Move to bring cross-border justice nearer

Date: 24/10/1996

By Mark Turner

MANY of the procedural loose ends of EU judicial cooperation could soon be tied up if Union ministers approve a wide-ranging convention to strengthen cross-border cooperation next month.

The Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which has been under discussion for over a year, is intended to cut red tape and to enable judicial authorities to send requests for information, key documents and even witnesses directly to each other whenever criminal proceedings cross EU boundaries.

And in order to overcome any physical constraints, the convention could enable courts in different countries to set up direct video links for witnesses in one member state to give evidence in another.

But the chances of an agreement when justice ministers meet on 28 November is uncertain given the sheer volume of detail to be resolved. A recent meeting of senior officials confirmed that difficulties still exist on such issues as cross-border surveillance and the right of 'hot pursuit'.

Measures to reduce lengthy and damaging bureaucratic delays would come as a welcome relief to judicial authorities since Europe's justice ministries are now facing an ever-growing backlog of demands for assistance as business and pleasure increasingly move more people between Union countries.

“We are at the moment using procedures designed in 1959, when few envisaged quite how many requests we would be receiving. It is clear that the EU needs faster and more efficient arrangements. This is the kind of action that the Union's justice and home affairs pillar should focus upon,” said a justice ministry official.

He added: “It would be one thing if these delays only caused civil servants heartaches. But while requests go unanswered, people could be sitting in jail.”

One major change under the convention would be to allow judicial authorities to contact each other directly, rather than through central administrations.

Under the procedure laid down by the 1959 Council of Europe mutual assistance convention, all applications are funnelled through a single point. In the past, the system was able to cope with the few demands made each year, but it has become impractical and inefficient in today's environment.

However, questions are being raised by countries such as the UK and Ireland. They accept the potential usefulness of such an approach, but are concerned about introducing it too soon.

They are advocating a transitional period during which governments, if they wished, would still be able to channel requests through central authorities.

Supporters of the convention accept that direct contact between judicial authorities could have its down side. In countries where criminal matters are dealt with by numerous different players, it could prove extremely difficult to know where to address a request. This has led to a sense of caution among negotiators. They believe the convention route is the right one, but are wary of creating total chaos and even longer delays.

Details are proving fiendishly difficult to draft. A plethora of practicalities needs to be settled - such as what language people should use, whose laws should take priority, and who should pay for the cost of requests.

Fresh ground rules will also need to be set for innovations such as the introduction of direct video links. For example, should the process require a witness' consent, as the Austrians claim, or should it be compulsory, as the French believe? In many cases the only formula appears to be: 'cooperate under these rules as long as your laws allow it', which some fear is a back door to letting things remain exactly as they were before.

Despite being an inherently practical initiative, the convention could still require member states to initiate some profound legislative changes. And national parliaments may prove less accommodating than official negotiators.