New move to secure future of Europol

Date: 19/10/1995

By Michael Mann

THE Spanish presidency has come forward with a new proposal for compromise aimed at settling the long-running dispute over the future of Europol, the European intelligence gathering agency.

Spain is suggesting that member states should be allowed to choose whether to give the European Court of Justice jurisdiction over the work of the body, say officials.

The new initiative may offer the chance of securing agreement on the outstanding parts of the Europol Convention, which has been blocked in Coreper (the Committee of Permanent Representatives) because of stubborn UK resistance to any suggestion that member states should be required to refer points of law arising from the work of Europol to the Luxembourg-based Court.

The dispute has been thrown into sharper focus by the recent refusal of the Dutch parliament to ratify the convention until the question of the Court's competence is settled.

Opinion throughout the Union is divided, but member state officials insist that every government except the UK accepts the need for some role for the European Court in Europol's activities.

The Benelux countries find themselves at one extreme, while the French have expressed a certain degree of sympathy for the UK position.

A new presidency paper, discussed briefly at last week's meeting of Coreper, proposes that only the highest court in each member state could refer cases to Luxembourg for pre-judicial rulings on Europol's work and that each member state would choose whether to do so or not.

UK resistance to anything that could be seen as undermining its national sovereignty has held up agreement on the wider legal framework for Europol, left for further consideration when the convention was signed in July this year.

Officials are not very optimistic of serious progress at the next formal meeting of justice and home affairs ministers on 23 November.

The matter was taken off the agenda of last weekend's informal meeting in La Gomera, despite lengthy discussions on a range of issues falling under the 'third pillar' of the Maastricht Treaty, justice and home affairs.

Failure to agree on legal questions relating to Europol has also held up a decision on the role of the Court in two other conventions, those on customs information and the protection of the EU's financial interests.

These are regarded as crucial elements in the EU's fight against fraud.

Recent debate has tended to concentrate on the more emotional question of Europol, but Dutch officials are insisting on the need to “find a uniform formula for all three conventions”. But one commented: “Having heard the British Conservatives recently, there doesn't seem much hope of any flexibility on third-pillar issues.”

A UK official, although tight-lipped on whether the suggested compromise might be acceptable, said: “As far as we are concerned, the issue is settled for the other two conventions. And there is nothing to stop member states ratifying the rest of Europol before the Court question is decided.”

The presidency will be aware of the difficulty in finding a suitable compromise on a question where unanimity is required.

With the undertaking at the Cannes summit to tie up the loose ends by June next year, only three formal Councils remain to forge an agreement, on 23/24 November, and in March and June 1996 under the Italian presidency.

The problems over Europol highlight the difficulties the Union will face next year over the future of the justice and home affairs pillar in the Intergovernmental Conference.