TR)	171	Colombia (CO)	2,316
Iceland (IS)	302	Eurojust	12			LO Europol (Washington)	1,531	Moldova (MD)	54
Norway (NO)	1,065	LO Europol (Interpol)	532			LO FBI	61	Russian Federation (RU)	137
LO Europol (Washington)	569					LO Europol (Interpol)	292	Turkey (TR)	223
LO Europol (Interpol)	354					LO US Secret Service	372	LO Europol (Washington)	1,413
						LO US Postal Inspection Service	2	LO US Postal Inspection Service	436
						Eurojust	121	LO US ATF	2
						LO US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA)	22	LO US Drugs Enforcement Agency (DEA)	88
								LO US Secret Service	542
								LO FBI	77
								Eurojust via Europol	120
								LO Europol (Interpol)	763
Total	8,234		11,969		13,901		19,006		21,028

* IM1 Co-operation Unit: Europol unit (currently called IMT4) processing the exchange of information with Third Parties. During the period of time between the signature of a cooperation agreement with a Third Party and the moment when an information exchange account is created for this Third Party, the exchange of information is processed through this Europol unit account.

7. GOVERNANCE AND METHODOLOGIES

7.1. The extent to which Europol's objectives and governance structure are open to wide interpretation.

The activities of Europol are regulated by the Europol Convention as amended by the three protocols to the Convention. Most likely as from 1 January 2010, a Council Decision will be the new legal basis of the organisation.

Both the Convention and the future Council Decision clearly outline the mandate of the organisation (ie support to the competent authorities of the Member States in the fight against terrorism and serious forms of international crime).

The legal framework also delimitates the roles and responsibilities of the Director and of the Management Board (MB), where all Member States are represented. The Convention and the Council Decision regulates which areas of responsibility belong to the Director (eg staff matters), to the MB (eg approval of cooperation agreements with other EU bodies) and to the Council (eg appointment of the Director & Deputy Directors and approval of the annual Work Programme and Budget).

7.2. Member States' appreciation of Europol's products.

House of Lords' requested information

The value attributed by Member States and other customers to the OCTA, TE-SAT, AWF and other products and services offered by Europol.

7.2.1. Value attributed to the AWF and OCTA

As a key component of the evaluation process Europol commissions client satisfaction surveys annually. The client survey is designed to measure Image, Customer Expectations, Customer Perceived Product Quality, Customer Perceived Service Quality, Customer Perceived Value, Customer Satisfaction and Customer Loyalty. It also measures satisfaction with particular products and services. Participation in the survey is by Member State and latterly other partners.

Table 7

RESULTS OF CLIENT SURVEY OF EUROPOL'S PRODUCTS


Result	Image	Expectations	Product Quality	Service Quality	Perceived Value	Loyalty

2005	61.8	68.6	65.8	66.1	58.5	72.2
2006	63.5	69.5	68.3	68.0	62.5	73.9
2007	67.6	69.8	72.5	72.4	67.5	75.3

The general findings are as follows:

— A positive trend is evident across all quality dimensions over the last three years.

— The users in the Member State perceived that the products they received from Europol largely met their expectations.

— Service quality refers to the extent to which services are experienced as positive and the perceived level of willingness by staff to deliver services to customers. The values indicate clear positive assessment.

— Perceived value (value for money) is devised in order to capture the relationship between what is obtained (delivered) and the price/cost of obtaining this. This trend indicates increased perception of value for Europol's customers.

— In relation to specific products and services, in 2007 all products and services received scores indicating positive or satisfactory assessment.

Table 8

ASSESSMENT OF EUROPOL'S PRODUCTS


Scores	No. of products/services 2007

7.3-8.0 (positive assessment)	26
6.4-7.2 (satisfactory)	40
less than 6.4 (requires attention)	0

— Specifically, both the OCTA and Te-SAT received high satisfactory scores of 7.2

— Operational and analytical support (AWFs) in the areas of forgery of money, payment card fraud and precursor chemicals and synthetic drugs received the highest customer satisfaction scores.

7.2.2. Value attributed to the TE-SAT

The EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT) was established in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States as a reporting mechanism from the EU Council's Terrorism Working Party (TWP) to the European Parliament. Initially, the TE-SAT was issued by the respective Presidency of the Council based on a file and analysis supplied by Europol. In 2006 the TE-SAT became a Europol product, and a new methodology was introduced to enhance the quality of the report. This meant, among other things, that Europol was able to set the intelligence requirements and widen the data collection for the TE-SAT. Since this change, Europol has presented two reports to the European Parliament, TE-SAT 2007 in March 2007 and TE-SAT 2008 in March 2008.

The TE-SAT is the only official report which, based on contributions from law enforcement agencies in the member states, provides a statistical overview of the number of terrorist attacks, arrests and activities at EU level. The contributed information mainly derives from criminal investigations into terrorist offences. Member States are asked to provide Europol with both a quantitative and a qualitative contribution. The quantitative part highlights the number of attacks and arrests that have occurred during the previous year. The qualitative contribution provides a general description of the situation regarding terrorism in each member states.

The data contributed by the member states to the TE-SAT 2008 was generally of good quality with a high level of details. In addition to the quantitative contribution all Member States also provided Europol with a qualitative contribution. This is a clear improvement from the TE-SAT 2007, when only 13 Member States contributed qualitative data. For the TE-SAT 2008, 85% of all data used in the report came from the Member States contribution. However, as in 2006, UK authorities were not able to provide Europol with comprehensive quantitative data for the TE-SAT 2008.

The increase in the quantity and quality of contributed data indicates an increased interest from the Member States in relation to the TE-SAT. The report has also become an important awareness tool for decision makers at European level. The TE-SAT receives a fair amount of attention from the media. As the TE-SAT 2008 has just been released it is not possible to report on the impact it will have. However, it can be noted that the TE-SAT 2007 was frequently used as a reference document, both in media and in academic reports. Europol has also received requests from institutions and universities, including UK based, to use the TE-SAT as course literature.

7.3. Joint Supervisory Body and data protection

House of Lords' requested information

The inspection mechanisms used by the Joint Supervisory Body on data protection for ensuring quality of data and lawful use of data.

Pursuant to Article 24 of the Europol Convention, the Joint Supervisory Body (JSB) has the task of reviewing the activities of Europol in order to ensure that the rights of the data subject are not violated by the storage, processing and utilisation of the data held by Europol. In this framework the JSB conducts an inspection visit at Europol on an annual basis. The most recent inspection took place from the 11 to 14 March 2008.

The JSB Inspection Team has access to all information stored in Europol's computerised systems as well as to all documents and paper files. Europol must supply the JSB Inspection Team with all requested information.

The Inspection Team performs its tasks by combining document review sessions with interviewing Europol staff, each year covering specific areas of main interest. To facilitate their work, Europol provides the team with a comprehensive set of all relevant policies, standards and procedures on the handling of personal data.

The findings of the JSB Inspection Team are summarised in an inspection report. During each inspection the JSB Inspection Team is initially informed by Europol about the implementation status of the recommendations made in the previous inspection report.

The JSB Inspection Team checks the Logbook of the Europol Data Protection Officer who conducts frequent checks on all systems. The Data Protection Officer acts in close co-operation with the AWF teams and the SC Units where the Europol information is processed.

Furthermore, the JSB Team, inspects the handling of Article 19 requests and makes additional checks related to the requests of citizens who appealed against the decision of Europol to refuse the communication of data.

The Europol Analysis System is—each year—subject to thorough inspection. The Inspection Team selects particular AWFs and inspects their content in the presence of the respective Project Managers and Lead Analysts who are available for questions on the spot. The inspectors eg check link charts, compliance with the opening orders, evaluate whether specific entries are covered by Europol's mandate and which results have been achieved so far.

The JSB finally also inspects the Europol Information System processing data stemming from all 27 Member States to evaluate whether the inclusion of the respective data into the database is covered by the underlying legal framework.

7.4. Definition of analysis in the Europol framework

The methodological aspects of Europol's analytical activities are not defined in the Europol Convention.

Analysis

Analysis can be defined as the careful examination of information to discover it's meaning and essential features. Analysis highlights information gaps, the strengths, the weaknesses and pinpoints the way forward.

The analytical process is the development of intelligence to direct law enforcement objectives, both for short-term operational aims and for long term strategic reasons. The scope for analysis and its overall credibility is dependent on the level and accuracy of the information supplied combined with the skills of the analyst. Analysis is a cyclical process, which can be performed on all types of law enforcement objectives. Different types of crimes and operations require different scenarios, but to enable effective analysis the type of information which is used should not be pre-set by artificial measures, but by the availability of the information and the legal restrictions of each country.

Data integration

Data integration is the first phase of the analytical process combining various types of information from different sources to establish areas of weakness in order to draw inferences for law enforcement action. Various techniques are used to display this information, the most commonly accepted being the use of charting techniques to show links.

The next step in the analytical process is interpretation which frequently means going beyond the facts, asking the "what if" questions. Indeed this should be a prerequisite requirement for any analytical project. For this to be successful the previous stages must be accurate and complete, to minimise the risk that the analyst takes in making an informed judgement on the information available. The hypotheses or inferences made can be tested by the operational teams and feedback is then essential.

The disciplined approach of analysis requires the maximum amount of information to be assessed at the time of integration to determine its relevance. Excluding information at the beginning of the process can lead to the significance of a vital piece of information being overlooked resulting in the analysis being incorrect, and more importantly jeopardising an inquiry.

It is acceptable to collect, evaluate and analyse information, but all these activities should lead to increased knowledge of, and insight into, criminal activities that can be put to operational use. To really contribute to investigations the analyst's aim should be to produce hypotheses and inferences that lead to additional clues for fact finding. In hypotheses and inferences indications should be given to questions related to:

— Who are the key persons and accomplices?

— What are their (criminal) activities?

— Why are they doing what they are doing in the way they are doing it?

— Where are those activities located?

— When do they take place?

— How are those activities carried out?

Hypotheses

Hypotheses are "conclusions or assumptions you may reach about anything at all". Hypotheses contain a great deal of speculation and need to be confirmed, modified or rejected by the findings that come out of investigation.

Hypotheses point into directions in which the investigation could be further developed. They are working ideas for the investigative team and need to be the product of inductive logic to surpass the obvious picture that emerges from data conveniently being available. It is creative thinking that produces the results that are of value to investigative teams, not merely the bookkeeping of results coming out of investigations. Hypotheses and inferences are an integral part of all analyses both operational and strategic.

Inference

In strategic intelligence analysis hypotheses and inferences concentrate upon questions related to intentions, possibilities, limitations and vulnerabilities of criminal adversaries, answering the who, what, when, why, where and how questions in as much detail as possible and speculate about future events, to allow for planning and preparing effective long term action. The main difference between hypotheses and inferences in operational intelligence analysis is that the latter deals with specific case related issues that can be put to immediate operational use.

Conclusions and recommendations

The development and testing of hypotheses, in the context and with the benefit of all the research done in the analysis process should finally result in the drafting of conclusions and recommendations. Conclusions and recommendations are a vital element of any analysis in communicating the essence of the work done and the insights resulting from it to the parties with operational or managerial responsibilities.

8. IMPACTS OF THE COUNCIL DECISION

House of Lords requested information:

How the provisions of the Council Decision amend the current rules and have the potential to change all of these matters?

Strategic Coordination

the development of an EU Architecture of Internal Security'

The Council Decision (hereafter CD) does not alter the EU Architecture of Internal Security nor the European Criminal Intelligence Model.

Europol's relationship with other EU/EC Agencies such as Eurojust and Frontex, and the extent to which there is cooperation between these Agencies, especially in the preparation of the Organised Crime Threat Assessment (OCTA), the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report (TE-SAT), and Analysis Work Files (AWF);

Article 22 CD reiterates the provisions stated in article 42 of the Europol Convention with regards to Europol's relationship with other EC/EU Agencies. However, the article is more specific as it includes a list of agencies and bodies concerned, namely: Eurojust, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (Frontex), the European Police College (CEPOL), the European Central Bank and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA).

In addition, article 22.3 CD allows Europol to directly receive, use and transmit information including personal data and classified information prior to the entry into force of an agreement with Community and Union related institutions, bodies and agencies included in the list referred to in article 22.

This new provision is justified by the fact that all agencies of the European Union share the same data protection regime. With the exception of OLAF (with which an operational cooperation agreement is not yet concluded), this new provision will not fundamentally impact Europol's relation with other EU bodies as all necessary cooperation agreements are already in place.

Other than that, Europol's relation with other EU/EC agencies will not be altered by the CD.

the distribution of tasks between Europol and the Police Chiefs' Task Force (PCTF) and other EU level institutions;

The CD does not amend the distribution of task between Europol and the Police Chiefs' Task Force (PCTF) and other EU level institutions.

Bilateral information exchange

the extent to which Europol Liaison Officers (ELOs) make use of Europol's information exchange network rather than operating bilaterally;

The competences and role of Liaison Officers will not be affected by the CD apart from article 9.3 (d) which provides that Liaison Officers may "assist in the exchange of information from their national Unit with the Liaison Officers of other Member States" using the Information Exchange network and these "bilateral exchanges may also cover crimes outside of the competence of Europol, as far as allowed under national law".

Following this change, an increased use of the Europol channel by Member States' Liaison Offices is expected. This is due to the fact that information exchanges outside the competence of Europol will be formally allowed. Europol is aware that this is already taking place, to an unknown extent.

Combating Organised Crime

the extent to which Member States' law enforcement agencies are involved in Europol's organised crime tasks, including the Europol National Unit (ENU);

Europol's slightly extended competences will no longer exclusively cover organised crime and terrorism but also other serious forms of crime, especially crimes committed in a "non-organised fashion". Furthermore, article 4.1 offers the possibility to the Member States (without any obligation) to provide information on crimes falling outside Europol's competences. However, these provisions do not alter the role of the Europol National Units (ENUs) since the information provided shall in principle still be exclusively routed via the ENU unless the national authorities decide otherwise (as already allowed by the so-called Danish protocol to the Europol Convention). In addition, article 8.7 defines the role of ENUs in greater details. Europol National Units are given the opportunity to meet at their own will and their tasks will be slightly increased without deviating from their original task.

Although the access and retrieval rights for the Europol Information System remain unchanged; article 13.6 CD offers the possibility for "authorities designated to this effect by the Member States" to query the Information System on a "hit-no hit" basis.

Europol's role in training

The role of Europol in training activities remains the same, ie Europol may assist Member States through the support, advice and research in the training of Member States' competent authorities. However, article 5.5 (a) confirms the need for cooperating with the European Police College (CEPOL).

Combating Terrorism

the extent to which Member States' law enforcement agencies are involved in Europol's counter-terrorism tasks, including the Europol National Unit (ENU);

The competences of Europol to support action of the Member States in combating terrorism remain unchanged (see article 3), as does the role of the ENU in this respect.

Europol's Information Exchange Network

the use that is being made by Member States' law enforcement authorities of the Europol Information System;

Although the access and retrieval rights for the Europol Information System remain unchanged, article 13.6 CD offers the possibility for "authorities designated to this effect by the Member States" to query the Information System on a "hit-no hit" basis.

Europol's Information Exchange with Third Parties

the extent to which information is exchanged by Europol with third countries with which it has cooperation agreements;

Due to its slightly changed mandate (crimes committed in a "non-organised fashion"), Europol will also be able to exchange information on these types of crime with third parties.

Also, Chapter IV of the Council Decision allows Europol to directly receive and use information, including personal data, prior to the entry into force of an agreement with third states and organisations as referred to in article 23.2 and article 23.3. In the case of Community and Union related institutions bodies and agencies (article 22.3) the exchange of personal data is already permissible prior to the conclusion of an agreement.

However, Europol is not allowed to transmit personal data and classified information to third states and organisations prior to the entry into force of the agreement (article 23.4).

Article 23bis reiterates that Europol shall solely transmit information to third parties with the Member States' consent.

Article 24 provides a detailed framework for handling information received from private parties and exclude the exchange of information with these private entities (only receipt).

Governance and Methodologies

the extent to which Europol's objectives and governance structure are open to wide interpretation;

Europol's objectives:

This provision underwent editorial changes aimed at removing those parts which were meant to regulate Europol first years of existence but which are now obsolete (old Article 2.1 of the Europol Convention). The link between the competence of Europol and the crime areas is made in article 4.1 of the CD.

Article 3 spells out Europol's objectives, however a separation is made between Europol's objectives on the one hand and Europol's competences and tasks on the other hand, which are outlined more clearly in article 4 and article 5. By doing so, a clearer and thus better separation between objectives, competences and tasks has been achieved. The definitions and principles remain however identical.

Europol's governance structure:

Europol's governance structure is defined in details in articles 35, 36 and 37. The Management Board and the Director continue to be organs of Europol. However, the Financial Controller and the Financial Committee will cease to be organs of Europol. Under the new legal framework Europol will be financed by the Community budget, which implies that Europol's budget will be jointly decided by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Its implementation will ultimately be scrutinized by the European Court of Auditors. The day to day control of the implementation of Europol's budget will be undertaken by the Internal Audit Function as laid down in article 36.8 (ebis).

the inspection mechanisms used by the Joint Supervisory Body on data protection for ensuring quality of data and lawful use of data;

The Council Decision on Europol does not have any considerable impact on the mechanisms used by the JSB Inspection Team for ensuring quality and lawful use of personal data. The most significant innovation to be mentioned, however, is that Europol may under the framework of the Council Decision also establish "other systems processing personal data" besides the AWFs/Index System and the Information System. Such decision is to be made by the Management Board and approved by the Council. The JSB has to be consulted before such new databases are setup (see article 10.1 and 10.2 CD). The above described inspection mechanisms will also apply to any further databases operated by Europol.

Definition of analysis in the Europol framework

As in the Europol Convention, the Member States have not specifically defined the word "Analysis" in Europol's new legal framework.

9.  TABLES, CHARTS AND ACRONYMS

Table 1: Overview of EU Member States' membership of Europol.

Table 2: Overview of bi/multilateral information exchanges.

Table 3: Bi/multilateral exchanges per Member State.

Table 4: Number of IS users per Member State.

Table 5: Use of the IS per Member State, at Member States level.

Table 6: Exchange of operational information with Europol Third Parties.

Table 7: Results of client survey of Europol's products.

Table 8: Assessment of Europol's products.

Chart 1: Quarterly progression of the IS content (10/05 till 04/08).

Chart 2: IS content per object type.

Chart 3: IS content per Member States.

Chart 4: Total number of searches in the IS.

Chart 5: Total number of messages exchanged with Third Parties.




CEPOL European Police College

COSI Standing Committee on Internal Security

COSPOL Comprehensive Operational Strategy Plan

CTC EU Counter Terrorism Coordinator

ECB European Central Bank

ECIM European Crime Intelligence Model

ELO Europol Liaison Officer

EMCDDA European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction

ENU Europol National Unit

EU European Union

HENU Head of Europol National Unit

InfoEx Europol secure information exchange tool

JHA Justice and Home Affairs

JIT Joint Investigation Team

NIM National Intelligence model

OCTA Organised Crime Threat Assessment

OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office

PCTF Police Chiefs Task Force

SitCen EU Joint Situation Centre

TE-SAT EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report

UNODC United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime


28 April 2008