States draw line on anti-terror co-operation

By David Cronin

Date: 19/05/05

EU governments have decided to restrict the role of the judicial co-operation body Eurojust in the fight against terrorism.

Following the 11 March 2004 train bombings in Madrid, the European Commission recommended that EU countries should be obliged to exchange with Eurojust information on charges and convictions in terrorist cases and other crimes deemed relevant to terrorist investigations.

Denmark, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Italy and Greece expressed reservations about that idea when it was discussed at the Council's working group on organised crime. Some of these states' diplomats argued against having a mandatory exchange of information with the body, which is based in The Hague.

The UK, Sweden and Denmark have also argued that some details - such as personal data on individuals subject to an investigation or prosecution - should not be handed over to Eurojust under certain circumstances. These would include cases where it is feared that the information-sharing would harm national security interests, jeopardise the safety of individuals or the success of a probe.

At the other end of the spectrum, Germany, Spain and Poland are among the governments arguing that the grounds for refusing to share information should be narrower in scope.

Because of the diverging positions, a compromise has been brokered at the level of the working group, whereby the exchange of information would be limited to final convictions for terrorism offences and other crimes considered related to terrorism, rather than to prosecutions.

Eurojust was founded in 2002, three years after EU leaders had approved its establishment at a summit in Tampere. Comprising prosecutors, magistrates and police officers from member states, its original purpose was to help co-ordinate investigations in cross-border crime cases, particularly on files analysed by the police co-operation office Europol.

The 11 September 2001 attacks in New York and Washington led to Eurojust devoting greater attention to terrorism. It has been recently engaged in discussions with the US authorities about the possible use of evidence obtained by covert means in trials for terrorist offences.

Jelle van Buuren of Eurowatch, a Dutch group monitoring the EU justice and home affairs debate, said he could understand why there was a reluctance to liaise with Eurojust.

He said: "Most information is exchanged on a bilateral level more than on a European level. If Dutch teams co-operate with English teams, the information exchanged is held by those two teams. It's not France, Denmark and Germany that has access. When you exchange on a mandatory basis not only between the police services of member states but also with European bodies like Europol and Eurojust, you lose control of the information. And information is power."

Marisa Leaf of the civil liberties watchdog Justice said she was concerned that some EU governments wished to "emasculate" Eurojust. The body, she said, had much useful expertise and could play an important role in ensuring that the rights of individuals were protected during investigations.

The proposal on exchanging information is still being considered by EU governments. During recent discussions among EU diplomats, a number of member states advocated that the remit of the exchange should be confined to offences punishable by at least five years' imprisonment.

Sergio Carrera, a justice specialist with the Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels think-tank, said it was of "the utmost importance" that individuals should be able to mount a legal challenge to the transfer of personal data.

Article reports that EU Member States decided to restrict the role of the judicial co-operation body Eurojust in the fight against terrorism. After there was disagreement over the extent to which it should be mandatory for Member States to exchange information with Eurojust, a compromise was brokered at the level of a working group, whereby the exchange of information would be limited to final convictions for terrorism offences and other crimes considered related to terrorism, rather than to prosecutions.

• Primary Source

Website: Eurojust http://eurojust.europa.eu/

---