Europol ‘unprepared’ for the future

Proposals to reform Europol "lack cohesion" and could be more "courageous", according to the former deputy director of the police body.

Willy Bruggeman said that the proposals brought Europol up to date with changes that have been planned for years but did not prepare the organisation for the future. "What I see in the text now is that it is consolidating the current legal framework of Europol, modernising to some extent Europol’s functioning and maybe creating a basis for future developments. But future developments are not yet in the text as far as I see it," he said.

The proposals also failed to link Europol up with other security organisations, such as Frontex, the EU’s border agency, as a way of dealing with future threats, said Bruggeman. "I regret there is no global vision in the EU about security," he told a hearing in the European Parliament on Tuesday (10 April).

His comments come ahead of a meeting of interior ministers next week (20 April) when some member states are expected to protest that the proposed changes go too far. The Commission put forward proposals last December to change Europol into an EU agency and to broaden its mandate from focusing on cross-border organised crime to "serious" cross-border crime. This would allow Europol to offer member states support on countering child pornography, football hooliganism or serial killers. The proposals would also make it easier to make changes to Europol, giving the Council of Ministers, instead of national parliaments, the right to make changes to the body.

The proposals would give the Commission power over Europol’s budget and a greater say on its management board. Fears also exist that the changes would mean data protection safeguards would be watered down.

Member states are "extremely reluctant" to involve Europol in police activities, preferring bilateral co-operation between their police forces, said Bruggeman. Developments such as the Prüm treaty - which allows data exchange between member states but which was negotiated outside the EU and does not involve Europol - point to the prevalence of bilateral dealings, he added.

Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg, a Dutch Green MEP, questioned how this could be overcome. "How will Europol sort this out? How will they create an atmosphere conducive to co-operation? How can they prevent rivalry coming into play?" she asked.

Max-Peter Ratzel, the director of Europol, said that more trust had to be built up between member states and Europol, but that much had already been achieved since the body had been in existence since 1999.

David Smith, chairman of the Europol Joint Supervisory Body, which independently reviews Europol’s use of personal data, said that there was concern that the new proposals would water down data protection safeguards. In particular he said that the right of citizens to see information held on them by Europol should be strengthened and there should be a harmonised system across the member states for allowing such access. "The right of access should be a real right," said Smith.

Ratzel responded to concerns over what type of data Europol could begin collecting on individuals saying: "We need limited access to a limited number of data."

Proposals to reform Europol "lack cohesion" and could be more "courageous", according to the former deputy director of the police body.