Supplementary evidence by the European
Commission
How did the Commission interpret the phrase "to
strengthen Europol and make it more operational without executive
powers" attributed to the Justice and Home Affairs Council
and used in the Friends of the Presidency's Report to the Future
of Europol?
The discussions in the Friends of the Presidency
Group demonstrated that whilst there was considerable support
for a more operational role for Europol, this should not be translated
into operational policing powers for members of the organization.
The main idea was that Europol should become more operational
through enabling enhanced support to the Member States' operational
activities. One of the main new elements to increase Europol's
possibilities to offer support to the Member States' authorities
operational work is through enhanced possibilities for data processing,
in particular the possibility to create new databases (Article
10 of the draft Council Decision).
The extension of Europol's mandate through the
new decision to all forms of serious transnational crime where
the involvement of a criminal organization is no longer a requirement
can also undoubtedly be seen as a means of strengthening the role
of Europol in assisting police cooperation at EU level in the
fight against international crime without autonomous executive
powers.
The new legal basis brings about improvements
in terms of flexibility and of effectiveness of the organization,
and will be accompanied by a stronger implication of the European
Parliament by means of its role of budgetary authority; that goes
in the direction of better democratic control of the European
Police Office.
Under the new Council Decision, does the Commission
believe that Europol has kept any working mechanisms that are
truly dedicated to a common approach as described in Article 2
Europol Convention?
The overall goals of Europol have not changed
with the Council decision. The wording of the provisions relating
to its "Objectives" (Article 3) could be simplified
from the language contained in the Convention on that point given
the fact that Europol's mandate has evolved over time. Compared
to 10 years ago, Europol is no longer in its infancy, and has
progressively extended its areas of activity whilst improving
the cooperation between competent authorities. The simplified
way of expressing Europol's mandate, tasks and objectives should
not be seen as a move away from the objective of supporting the
Member States in their law enforcement activities.
The instruments and working mechanisms of Europol,
ie, the AWF, the Information system, the Liaison Officers, the
National units all contribute, by definition, to a "common
approach" across Member States in the fight against serious
forms of transnational crime. These elements will also not be
changed by the Council Decision. In general, Article 3 of the
draft Council Decision clarifies that the objective of Europol
shall be to support the Member States" authorities in preventing
and combating organized crime, terrorism and other forms of serious
crime affecting two or more Member States.
As a result of joining the European family exchange
of data with other agencies relevant for Europol's work will be
facilitated, and this, too, should increase its effectiveness.
Finally, it will now be possible for Europol to create new data
bases. This should open the way to future developments in the
organization.
A key factor to the success of Europol, however,
rests with Member States. Naturally Europol's capacity to provide
the necessary added value in criminal analysis at EU level cannot
reach its full potential unless the Member States transmit the
relevant information and intelligence to Europol.
Do you feel there should be more direct linkage
between the Member States' security services and Europol than
there is at the moment, because at the moment it seems the linkage
is almost entirely with the police?
The first point to make in this context is that
Europol is a law enforcement organisation, not a security service.
The mandate of Europol for counter-terrorism issues therefore
has historically been limited to "crimes committed or likely
to be committed in the course of terrorist activities" (Article
2 Europol Convention). Europol's mandate under the new Europol
Decision is likely to be a bit wider, since it simply mentions
"terrorism" as part of Europol's mandate (Articles 3
and 4 draft Council Decision). The second point to consider is
that already in 2005, the Council decided that information related
to terrorist offences should be provided to Europol and Eurojust
(Council Decision 2005/671/JHA of 20 September 2005 on the exchange
of information and cooperation concerning terrorist offences).
Under this Decision, "all relevant information concerning
and resulting from criminal investigations conducted by its law
enforcement authorities with respect to terrorist offences"
must be transmitted to Europol, and "all relevant information
concerning prosecutions and convictions for terrorist offences"
must be transmitted to Eurojust. The European Commission supports
narrow contacts between all national authorities competent to
prevent and fight terrorism and Europol which can take place in
line with the applicable national and international legal framework.
17 July 2008
| 
