| Author (Person) | Crosbie, Judith |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.12, No.21, 1.6.06 |
| Publication Date | 01/06/2006 |
| Content Type | News |
|
Date: 01/06/06 The Austrian government, holder of the presidency of the Council of Ministers for just one more month, is hoping for a breakthrough over the European Evidence Warrant at a meeting of EU justice ministers this week (1-2 June). It will be a test of the member states' political will to make progress on issues in the sensitive realm of justice and security. The European Commission has been stepping up the rhetorical pressure, with Commission President Jos�anuel Barroso citing the lack of consensus over the evidence warrant as a reason for lifting national vetoes on some matters of policing and judicial co-operation. "Should we wait for another terrorist atrocity before we have effective joint decisions across Europe to fight terrorism?" he asked recently. The evidence warrant proposal, which aims to simplify and speed up the gathering and transfer of data between member states, has been blocked repeatedly in the Council of Ministers by Germany, which has insisted on a definition of crimes falling under the warrant's scope. Most member states are opposed to the idea of defining crimes in the proposal as this would effectively mean harmonising criminal law across the EU. Austria believes it may have found a way around the problem by allowing Germany to refer to United Nations or Council of Europe definitions for six out of the 32 crimes which come under the scope of the evidence warrant. If the alleged crimes appeared to fall outside these definitions, Germany would be allowed to opt out of carrying out a member state's request for evidence. The sensitive crimes for Germany include 'new' types of offences such as cyber crime, terrorism, racism, sabotage and racketeering. The compromise would be reviewed after five years. Germany insists its problem with the proposal arises out of a constitutional court ruling on an earlier piece of EU legislation, the European arrest warrant, which was adopted by the Council in 2002. This ruling stated that the law as transposed into the German statue books was not consistent with German constitutional requirements for the definition of crimes, whereby an accused person has a right to know specifically of what crime he or she is being accused. The court maintained that the definitions of some of the crimes listed in the arrest warrant were open to dispute. The German parliament backed the claim and the German government has since told the Council of Ministers that the evidence warrant presented similar problems. According to one EU official, because the court decision was seen as a rebuke to the German ministry of justice for drafting a bad law, the ministry is now being "a bit too careful" on what laws are agreed at European level. The majority of member states are eager to see the measure agreed and do not want it changed in a way that would be inconsistent with previous EU justice instruments, such as the arrest warrant. Some member states, particularly Spain, are said to be furious with Germany over its stance. But given that Germany - normally a champion of Commission proposals - is presenting the main obstacle, the matter needs to be handled delicately. "It is odd for Germany to be isolated in this way," said one EU official. The Netherlands has separately requested that the evidence warrant contain a territorial clause that would exempt it from gathering evidence requested by another country where a crime was wholly or partially committed outside the Netherlands. The Dutch put the request forward out of fears that they would be inundated with countries seeking evidence over crimes involving drugs that came from the Netherlands. They had seemed willing to accept a softened-down measure which would be reviewed after a period of time. But EU officials said their views had hardened recently, especially since they had attracted Danish support. A recent meeting of EU ambassadors to try to hammer out compromises for Germany and the Netherlands has lowered expectations of a result. If no compromise is reached, then, given that the Austrian presidency has been working hard to find a solution, there may simply be no point in Finland, the next holder of the Council presidency, trying to advance it. But that would leave member states vulnerable to accusations that they were unready to match their fine words on judicial co-operation with political action. Article reports that the Austrian Presidency of the Council was hoping for a breakthrough over the European Evidence Warrant at a meeting of EU justice ministers on 1-2 June 2006. Germany had given constitutional reasons for its reservations in this matter. Author suggests that the issue was to be a test of the Member States' political will to make progress in the sensitive realm of justice and security. |
|
| Source Link | http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Justice and Home Affairs |
| Countries / Regions | Austria, Europe, Germany |
