Tag Archives: Police cooperation

Prevention and control of hooliganism

Leave a reply

Prevention and control of hooliganism

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Prevention and control of hooliganism

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Education training youth sport > Sport

Prevention and control of hooliganism

Document or Iniciative

Council Recommendation of 22 April 1996 on guidelines for preventing and restraining disorder connected with football matches [Official Journal C 131 of 3.5.1996].

Council Resolution of 9 June 1997 on preventing and restraining football hooliganism through the exchange of experience, exclusion from stadiums and media policy [Official Journal C 193 of 24.6.1997].

Council Resolution of 21 June 1999 concerning a handbook for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with international football matches [Official Journal C 196 of 13.7.1999].

Council Resolution of 6 December 2001 concerning a handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension [Official Journal C 22 of 24.1.2002].

Summary

EU action to combat hooliganism is based mainly on the 1985 Council of Europe Convention on Spectator Violence and Misbehaviour at Sports Events and in Particular at Football Matches and on the Joint Action with regard to cooperation on law and order and security. However, a number of other instruments have been adopted by the Council since the Treaty of Maastricht.

Prevention and control of hooliganism: Community acts

In 1996 the Council adopted a Recommendation that:

Member States should use a common format for police intelligence reports about known or suspected groups of troublemakers. These should be exchanged via the network of football hooliganism correspondents set up in 1994;

  • information should be exchanged about techniques for preventing disorder, and joint training courses organised for police officers from the different Member States;
  • provision should be made for requesting reinforcements from the police forces of other Member States for particular football matches;
  • there should be close cooperation between police officers and stewards in those Member States where this role exists, so as to ensure the best possible division of responsibilities.

In 1997 the Council passed a Resolution calling for:

  • stadium exclusions imposed under domestic law to apply throughout the EU;
  • an annual report to be produced on hooliganism;
  • more care to be taken over media strategy;
  • an annual meeting of experts to be arranged for the exchange of relevant experience.

In 1999 the Council produced a handbook aimed at the police forces of the Member States. This contained practical examples of working methods for developing police cooperation to prevent and control violence and disturbances at international football matches. It includes provisions on:

  • the content and scope of police cooperation (preparations by police forces, organising cooperation between them before the event, information management);
  • relations between the police and the media;
  • cooperation between police forces and stewards;
  • admission policy and ticketing policy.

In the light of experience in recent years (such as the European Championships – Euro 2000) and developments in international police cooperation in this field, the Council Resolution of 6 December 2001 calls for the Member States to step up cooperation.

A handbook aimed at police forces is annexed to this resolution (which replaces the Council resolution of 29 June 1999). The new version of the handbook will include provisions on:

  • the exchange and management of information by the police;
  • cooperation between the police forces in the organising country and the participating countries;
  • cooperation between the police and the organisers of a football match.

The Council does not rule out the possibility that forms of police cooperation established for football matches might be extended to other sporting events.

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Leave a reply

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Education training youth sport > Sport

Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2002/348/JHA of 25 April 2002 concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension [See amending act(s)].

Summary

Adopted on the initiative of the Kingdom of Belgium, this decision provides for a national football information centre to be set up and run by the police in each Member State. Member States must forward the details of their national centre to the General Secretariat of the Council. In addition, they must ensure that their national centre has the staff and technical equipment necessary to fulfil its duties effectively and rapidly.

The national football information centres are responsible for:

  • gathering, coordinating and exchanging strategic, operational and tactical information on football matches with an international dimension;
  • coordinating and organising cooperation between national police authorities;
  • risk assessment in respect of their own country’s clubs and national team;
  • generic/thematic disorder assessments of their national football situation.

The national football information centre of the Member State organising the football event cooperates with the police force of the country concerned. All exchanged reports are kept on record for consultation by other interested national information centres. The national centre that provided the information must be consulted before any data is released.

The handbook for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disorder around football matches provides the forms for the exchange of information.

The exchange of personal data must take place in accordance with the Convention of the Council of Europe of 28 January 1981 for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data.

National football information centres communicate in their national language, with a translation in a working language common to the parties concerned, unless they have arranged otherwise.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 2002/348/JHA

9.5.2002

–

OJ L 121 of 8.5.2002
Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 2007/412/JHA

16.6.2007

–

OJ L 155 of 15.6.2007

Related Acts

Council Resolution of 4 December 2006 concerning an updated handbook with recommendations for international police cooperation and measures to prevent and control violence and disturbances in connection with football matches with an international dimension, in which at least one Member State is involved [Official Journal C 322 of 29.12.2006].

Council Resolution of 17 November 2003 on the use by Member States of bans on access to venues of football matches with an international dimension [Official Journal C 281 of 22.11.2003].

Police and customs cooperation

Leave a reply

Police and customs cooperation

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Police and customs cooperation

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Police and customs cooperation

Police and customs cooperation

The protection of citizens requires better mutual assistance and exchanges of information between the law enforcement agencies of Member States. In particular, it is imperative that cooperation between national police as well as customs authorities be stepped-up to effectively fight crime at both local and European levels.
Mutual assistance between police services is based on bodies such as Europol and the European Police College (Cepol). Customs cooperation is based on the Naples II Convention.
In addition, various instruments have been put in place to achieve police and customs cooperation targets. These include the specific programme “Prevention of and fight against crime”, the Customs 2013 programme and the modernised customs code.

POLICE COOPERATION

  • Standing Committee on operational cooperation on internal security
  • Cooperation between special intervention units
  • Stepping up cross-border cooperation (Prüm Decision)
  • Cooperation in criminal matters: protection of personal data
  • Simplifying the exchange of information between law enforcement authorities
  • Joint investigation teams
  • Sharing of information on terrorist kidnappings
  • A global approach to PNR data transfers
  • Information management in the area of freedom, security and justice
  • The external dimension of the area of freedom, security and justice
  • Exchange of information between the law enforcement authorities of the Member States
  • Enhancing police and customs cooperation in the European Union
  • Improved effectiveness, enhanced interoperability and synergies between European databases

Action programmes

  • Specific programme: Preventing and combating crime (2007-2013)
  • Framework programme concerning police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (AGIS)
  • Robert Schuman project (1998-2000)

Europol

  • European Police Office – Europol (from 1.1.2010)
  • Access to the Visa Information System (VIS) by the national authorities and Europol
  • Protecting the euro against counterfeiting: the role of Europol
  • The European Police College (CEPOL)
  • Secretariat for the joint supervisory data-protection bodies
  • Democratic control over Europol
  • Transmission of personal data by Europol
  • Europol: European Police Office (until 31.12.2009)

Maintaining public order and safety

  • European network for the protection of public figures
  • Security in connection with football matches with an international dimension
  • Exchange of information on movements of groups
  • Prevention and control of hooliganism

CUSTOMS COOPERATION

  • Customs 2013 (2008-2013)
  • Action programme: Customs 2007 (2003-2007)
  • Money laundering: prevention through customs cooperation
  • International convention on the simplification and harmonisation of customs procedures
  • Convention on mutual assistance and cooperation between customs administrations (Naples II)
  • Strategy for the evolution of the Customs Union
  • The role of customs in the integrated management of external borders
  • Strategy for the Customs Union

Agreements with non-EU countries

  • Customs Agreement with Japan
  • Agreement with China
  • Agreement with India
  • Agreement with Hong Kong
  • Agreement with Canada
  • Agreement with the Republic of Korea

Cooperation between special intervention units

Leave a reply

Cooperation between special intervention units

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Cooperation between special intervention units

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Police and customs cooperation

Cooperation between special intervention units

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2008/617/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the improvement of cooperation between the special intervention units of the Member States of the European Union in crisis situations.

Summary

This Decision sets out the general rules and conditions for the cooperation of Member States’ special intervention units* in situations of crisis*. Cooperation is based on the provision of assistance and/or on the carrying out of operations on the territory of the requesting Member State. The details for implementing the practical aspects of the cooperation are settled between the requesting and the requested Member States directly.

The competent authority* of a Member State processes the request for assistance from another Member State’s special intervention unit. The request must specify the nature of and the operational necessity for the assistance. The requested Member State’s competent authority may either accept or refuse the request, or propose assistance in another form.

The assistance provided may consist of:

  • equipment;
  • expertise;
  • carrying out operations on the requesting Member State’s territory.

When carrying out operations, the requested Member State’s special intervention unit has a supporting role. It is to provide the assistance under the responsibility, authority and direction of the requesting Member State. While the operations fall under the jurisdiction of the requesting Member State, the requested Member State’s officers may act only within the limits of their powers as defined by their national law.

The Member States taking part in this form of cooperation must ensure that experience, expertise and information on managing crisis situations are exchanged. To this end, the special intervention units are to hold meetings and joint trainings and exercises. These may be funded from certain Community financial programmes. Hence, the responsibility for the organisation of these events lies with the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union. All operational costs however, including those of the requested Member State’s special intervention unit, are to be borne by the requesting Member State, unless the cooperating Member States decide otherwise.

An up-to-date list of the Member States’ competent authorities is maintained by the General Secretariat of the Council.

Background

The Council Declaration on Solidarity against Terrorism of 25 March 2004 established the basis for cooperation between Member States in the event of terrorist attacks.

Council Decision 2008/617/JHA complements Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, whose article 18 lays down the obligation for Member States to provide one another assistance in connection with mass gatherings, disasters and serious accidents.

Key terms used in the act

  • Special intervention unit: any law enforcement unit of a Member State that is specialised in the control of a crisis situation.
  • Crisis situation: any situation in which the competent authorities of a Member State have reasonable grounds to believe that there is a criminal offence presenting a serious direct physical threat to persons, property, infrastructure or institutions of that Member State.
  • Competent authority: the national authority that may make requests and give authorisations regarding the deployment of the special intervention units.

References

Act

Entry into force

Deadline for transposition in the Member States

Official Journal

Decision 2008/617/JHA

23.12.2008

–

OJ L 210 of 6.8.2008

Stepping up cross-border cooperation

Leave a reply

Stepping up cross-border cooperation

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Stepping up cross-border cooperation

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Police and customs cooperation

Stepping up cross-border cooperation (Prüm Decision)

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2008/615/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime.

Summary

The purpose of this decision is to step up cross-border police and judicial cooperation between European Union (EU) countries in criminal matters. In particular, it aims to improve the exchanges of information between the authorities responsible for the prevention and investigation of criminal offences. The decision sets out provisions with regard to:

  • the automated access to DNA profiles *, dactyloscopic data * and certain national vehicle registration data;
  • supply of data in relation to major events;
  • supply of information in order to prevent terrorist offences;
  • other measures for stepping up cross-border police cooperation.

Establishment of national databases and automated access to data

EU countries are to establish national DNA analysis files for the purpose of investigating criminal offences. Reference data, consisting of the non-coding part of the DNA * and of a reference number that does not enable an individual to be identified, must be made available to other EU countries to carry out automated searches *. These searches are performed via national contact points by comparing DNA profiles, but only on the basis of individual cases and in a hit/no-hit * manner. If the search provides a match, the national contact point carrying out the search receives the reference data in an automated manner. If no profile is found for a particular individual who is under investigation or against whom criminal proceedings have been brought, the requested EU country may be obliged to establish a DNA profile for that individual.

EU countries must also make available reference data from the national automated fingerprint identification systems (AFIS). For this purpose, the reference data will consist only of dactyloscopic data and a reference number. The searches are carried out by comparing dactyloscopic data and, similarly to DNA searches, only in individual cases on a hit/no-hit basis. Confirmation of the match is conducted by the national contact point of the requesting EU country. Supply of further available personal data for matching DNA or dactyloscopic data and other information relating to the reference data is governed by national law, including the mutual legal assistance (MLA) in the requested EU country.

The national contact points shall also be given access to certain national vehicle registration data via automated online searches. These searches may only be conducted with a full chassis or registration number.

Supply of data in relation to major events

In relation to any major events that have a cross-border dimension, EU countries must provide each other non-personal data via their national contact points, as required for the purpose of preventing criminal offences and maintaining public order and security. Personal data may be supplied only if the data subjects are considered a threat to public order and security or if it is believed that they will commit criminal offences at the events. However, this data may only be used in relation to the event it was provided for and must be deleted once it has served its purpose, but no later than a year after it was supplied.

Supply of information to fight terrorism

For the purpose of preventing terrorist offences, but only in individual cases and to the extent required by the conditions leading to the supposition that criminal offences will be committed, EU countries may provide the following data to each other via the national contact points:

  • surname and first names;
  • date and place of birth;
  • description of the conditions leading to the supposition that criminal offences will be committed.

The country providing this data may impose certain binding conditions on the receiving country for the data usage.

Other measures for enhancing cross-border police cooperation

EU countries may effectuate joint patrols and other joint operations to prevent criminal offences and to maintain public order and security on a given EU country’s territory. In such cases, designated officers and officials from the seconding country participate in the hosting country’s operations. The seconding officers may be conferred executive powers, or they may be allowed to exercise their executive powers, but only under the guidance and in the presence of the host officers. The competent authority of the host country is responsible for the command and actions of the seconding officers.

With regard to mass gatherings and other comparable major events, disasters and serious accidents, EU countries are to provide mutual assistance to each other. This assistance should consist of information exchanges, coordination of police measures and contribution of material and physical resources.

An EU country must provide assistance and protection to the other country’s officers on duty, which is equivalent to that provided for its own officers.

Provisions on data protection

EU countries must guarantee that personal data processed according to this decision is protected by their national laws. Only the relevant competent authorities may process personal data. They must ensure the accuracy and current relevance of the data. Steps must be taken to rectify or delete incorrect data or data that was supplied when it should not have been. Personal data must be deleted if no longer needed for the purpose it was made available or if the storage time, as provided by national law, has expired.

The relevant authorities must take technical and organisational measures to protect personal data against destruction, loss, unauthorised access, alteration or disclosure. For the purpose of verifying the permissibility of the non-automated processing of personal data, this processing must be logged. Similarly, the automated processing of personal data must be recorded. The independent data protection authorities in EU countries are responsible for the legal examinations of the processing of personal data.

Any individual has the right to information on the data that has been processed in relation to his/her person, including information on the origin of the data, the recipients of the data and the purpose and legal basis for the processing of the data. The individual may request corrections to or the deletion of inaccurate or unlawfully processed data. If the individual’s rights with regard to data protection have been violated, he/she may lodge a complaint with an independent court or a tribunal and claim for damages or other legal compensation.

Background

The conclusions of the Tampere European Council of October 1999 asserted the need to enhance the exchange of law enforcement information between EU countries, which was further confirmed by the Hague Programme of November 2004.

The Prüm Treaty of 27 May 2005 on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly on combating terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration, signed between Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria, lays down procedures for more efficient exchanges of information in the framework of criminal investigations. This decision aims to incorporate the provisions of that Treaty into the EU legal framework.

Key terms used in the act
  • Dactyloscopic data: fingerprint images, images of fingerprint latents, palm prints, palm print latents and templates of such images that are stored and dealt with in an automated database.
  • Non-coding part of DNA: chromosome regions that are not expressed genetically.
  • DNA profile: a letter or number code that represents a set of identification characteristics of the non-coding part of an analysed human DNA sample.
  • Automated searching: an online access procedure for consulting the databases of one, several, or all of the EU countries.
  • Hit/no-hit procedure: in this procedure the parties grant each other limited access to the reference data in their national DNA and fingerprint databases and the right to use these data to conduct automated checks of fingerprints and DNA profiles. The personal information related to the reference data is not available to the requesting party.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Decision 2008/615/JHA

26.8.2008

26.8.2009
(26.8.2011 for Chapter 2 provisions)

OJ L 210 of 6.8.2008

Related Acts

Council Decision 2008/616/JHA of 23 June 2008 on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime [Official Journal L 210 of 6.8.2008].

This decision provides the administrative and technical provisions that are indispensable for implementing Decision 2008/615/JHA. The focus is especially on the automated exchanges of DNA, dactyloscopic and vehicle registration data, as well as on other forms of cooperation. The technical provisions are set out in the annex to the decision.

Council Decision 2010/482/EU of 26 July 2010 on the conclusion of the Agreement between the European Union and Iceland and Norway on the application of certain provisions of Council Decision 2008/516/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime and Council Decision 2008/616/JHA on the implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime, and the Annex thereto [Official Journal L 238 of 9.9.2010].

Area of freedom, security and justice

Leave a reply

Area of freedom, security and justice

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Area of freedom, security and justice

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Institutional affairs > Building europe through the treaties > The Lisbon Treaty: a comprehensive guide

Area of freedom, security and justice

The Treaty of Lisbon intends to reinforce the establishment of a European common area within which persons move freely and benefit from effective legal protection. The creation of such an area has implications for areas in which European citizens have high expectations, such as immigration and the fight against organised crime and terrorism. These issues have a significant cross-border dimension and therefore require effective cooperation at European level.

The Treaty of Lisbon divides the themes related to the area of freedom, security and justice into four fields:

  • policies related to border control, asylum and immigration;
  • judicial cooperation in civil matters;
  • judicial cooperation in criminal matters;
  • police cooperation.

Matters relating to criminal judicial cooperation and police cooperation were previously covered by the 3rd pillar of the European Union (EU), governed by intergovernmental cooperation. Under the framework of the 3rd pillar, European institutions did not have any competences and could therefore not adopt regulations or directives. The Treaty of Lisbon puts an end to this distinction and henceforth enables the EU to intervene in all matters related to the area of freedom, security and justice.

BORDER CONTROL, ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION

The Treaty of Lisbon attributes new competences to the European institutions, which can henceforth adopt measures with a view to:

  • establishing common management of the EU’s external borders; in particular through the strengthening of the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders, known as Frontex;
  • creating a common European asylum system; such a system will be based on a uniform European status and common procedures for the granting and withdrawing of asylum;
  • establishing rules, conditions and rights in relation to legal immigration.

JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS

The Treaty of Lisbon authorises the European institutions to adopt new measures concerning:

  • the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition: each judicial system must recognise decisions adopted by the judicial systems of the other Member States as valid and applicable;
  • effective access to justice;
  • the development of alternative methods of dispute settlement;
  • the training of the judiciary and judicial staff.

JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

With the abolition of the 3rd pillar of the EU, the whole of criminal judicial cooperation becomes a field in which the European institutions may legislate.

Specifically, the European institutions may henceforth establish minimum rules concerning the definition and sanctioning of the most serious criminal offences. In addition, the EU may also intervene in the definition of common rules concerning the functioning of criminal procedure, for example with regard to the admissibility of evidence or the rights of individuals.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Lisbon intends to strengthen the role of Eurojust in the EU. Eurojust’s mission is to help coordinate investigations and prosecutions between the competent authorities of Member States. Currently, Eurojust only has the power to make proposals: it can request national authorities to initiate investigations or prosecutions. Henceforth, the Treaty of Lisbon offers the European institutions the option of extending the missions and powers of Eurojust with the ordinary legislative procedure.

Moreover, the Treaty of Lisbon considers the possible creation of an actual European Public Prosecutor’s Office from Eurojust. Such an office would have significant powers as it could investigate, prosecute and bring to judgment the perpetrators of crimes. In addition, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office would itself be capable of exercising the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of Member States.

Nevertheless, the Treaty of Lisbon does not yet establish the European public prosecutor’s office, but merely authorises the Council, acting unanimously, to adopt a regulation in this regard. If the Council does not reach unanimity, then nine Member States, at the least, will have the option of establishing a European public prosecutor’s office between them under the framework of enhanced cooperation.

POLICE COOPERATION

As with criminal judicial cooperation, police cooperation benefits from the abolition of the 3rd pillar of the EU. Henceforth, the European institutions will be capable of adopting regulations and directives in this field.

The ordinary legislative procedure is thereby extended to all non-operational aspects of police cooperation. In contrast, operational cooperation will be determined through a special legislative procedure requiring Council unanimity. However, the Treaty of Lisbon also provides for the option of establishing enhanced cooperation if unanimity is not reached by the Council.

Furthermore, the Treaty of Lisbon provides for the gradual strengthening of the European Police Office (Europol). As with Eurojust, the Treaty of Lisbon henceforth authorises the Council and the Parliament to develop the missions and powers of Europol under the framework of the ordinary legislative procedure. Currently, the role of Europol is limited to facilitating cooperation between the authorities of Member States. The Treaty of Lisbon specifies that new tasks could also include the coordination, organisation and implementation of operational actions.

EXEMPTIONS

The United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark benefit from special arrangements, which include all the measures adopted under the framework of the area of freedom, security and justice. These three countries have the option of deciding not to participate in the legislative procedures in this field. They will, therefore, not be bound by the adopted measures.

In addition, two types of derogating clause are applied to the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark:

  • an “opt-in” clause which enables each of them to participate, on a case by case basis, in the adoption procedure for a measure or the application of a measure already adopted. They will then be bound by this measure in the same way as other Member States;
  • an “opt-out” clause enabling them not to apply a measure at any time.

Immigration liaison officers' network

Leave a reply

Immigration liaison officers’ network

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Immigration liaison officers’ network

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Free movement of persons asylum and immigration

Immigration liaison officers’ network

Document or Iniciative

Council Regulation (EC) No 377/2004 of 19 February 2004 on the creation of an immigration liaison officers network [See amending act(s)].

Summary

Each Member State posts an immigration liaison officer (ILO) * to its consular authorities in a non-Member State. The ILO maintains direct contacts with the authorities in the host country in order to improve exchanges of information concerning:

  • flows of illegal immigrants originating from or transiting through the host country;
  • the routes followed by those flows of immigrants;
  • their modus operandi;
  • the existence of criminal organisations involved in the smuggling of immigrants;
  • the incidents that may be the cause for new developments with respect to these flows of immigrants;
  • the methods used for falsifying identity documents and travel documents;
  • how best to assist the authorities in host countries in preventing these immigration flows;
  • how best to facilitate the return of illegal immigrants to their countries of origin.

Member States inform one another, the Council and the Commission of their secondments of immigration liaison officers. This information is published on the secure web-based network for the coordination and exchange of information on irregular migration (ICONet).

ILO posted to the same country form a local network in which they:

  • exchange information and practical experience, specifically through regular meetings and via ICONet;
  • coordinate positions to be adopted in contacts with commercial carriers;
  • attend joint specialised training courses and organise training sessions for consular officers of Member States posted in the host country;
  • adopt common approaches as to methods of gathering information;
  • establish contact with similar networks established in the host country and neighbouring countries.

Meetings are held either at the initiative of the Member State holding the Council presidency or at the initiative of other Member States. Representatives of the European Commission and the Frontex agency participate in them, unless operational considerations require meetings to be held in their absence.

Member States may bilaterally or multilaterally agree that ILOs posted by a European Union (EU) country also look after the interests of one or more other Member States. They may also decide to share certain tasks among themselves.

At the end of each semester the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council of the EU draws up a report for the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on the activities of the ILOs in the countries and regions of particular interest to the EU with regard to immigration. This report is drawn up in accordance with a model provided in Commission Decision 2005/687/EC. On the basis of this report, the Commission then drafts an annual summary of the development of the ILO networks.

Context

This Regulation follows on from the plan for the management of the external borders of the Member States of the EU, which envisages the setting up of networks of immigration liaison officers posted in non-Member States.

Following the Thessaloniki European Council in June 2003 and drawing on experience gained in project management, such as the Belgian-led Western Balkans ILO network, the existence of the network was formally recognised through a legally binding act.

Key terms used in the act
  • Immigration liaison officer: a representative of a Member State posted abroad by the immigration service in order to establish and maintain contacts with the authorities of the host country with a view to contributing to the prevention of illegal immigration and combating this phenomenon.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Regulation (EC) No 377/2004

5.10.2004

_

OJ L 316, 15.12.2000
Amending act(s) Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal

Regulation (EC) No 493/2011

16.6.2011

_

OJ L 141, 27.5.2011

Related Act

Council Decision 2005/267/EC of 16 March 2005 establishing a secure web-based Information and Coordination Network for Member States’ Migration Management Services [Official Journal L 83 of 1.4.2055].

The ICONet network enables Member States to exchange information quickly on illegal migration flows, irregular entry and immigration and the return of illegal residents. The aim is to combat irregular immigration and human trafficking more effectively.

Strengthening the Schengen area

Leave a reply

Strengthening the Schengen area

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Strengthening the Schengen area

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Free movement of persons asylum and immigration

Strengthening the Schengen area

Document or Iniciative

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 16 September 2011 — Schengen governance — strengthening the area without internal border control [COM(2011) 561 final – Not published in the Official Journal].

Summary

The revolutions which took place in the southern Mediterranean in the spring of 2011 led to a significant influx of immigrants into some European Union (EU) Member States. These events highlighted the need to make the Schengen area (the EU territory in which the free movement of persons is exercised) better able to react to exceptional situations.

It is clear that the external borders of Europe must be managed in an efficient and consistent manner, on the basis of joint responsibility, solidarity and greater practical cooperation.

Strengthening the management of the Schengen area

Some measures already exist to help Member States facing critical situations and to enable them to fulfil their commitments. In particular, they can obtain financial and practical support through EU funds and can address the European Asylum Support Office or the Frontex Agency which can deploy Rapid Border Intervention Teams to external borders.

Furthermore, the Commission has proposed to strengthen the Schengen evaluation mechanism. This mechanism will monitor EU countries to ensure that they apply the Schengen area rules correctly. According to the new proposed approach, monitoring will be carried out at European level through inspections conducted by Commission and Member State teams. These inspections will result in a report containing the measures to be taken by the country concerned. A follow-up procedure will be put in place to ensure that the recommendations are implemented.

Furthermore, the Commission will present a biannual overview on the functioning of the Schengen area. This overview will provide the basis for a strengthening of cooperation in the Schengen area and will increase mutual trust between Member States, which are jointly responsible for ensuring that all the Schengen rules are actually applied.

Specific support measures are proposed for cases where the evaluation of a Member State reveals serious shortcomings with regard to controls at external borders or the procedure for returning migrants to their country of origin. If the shortcomings are not dealt with, and as a last resort, a European mechanism is proposed which aims to temporarily re-introduce internal border controls.

Putting in place a European mechanism in exceptional circumstances

The Schengen Borders Code already provides the option for a Member State to re-introduce controls at its internal borders where there is a serious threat to public policy or internal security. However, this only relates to a decision taken at national level.

However, the human and economic consequences of such a decision, which affects all the people living in the Schengen area, are not limited to the Member State concerned. In order for the interests of the whole of the Union to be taken into account, the Commission proposes to establish a European mechanism which would enable the decision to be taken by the EU rather than unilaterally by one Member State.

The decision to re-introduce the internal border controls of a Member State will be taken by the Commission for renewable periods of 30 days and, in principle, for a maximum duration of 6 months. It must be a measure of last resort where all other measures have been ineffective. The decision will be taken only when a Member State is confronted by a serious threat to public policy or internal security. It may also concern:

  • a short-term and largely localised situation (for example, major sporting events, high-profile political meetings or terrorist attacks);
  • a situation with wider and longer-term implications, particularly in the case of serious border failure of a Member State at its external borders.

However, in emergencies, EU countries will retain the option to unilaterally re-introduce controls at their internal borders for a limited period of 5 days.

However, in the case of controls being re-introduced, the country or countries concerned must guarantee European citizens or third-country nationals residing legally in the Schengen area the right to move and live freely on EU territory. The latter may therefore still enter the territory of another Member State simply by presenting their passport, identity card or travel document.

RELATED ACTS

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 in order to provide for common rules on the temporary reintroduction of border control at internal borders in exceptional circumstances [COM(2011) 560 final — Not published in the Official Journal].

Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2011 on the establishment of an evaluation and monitoring mechanism to verify the application of the Schengen acquis [COM(2011) 559 final — Not published in the Official Journal].

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 4 May 2011 — Communication on migration [COM(2011) 248 final — Not published in the Official Journal].

Plan on best practices, standards and procedures

Leave a reply

Plan on best practices, standards and procedures

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about Plan on best practices, standards and procedures

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Fight against trafficking in human beings

Plan on best practices, standards and procedures

Document or Iniciative

EU plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings [Official Journal C 311 of 9.12.2005].

Summary

The Hague Programme, adopted by the European Council in November 2004, invited the Commission and the Council to establish a plan in 2005 for developing common standards, best practices and mechanisms to prevent and combat trafficking in human beings.

General principles governing implementation of the action plan

In the communication to the Parliament and the Council of 18 October 2005 on fighting trafficking in human beings, the Commission laid down the specific means necessary for developing an integrated approach to tackling trafficking in human beings. This approach is based on respect for human rights and a coordinated policy response, notably in the areas of freedom, security and justice, external relations, development cooperation, social affairs and employment, gender equality and non-discrimination.

It is vital to improve our collective understanding of the issues involved in human trafficking. In particular, it is important to understand its root causes in the countries of origin and the factors that facilitate its development in the countries of destination, as well as its links with other forms of crime. In order to improve our knowledge of the scale and nature of this phenomenon as it concerns the European Union (EU), common guidelines need to be developed by autumn 2006 on the collection of data, including comparable indicators. A common research template needs to be developed for EU countries in order to increase research in specific areas, starting with child trafficking.

The EU recognises that it is indispensable to ensure that the human rights of victims of human trafficking are respected at every stage of the process. EU countries should set up an appropriate governmental coordination structure to evaluate and coordinate national policies and to ensure that the victims are treated appropriately.

EU countries and the Commission should implement policies that reinforce the criminalisation of human trafficking, protecting vulnerable groups such as women and children in particular.

The EU’s policy in this area should aim for a child’s rights approach based on internationally recognised principles. In particular, the policy should respect the principles set out in the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and take account of the Council of Europe Action Programme on Children and Violence (2006-08).

Gender-specific strategies should be adopted as a key element in combating trafficking in women and girls. This includes implementing gender equality principles and eliminating demand for all forms of exploitation, including sexual exploitation and domestic labour exploitation.

A number of actions to prevent trafficking in human beings will be taken by the end of 2006. For example, EU campaign materials will be prepared to raise awareness of the dangers involved and to publicise crime prevention and criminal justice in order to deter traffickers. A network of media contacts will be created on trafficking to raise public awareness of successes within and outside the EU.

Human trafficking is a serious crime against persons that must be addressed as a clear law enforcement priority. It must be converted from a “low risk/high reward enterprise for organised crime” into a high risk/low reward activity. The EU should step up its operations to ensure that trafficking in human beings does not generate any economic advantage and, where profits are made, to seize and confiscate all of them.

There should be increased cooperation with the agencies responsible for the control of working conditions and for financial investigations related to irregular labour in order to combat human trafficking for labour exploitation.

In the same way, the law enforcement agencies need to work more with Europol, which should regularly participate in exchanges of information, joint operations and joint investigative teams. Eurojust should also be consulted to facilitate the prosecution of traffickers.

Strategies to combat human trafficking should be coordinated with strategies to combat corruption and poverty. Employers’ organisations, trade unions and civil society organisations active in this field should also cooperate with the public authorities. EU countries and institutions must continue to cooperate with the relevant international organisations, such as the United Nations, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

Regional solutions for the prevention of trafficking in human beings and the protection of its victims are essential. EU countries and the Commission should make greater efforts to promote regional initiatives that supplement and inspire cooperation at EU level.

This action plan will be revised and updated regularly. The annexed table of actions will facilitate regular evaluation and updates.

Related Acts

Commission working document of 17 October 2008 – Evaluation and monitoring of the implementation of the EU plan on best practices, standards and procedures for combating and preventing trafficking in human beings [COM(2008) 657 final – Not published in the Official Journal].
This report provides an overview of the implementation of anti-trafficking measures in the EU countries and Norway, as well as by the EU bodies.
The approximation of EU countries’ anti-trafficking legislation has proceeded rapidly in the past years, especially with regard to criminal law and victim assistance. However, there are large inconsistencies between adopting and implementing legislation. Furthermore, the Commission is contemplating the revision of the framework decision on trafficking. In this manner, the support mechanisms for victims will also be made more effective. The law enforcement and judicial cooperation at an international level has increased as well; nevertheless, more efforts need to be made. Government coordination mechanisms are also now set up, but work needs to still be done on monitoring systems.
The relevant EU bodies have also taken steps to implement certain anti-trafficking measures. Yet, considerable weaknesses still exist in practice and some measures remain to be implemented altogether.
In continuing with the EU anti-trafficking policy, the Commission is proposing that, in the short term, efforts be concentrated on the following crucial actions:

  • the establishment of National Rapporteurs, especially for monitoring purposes;
  • the creation or improvement of national mechanisms for the identification of and referral to victim support services;
  • the creation or improvement of child protection systems;
  • the provision of support, including financial, to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) active in the field;
  • the organisation of trainings for relevant stakeholders;
  • the improvement of coordination of investigations and prosecutions;
  • the further development of cooperation on anti-trafficking measures with the EU’s external partner countries.

The outcomes of this plan will be used as the basis for a new post-2009 strategy.

The European Police College

Leave a reply

The European Police College

Outline of the Community (European Union) legislation about The European Police College

Topics

These categories group together and put in context the legislative and non-legislative initiatives which deal with the same topic.

Justice freedom and security > Police and customs cooperation

The European Police College (CEPOL)

Document or Iniciative

Council Decision 2005/681/JHA of 20 September 2005 establishing the European Police College (CEPOL) and repealing Decision 2000/820/JHA.

Summary

CEPOL was initially set up by a Council Decision of 22 December 2000. The report on its first three years of operation revealed several difficulties. In its conclusions of 24 February 2005, the Council called for improvements in the functioning of the European Police College (CEPOL): it was apparent that CEPOL could operate more effectively if it were financed from the general budget and if the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities applied to the staff of CEPOL. This decision establishes a European Police College as the successor to CEPOL, which was set up by Decision 2000/820/JHA. The decision confers on CEPOL the status of an agency financed from the budget of the European Communities. It lays down transitional measures on general legal succession.

Organisation of CEPOL

CEPOL takes the form of a network of national training institutes for senior police officers. It is administered by a Governing Board and a Director. A general secretariat carries out the administrative tasks.

The Governing Board is made up of directors of national training institutes. Each national delegation (consisting of one or more directors of national training institutes) has one vote on the Governing Board. Representatives of the General Secretariat of the Council, the Commission and Europol may take part in meetings of the Governing Board as non-voting observers.

The Governing Board shall act by a two-thirds majority of its members, except as regards the draft budget to be submitted to the Commission, which requires unanimity. It adopts programmes, training modules, common learning methods and the CEPOL annual report. It also adopts the decision appointing the Director.

The Director is appointed by the Governing Body from a list of at least three candidates. He is responsible for the day-to-day management of CEPOL. He also implements the budget, maintains contact with the relevant services in the Member States and coordinates implementation of the work programme. He is subject to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities.

The Secretariat assists CEPOL with administrative tasks and with implementing the annual programme. The staff of the Secretariat is subject to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities.

CEPOL enjoys legal and contractual capacity. The Director of CEPOL is its legal representative. The seat of CEPOL is in Bramshill, United Kingdom.

Financing CEPOL from the EU budget

CEPOL is financed by the Community budget. The expenditure financed from the Community budget includes staff, administrative, infrastructure and operational expenses. By 31 March each year at the latest, the Governing Board adopts the draft budgetary estimate and forwards it to the Commission and to the budgetary authority (the European Parliament and the Council) together with the preliminary draft budget of the European Union. The budgetary authority decides on the final CEPOL budget.

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) applies without restriction to CEPOL. CEPOL abides by other provisions on the fight against fraud such as interinstitutional agreements in the area.

This Decision applies from 1 January 2006. Every five years from that date, the Governing Board shall commission an independent external evaluation of the implementation of this Decision.

References

Act Entry into force Deadline for transposition in the Member States Official Journal
Council Decision 2005/681/JAI

1.1.2006

–

OJ 256 of 1.10.2005