EU Stockholm Programme Action Plan: European judicial culture needed?

According to the final draft agenda for the Strasbourg session 22 to 25 November 2010, Monday 22 November the European Parliament plenary is going to discuss the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme and on Tuesday 23 November the EP is going to vote (pages 3 and 9).

In the background we have the five year strategic guidelines adopted by the European Council in December 2009, with the definitive version published in the Official Journal of the European Union in May (OJEU 4.5.2010 C 115/1):

The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens

Based on the guidelines, we have the action plan to implement the strategic guidelines, proposed by the European Commission in April:

Communication from the Commission: Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010 COM(2010) 171 final

We also know that the Commission's monitoring system PreLex loses the traces of the action plan after the sour conclusions by the JHA Council 3 June 2010.

Before the Stockholm Programme was adopted, the European Parliament tried to make its voice heard a year ago, when it voted a resolution:

European Parliament resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme; P7_TA(2009)0090 (procedure 2009/2534(RSP) )

(Yesterday I presented a few extracts of the 25 November 2009 EP resolution relevant to citizens and enterprises, in Finnish on my trilingual blog Grahnlaw Suomi Finland.)


Citizens and businesses

This time around the European Parliament decided to take a closer look at legal issues relevant to EU citizens and businesses active across borders, in an own-initiative report:

Report on civil law, commercial law, family law and private international law aspects of the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; A7-0252/2010, 24.9.2010 Committee on Legal Affairs, Rapporteur: Luigi Berlinguer (procedure 2010/2080(INI) ) (20 pages)


European judicial culture

Even if the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) congratulates the Commission on its ambitious proposed action plan, the report calls for reflection on the future of the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ).

Interestingly, the JURI committee takes a very long term view. The beginning of the report is heavily laden with suggestions for discussions and exchanges with judges and practitioners, representatives of legal education and training etc. in order to nurture a European judicial culture.

Later the report discusses proposed actions with more immediate impact on mobile citizens, cross-border consumers and companies active in the internal market, but it may be more opportune to treat these initiatives in the context of the latest policy statements and proposals from the Commission, first collectively and later individually.



Ralf Grahn



J.K. After a long silence the EU Law Blog has returned to the European legal blogging scene. The blog declares: This is a web log about European Union law for students, academics, practitioners and anyone else who may be interested in it. - I hope you are interested and that the EU Law Blog keeps up the good work.

Inquisition v. Giordano Bruno in EU area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ)?

My latest post about the conflict between the Council (member states) and the Commission regarding the EU's Stockholm Programme left me wondering if we should go back in order to move forward.


Lisbon Treaty at a tender age

For some background on EU justice and home affairs (JHA), you could read the following blog posts concerned with the Treaty reform stages which led to the Treaty of Lisbon: EU TFEU: Area of freedom, security and justice I (21 April 2008), EU TFEU: Area of freedom, security and justice II (22 April 2008) and EU TFEU: Strategic guidelines for freedom, security and justice (22 April 2008).


Solemn promises to EU citizens

The signing heads of state or government and the ratifying parliaments made the citizens of the EU a few solemn promises. They could not have placed the founding values, emphasising civil rights and freedoms, much higher than they are, in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (OJEU 30.3.2010 C 83):

Article 2 TEU

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

Already in Article 3(2) TEU they make a firm commitment, ”shall offer”:

Article 3(2) TEU

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

If you are interested in textual hierarchy, you may notice that this text precedes the establishment of an internal market, mentioned in paragraph 3.


AFSJ

The concrete provisions on the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) are found in Title V of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), more precisely the Articles from 67 to 89.

While Article 67 TFEU lays down the general aims, Article 68 underlines the role of the European Council in setting the strategic guidelines for the AFSJ:

Article 68 TFEU

The European Council shall define the strategic guidelines for legislative and operational planning within the area of freedom, security and justice.

Back in April 2008 I wrote that the European Council was the most important institution of the European Union.The power to define the guidelines was hardly going to diminish this position, even if the official reason for the provision was (only) to codify existing practice, as when the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme were adopted.


Criteria?

However, it would seem that the guidelines have to fulfil the criteria of the founding values and the area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. These have been promised to the EU citizens. They are among the expectations of citizens in an objective sense, and EU action would have to be effective enough to attain the goals.

On the other hand, how binding are ”strategic guidelines” for legislative and operational planning?

Is the JHA Council the only authority of importance, when it wants to instate the strategic guidelines as the only guiding frame of reference for the political and operational agenda of the European Union in the Area of Justice, Security and Freedom [sic!]?

Who was right, the Inquisition or Giordano Bruno?

Update: Sorry, I missed providing a link to the Wikipedia article on the fascinating life of Giordano Bruno. For those who read Italian there is a brief biography by Anna Foa: Giordano Bruno (il Mulino).

Perhaps we have cause to look for a second opinion on what the Stockholm Programme should achieve.




Ralf Grahn



P.S. If you have to keep up with what the tribalists are doing, England Expects is one of the nicer ways to go about it. Written by the UKIP press officer Gawain Towler the blog is frequently updated, it is not devoid of humour and sometimes the EU institutions would be well advised to take its criticism to heart.

EU Stockholm Programme heresy?

Yesterday I wondered if EU theology needed to introduce the term ”limbo” to explain the whereabouts of the Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (entry in Swedish; use Google translation and the sources in English or your own language if you are interested): Handlingsplanen för Stockholmsprogrammet: I limbo? (16 November 2010)

The Council of the European Union (Justice and Home Affairs) twice accused the Commission of deviating from scripture sacralised by the European Council (with the head of state or government from each member state). On the Commission's tracking system PreLex all traces of the proposed Action Plan are lost since 3 June 2010.

The Council was critical enough, but it failed to specify the issues which in its view went beyond the limits of the Stockholm Programme, or those questions which had not been addressed in a satisfactory manner. Thus, the Council conclusions do not meet adequate standards of openness, i.e. being readily understood by outsiders such as EU citizens, without extensive comparative study.

Accusations of heresy become grave matters when they emanate from the Inquisition, so instead of speeding towards the future, we need to go back to how the area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ) is doing, now that the Lisbon Treaty is in force.



Ralf Grahn



P.S. Despite its English name, Diner’s room is a blog in French, where “Jules” writes about European and French law as well as politics. Don’t read Diner’s room if you have preconceived ideas about blogs being uncouth, and want to cling to your prejudices. Otherwise, feel free to enjoy well researched and argued posts on a quality blog.

EU JHA: Stockholm Programme officially published

Justice and home affairs (JHA) was an area where the Lisbon Treaty brought about significant changes, introducing the ordinary legislative procedure into judicial cooperation in criminal matters and police cooperation. (See December 2009 summary by the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union.)

In addition, the European Union’s emerging area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) has a direct bearing on EU citizens.

During 2010─2014 we are going to see a lot of legislative activity, outlined in the Stockholm Programme.

We now have a new and final reference to the Stockholm Programme, published in the Official Journal of the European Union in the official languages:




The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens; OJEU 4.5.2010 C 115/1.


The official publication of a final and agreed text should free us from one minor annoyance, when recently the European Commission referred to the Swedish Council presidency pages or to document 17024/09, whereas the JHA Council used a new reference, document 5731/10, without explanation.



Next step


The JHA Council plans to adopt the proposed Stockholm Programme Action plan in June 2010, before the end of the Spanish presidency of the Council of the European Union.

The Communication (proposal) by the European Commission under discussion:



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens
Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final



If you have information about publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA) from a pan-European or national perspective, especially the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share them with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.




Ralf Grahn

European arrest warrant: EU & UK

In the report Justice issues in Europe, the UK House of Commons Justice Committee discusses matters relevant to the development of the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).

This timely report is interesting both generally and from a British point of view.

In this blog post we look at the European arrest warrant.





Stockholm Programme


In the European Union’s 2010─2014 Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens, the European Council invited the European Commission to (document 5731/10; page 40):

… explore the results of the evaluation of the European Arrest Warrant, and, where appropriate, make proposals to increase efficiency and legal protection for individuals in the process of surrender, by adopting a step-by-step approach to other instruments on mutual recognition; ...

Stockholm Programme Action Plan


Since then, the proposed Action Plan for the implementation of the Stockholm Programme has been published in 21 official EU languages:




Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final


(The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council has issued its first conclusions on the Action Programme (document 8920/10).)


In the Action Plan, under the headline Furthering the implementation of mutual recognition (in the area of criminal law), the Commission has promised to report on the implementation of the Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA on the European Arrest Warrant in 2010 and to contribute with “appropriate follow-up” in 2014.



European arrest warrant



For an overview of the European Arrest Warrant, you can consult the relevant summary of EU legislation on Europa (latest update 8 January 2010).




You can also read the Wikipedia encyclopedia entry European Arrest Warrant, including critical viewpoints (last update 29 April 2010).



Here is the consolidated version (28 March 2009) of:



COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States

The provisions defining the European arrest warrant and setting out its scope:

CHAPTER 1
GENERAL PRINCIPLES



Article 1
Definition of the European arrest warrant and obligation to execute it


1. The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution or executing a custodial sentence or detention order.

2. Member States shall execute any European arrest warrant on the basis of the principle of mutual recognition and in accordance with the provisions of this Framework Decision.

3. This Framework Decision shall not have the effect of modifying the obligation to respect fundamental rights and fundamental legal principles as enshrined in Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union.



Article 2
Scope of the European arrest warrant


1. A European arrest warrant may be issued for acts punishable by the law of the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least 12 months or, where a sentence has been passed or a detention order has been made, for sentences of at least four months.

2. The following offences, if they are punishable in the issuing Member State by a custodial sentence or a detention order for a maximum period of at least three years and as they are defined by the law of the issuing Member State, shall, under the terms of this Framework Decision and without verification of the double criminality of the act, give rise to surrender pursuant to a European arrest warrant:

— participation in a criminal organisation,
— terrorism,
— trafficking in human beings,
— sexual exploitation of children and child pornography,
— illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances,
— illicit trafficking in weapons, munitions and explosives,
— corruption,
— fraud, including that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities within the meaning of the Convention of 26 July 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests,
— laundering of the proceeds of crime,
— counterfeiting currency, including of the euro,
— computer-related crime,
— environmental crime, including illicit trafficking in endangered animal species and in endangered plant species and varieties,
— facilitation of unauthorised entry and residence,
— murder, grievous bodily injury,
— illicit trade in human organs and tissue,
— kidnapping, illegal restraint and hostage-taking,
— racism and xenophobia,
— organised or armed robbery,
— illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art,
— swindling,
— racketeering and extortion,
— counterfeiting and piracy of products,
— forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein,
— forgery of means of payment,
— illicit trafficking in hormonal substances and other growth promoters,
— illicit trafficking in nuclear or radioactive materials,
— trafficking in stolen vehicles,
— rape,
— arson,
— crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court,
— unlawful seizure of aircraft/ships,
— sabotage.

3. The Council may decide at any time, acting unanimously after consultation of the European Parliament under the conditions laid down in Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), to add other categories of offence to the list contained in paragraph 2. The Council shall examine, in the light of the report submitted by the Commission pursuant to Article 34(3), whether the list should be extended or amended.

4. For offences other than those covered by paragraph 2, surrender may be subject to the condition that the acts for which the European arrest warrant has been issued constitute an offence under the law of the executing Member State, whatever the constituent elements or however it is described.

House of Commons Justice Committee


One of the relatively rare assessments of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the European Union published after the Stockholm Programme and before the adoption of the implementing Action Plan is:




UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)



On page 19 the Committee noted that according to the Ministry of Justice, the European arrest warrant had:

• transformed extradition arrangements between EU member states
• played an important role in the UK’s fight against international and trans-national criminality
• prevented countries from refusing to surrender fugitives
• reduced the time taken to surrender fugitives from an average of 18 months under previous extradition arrangements to around 50 days, and
• enabled the UK to extradite over 1000 fugitives to other EU member states (since introduction) and, in 2008, nearly 100 wanted persons were surrendered back to the UK to face criminal proceedings.

Some problematic questions have surfaced as shown by the cases mentioned in Box 2 (pages 21 and 22).


After a discussion of difficulties with regard to individuals’ rights, the possible need for a proportionality test and potential means to remedy application problems, the Justice Committee concluded (on pages 24 to 25; point 50):

50. It is unfortunate that the successful use of the European arrest warrant, and the reduced time taken to process intra-EU extraditions, has been overshadowed by perceived injustices in individual cases. We welcome the conclusions of the evaluation of the warrant, adopted by the Council in June 2009, and the subsequent progress that has been made. However, we believe that the time it takes to review and reform such instruments undermines the mutual trust approach. Legislation should be used only as a last resort to resolving the issues over proportionality and we hope that the current approach bears fruit before the predicted growth in demand for European arrest warrants takes place.

The Committee then went on to discuss the threshold of inoperability regarding amending or accompanying EU measures, when the United Kingdom does not opt in. Regarding future developments under the Lisbon Treaty, matters were left suspended in thinnish air (page 26; point 54):

54. We are encouraged that neither the Minister, nor any of our witnesses, were able to provide a convincing example of a situation in which an existing measure would be rendered inoperable as a result of the UK’s decision not to participate. Nevertheless, we are concerned that the term “inoperable” is not defined in the protocol and that guidance is not available on its interpretation.

Ralf Grahn



P.S. If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s justice and home affairs (JHA), the Stockholm Programme or the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.

Stockholm Programme Action Plan now in 21 EU languages

Earlier we have noted the publication in three languages ─ English, French and German ─ of the proposed Action Plan implementing the European Union’s Stockholm Programme in justice and home affairs (JHA):



EN - English



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final



FR - French



Mettre en place un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au service des citoyens européens - Plan d'action mettant en oeuvre le programme de Stockholm ; Bruxelles, le 20.4.2010 ; COM(2010) 171 final



DE - German



Ein Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts für die Bürger Europas - Aktionsplan zur Umsetzung des Stockholmer Programms; Brüssel, den 20.4.2010; KOM(2010) 171 endgültig




18 new language versions



Now 18 more language versions of the important Communication COM(2010) 171 have been added, bringing the total number to 21. Among the 23 official EU languages, only Estonian (ET – eesti keel) and Irish (GA – Gaeilge) re not represented.


In order to illustrate the linguistic diversity of the European Union and to recapitulate the language symbols, we present the published language versions separately. At the same time, this experiment shows us if the language versions with diacritic marks or based on non-latin alphabets appear correctly in this blog post on Blogger:




BG – Bulgarian



Брюксел, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 окончателен
СЪОБЩЕНИЕ НА КОМИСИЯТА ДО ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ПАРЛАМЕНТ, СЪВЕТА, ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЯ ИКОНОМИЧЕСКИ И СОЦИАЛЕН КОМИТЕТ И КОМИТЕТА НА РЕГИОНИТЕ
Установяване на пространство на свобода, сигурност и правосъдие за гражданите на Европа
План за действие за изпълнение на Програмата от Стокхолм



ES – Spanish



Bruselas, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 final
COMUNICACIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO, AL CONSEJO, AL COMITÉ ECONÓMICO Y SOCIAL EUROPEO Y AL COMITÉ DE LAS REGIONES
Garantizar el espacio de libertad, seguridad y justicia para los ciudadanos europeos
Plan de acción por el que se aplica el programa de Estocolmo



CS – Czech



V Bruselu dne 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 v konečném znění
SDĚLENÍ KOMISE EVROPSKÉMU PARLAMENTU, RADĚ, EVROPSKÉMU HOSPODÁŘSKÉMU A SOCIÁLNÍMU VÝBORU A VÝBORU REGIONŮ
Poskytování prostoru svobody, bezpečnosti a práva evropským občanům
Akční plán provádění Stockholmského programu



DA – Danish



Bruxelles, den 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 endelig
MEDDELELSE FRA KOMMISSIONEN TIL EUROPA-PARLAMENTET, RÅDET, DET ØKONOMISKE OG SOCIALE UDVALG OG REGIONSUDVALGET
Et område med frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed for EU’s borgere
Handlingsplan om gennemførelse af Stockholmprogrammet



EL – Greek



Βρυξέλλες, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 τελικό
ΑΝΑΚΟΙΝΩΣΗ ΤΗΣ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗΣ ΣΤΟ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΟ ΚΟΙΝΟΒΟΥΛΙΟ, ΤΟ ΣΥΜΒΟΥΛΙΟ, ΤΗΝ ΕΥΡΩΠΑΪΚΗ ΟΙΚΟΝΟΜΙΚΗ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΙΝΩΝΙΚΗ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΚΑΙ ΤΗΝ ΕΠΙΤΡΟΠΗ ΤΩΝ ΠΕΡΙΦΕΡΕΙΩΝ
Για ένα χώρο ελευθερίας, ασφάλειας και δικαιοσύνης στην υπηρεσία των πολιτών της Ευρώπης
Σχέδιο δράσης για την εφαρμογή του προγράμματος της Στοκχόλμης



IT – Italian



Bruxelles, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 definitivo
COMUNICAZIONE DELLA COMMISSIONE AL PARLAMENTO EUROPEO, AL CONSIGLIO, AL COMITATO ECONOMICO E SOCIALE EUROPEO E AL COMITATO DELLE REGIONI
Creare uno spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia per i cittadini europei
Piano d'azione per l'attuazione del programma di Stoccolma



LV – Latvian



Briselē, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 galīgā redakcija
KOMISIJAS PAZIŅOJUMS EIROPAS PARLAMENTAM, PADOMEI, EIROPAS EKONOMIKAS UN SOCIĀLO LIETU KOMITEJAI UN REĢIONU KOMITEJAI
Brīvības, drošības un tiesiskuma telpas nodrošināšana Eiropas pilsoņiem
Stokholmas programmas īstenošanas rīcības plāns



LT – Lithuanian



Briuselis, 2010.4.20
KOM(2010) 171 galutinis
KOMISIJOS KOMUNIKATAS EUROPOS PARLAMENTUI, TARYBAI, EUROPOS EKONOMIKOS IR SOCIALINIŲ REIKALŲ KOMITETUI IR REGIONŲ KOMITETUI
Sukurti laisvės, saugumo ir teisingumo erdvę Europos piliečiams
Stokholmo programos įgyvendinimo veiksmų planas



HU – Hungarian



Brüsszel, 2010.4.20.
COM(2010) 171 végleges
A BIZOTTSÁG KÖZLEMÉNYE AZ EURÓPAI PARLAMENTNEK, A TANÁCSNAK, AZ EURÓPAI GAZDASÁGI ÉS SZOCIÁLIS BIZOTTSÁGNAK ÉS A RÉGIÓK BIZOTTSÁGÁNAK
A szabadság, a biztonság és a jog érvényesülésén alapuló térség megvalósítása a polgárok szolgálatában
A stockholmi program végrehajtásáról szóló cselekvési terv



MT – Maltese



Brussel 20.4.2010
KUMM(2010) 171 finali
KOMUNIKAZZJONI MILL-KUMMISSJONI LILL-PARLAMENT EWROPEW, ILKUNSILL, IL-KUMITAT EKONOMIKU U SOĊJALI EWROPEW U L-KUMITAT TAR-REĠJUNI
Il-kisba ta' żona ta' libertà, sigurtà u ġustizzja għaċ-ċittadini tal-Ewropa
Pjan ta' Azzjoni li Jimplimenta l-Programm ta' Stokkolma



NL – Dutch



Brussel, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 definitief
MEDEDELING VAN DE COMMISSIE AAN HET EUROPEES PARLEMENT, DE RAAD, HET EUROPEES ECONOMISCH EN SOCIAAL COMITÉ EN HET COMITÉ VAN DE REGIO'S
Een ruimte van vrijheid, veiligheid en recht voor de burgers van Europa
Actieplan ter uitvoering van het programma van Stockholm



PL – Polish



Bruksela, dnia 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 wersja ostateczna
KOMUNIKAT KOMISJI DO PARLAMENTU EUROPEJSKIEGO, RADY, EUROPEJSKIEGO KOMITETU EKONOMICZNO-SPOŁECZNEGO I KOMITETU REGIONÓW
Przestrzeń wolności, bezpieczeństwa i sprawiedliwości dla europejskich obywateli
Plan działań służący realizacji programu sztokholmskiego



PT – Portuguese



Bruxelas, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 final
COMUNICAÇÃO DA COMISSÃO AO PARLAMENTO EUROPEU, AO CONSELHO, AO COMITÉ ECONÓMICO E SOCIAL EUROPEU E AO COMITÉ DAS REGIÕES
Realização de um espaço de liberdade, de segurança e de justiça para os cidadãos europeus
Plano de Acção de aplicação do Programa de Estocolmo



RO – Romanian



Bruxelles, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 final
COMUNICARE A COMISIEI CĂTRE PARLAMENTUL EUROPEAN, CONSILIU, COMITETUL ECONOMIC ȘI SOCIAL EUROPEAN ȘI COMITETUL REGIUNILOR
Crearea unui spațiu de libertate, securitate și justiție pentru cetățenii Europei
Plan de acțiune pentru punerea în aplicare a Programului de la Stockholm



SK – Slovak



Brusel, 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 v konečnom znení
OZNÁMENIE KOMISIE EURÓPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, RADE, EURÓPSKEMU HOSPODÁRSKEMU A SOCIÁLNEMU VÝBORU A VÝBORU REGIÓNOV
Vytvorenie priestoru slobody, bezpečnosti a spravodlivosti pre európskych občanov
Akčný plán na implementáciu Štokholmského programu



SL – Slovenian



Bruselj, 20.4.2010
COM(2010) 171 konč.
SPOROČILO KOMISIJE EVROPSKEMU PARLAMENTU, SVETU, EVROPSKEMU EKONOMSKO-SOCIALNEMU ODBORU IN ODBORU REGIJ
Zagotavljanje območja svobode, varnosti in pravice za državljane Evrope
Akcijski načrt izvajanja stockholmskega programa



FI – Finnish



Bryssel 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 lopullinen
KOMISSION TIEDONANTO EUROOPAN PARLAMENTILLE, NEUVOSTOLLE, EUROOPAN TALOUS- JA SOSIAALIKOMITEALLE JA ALUEIDEN KOMITEALLE
Vapauden, turvallisuuden ja oikeuden alueen toteuttaminen EU:n kansalaisten hyväksi
Toimintasuunnitelma Tukholman ohjelman toteuttamiseksi



SV – Swedish



Bryssel den 20.4.2010
KOM(2010) 171 slutlig
MEDDELANDE FRÅN KOMMISSIONEN TILL EUROPAPARLAMENTET, RÅDET, EUROPEISKA EKONOMISKA OCH SOCIALA KOMMITTÉN OCH REGIONKOMMITTÉN
Att förverkliga ett område med frihet, säkerhet och rättvisa för EU-medborgarna
Handlingsplan för att genomföra Stockholmsprogrammet




If you have information about general or national publications assessing the EU’s Stockholm Programme and the proposal for the implementing Action Plan, please feel free to share it with the readers of Grahnlaw, by posting a comment or by sending me an e-mail.




Ralf Grahn

UK & EU: Justice issues in Europe (Introduction)

One of the relatively rare assessments of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) in the European Union published after the Stockholm Programme and before the adoption of the implementing Action Plan is:




UK House of Commons Justice Committee: Justice issues in Europe (HC 162-I; published 6 April 2010; 60 pages)


In this blog post we summarise the Introduction.



Introduction


The Committee Report is the result of a fairly detailed (page 5):

…inquiry into justice issues in Europe with a particular focus on developments and the implications for the 2.2 million British citizens living in other member states and 2.12 million people living in the UK who were born in another member state.

The Report briefly recapitulates the history of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ): the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Tampere Programme and the Hague Programme (page 5).


The Report describes the area of freedom, security and justice as still very much a “work in progress”, before embarking on an outline on the future work to be done under the Stockholm Programme (page 6).


The Committee notes that mutual trust is fairly easy to grasp, but hard to achieve in the field of legislation and policy on justice (page 6).


Box 1 on pages 8 and 9 contains a convenient overview of justice priorities in the Stockholm Programme, under the following headlines:

• Promoting citizenship and fundamental rights
• A Europe of law and justice
• A Europe that protects
• Improving the quality of legislation and its implementation

With the establishment of mutual trust as a cornerstone of judicial cooperation and the fundamental rights of EU (and UK) citizens as starting points, the Committee chose the following key themes for its inquiry (page 9):

• The need to strike balances between proportionality, the rights of suspects and the accused in criminal proceedings, and the enforcement of security at EU and national level through mutual co-operation.
• The balance between basic principles of justice and fairness for victims and the rights of suspects and defendants rights and levels of awareness of those rights
• The cost-benefits of activity to create an area of freedom, security and justice
• The extent of monitoring and evaluation and the relative lack of enforcement.

The emphasis is on criminal justice issues (page 9).



The Committee starts its treatment of the Lisbon Treaty with a short historic overview from the Treaty of Amsterdam, before a summary of the changes brought about by the Treaty of Lisbon and the UK opt-in protocol, as well as a description of the emergency brake (pages 10 to 12).


The extended jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is explained on page 12. It remains unclear if Britain will opt in to the jurisdiction of the CJEU within the five year timeframe (page 17).


The Committee describes the legal entry into force of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and mentions that the European Union aims to accede to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (page 12 to 13).


Will the Lisbon Treaty facilitate legislation and policy-making in the field of justice? The initial response of the Committee is cautious (page 13 to 14).


Naturally, the extraordinary position of the United Kingdom has to be discussed. The Committee argues that the position of UK participation has become more flexible, but clarifications are needed with respect to amendments Britain opposes, although it has consented to the original provisions. The Committee depicts the UK’s role in EU justice and home affairs as a key one (page 14 to 16).


The Committee welcomed the Government’s pragmatic attitude (evidence-based practical measures; “look before you legislate”) and it was encouraged by seeing this perspective reflected in the Stockholm Programme (page 16).


The Committee notes that mutual recognition is at the heart of what the EU is trying to achieve in the area of freedom, security and justice under the Stockholm programme and the Lisbon Treaty. The Government of Britain is extremely cautious about approximation (harmonisation) of criminal law, but the Committee remarks that the proposals in the Stockholm Programme and the Lisbon Treaty together give rise to the potential for a significant body of new law (pages 17 and 18).




Ralf Grahn



P.S. Information about materials from different member states and in various EU languages on the Stockholm Programme and the proposed Action Plan for implementation is most welcome. Write a comment or send me an e-mail about unofficial and official publications

EU: Freedoms and justice or security? Call for materials

Few EU policy areas have as direct a bearing on citizens in the European Union (and outsiders) as justice and home affairs (JHA).

Time is running short for an informed public debate about major policy choices.


Do the next five years offer us EU citizens more freedoms and justice or ever increasing controls (security)? The implementation blueprint for the first five years under the Lisbon Treaty in the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ) is heading for final adoption in June 2010.

In a direct sense, the Action Plan, Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens ─Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme, is going to be the roadmap for future action by the European Union. Indirectly, potentially converging views at EU level may affect the thrust of justice and home affairs legislation and policies at national level.



Recap



The European Commission refers to document 17024/09 as the Stockholm Programme, whereas the Council seems to have replaced it by a new document 5731/10, without indicating the substitution or the reasons.



The Justice and Home Affairs Council has issued preliminary conclusions (8920/10) on the Commission Communication COM(2010) 171 final, the proposed Stockholm Progamme Action Plan. (See Grahnlaw: EU JHA Council Conclusions on Stockholm Programme Action Plan, 24 April 2010, as well as earlier blog posts on the Stockholm Programme.)



A week from adoption by the Commission, the Stockholm Programme Action Plan has now been posted visibly on Eur-Lex, under the latest COM documents made available. A few moments ago there were still only the three language versions we have mentioned and linked to earlier: English, French and German (with 20 official languages still missing less than two months ahead of final adoption).



Call for materials




In earlier blog posts, in addition to the basic documents, we have referred to contributions by Toby Archer (FIIA), Hugo Brady (CER), Tony Bunyan and Steve Peers (Statewatch), the House of Lords (European Union Committee) and others.

Now that the Lisbon Treaty has entered into force and the Stockholm Programme has been adopted, more is needed in order to achieve a borderless area of policy debate before the quinquennial landmarks are set in detail.

Dear Readers, please let us know about other relevant and timely materials.




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA Council Conclusions on Stockholm Programme Action Plan

This blog post is about the EU JHA Council Conclusions on Stockholm Programme Action Plan, a crucial building block in the area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ).




The provisional Conclusions of the EU JHA Council meeting were published in English Friday evening:



3008th Council meeting Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels, 23 April 2010 (document 8920/10)



Stockholm Programme



The Commission JHA web pages refer to document 17024/09 of 2 December 2009 as the Stockholm Programme, here as a link through the website of the Swedish Council presidency and here as an earlier direct link to the document:

The Stockholm Programme – An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens; Brussels, 2 December 2009; document 17024/09



However, in the 23 April 2010 Conclusions, the Justice and Home Affairs Council refers to document 5371/10 as the Stockholm Programme, without indicating the document(s) it replaces, if any:



The Stockholm Programme - An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens; Brussels, 3 March 2010; Council document 5731/10


With some attention to detail, the Council and the Commission could make life easier for readers.



Conclusions: Stockholm Programme Action Plan



In the Grahnlaw blog post EU JHA: Stockholm Programme Action Plan in English, French and German (24 April 2010) we linked to the three existing language versions of the Commission Communication COM(2010) 171 final.

(The Council has registered it as document 8895/10; 22 April 2010. The Communication has not yet been registered on the Legislative Observatory of the European Parliament, Oeil.)

By the way, the Commission Communication refers to the Stockholm Programme as: Council document 17024/09, adopted by the European Council on 10/11 December 2009 (page 2, footnote 1).

The Justice and the Home Affairs Ministers, or their substitutes during this meeting with reduced attendance, were given a presentation of the Commission’s proposal, which is meant to guide implementation of the Stockholm Programme.



The JHA Council conclusions (8920/10) indicate that the Council wants to influence the final version, and that final adoption is scheduled for June 2010 (page 8). Here is the text, including the typos:

ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTING THE STOCKHOLM PROGRAMME

Justice and home affairs ministers heard presentations by the Commission on its recommendations for an action plan implementing the Stockholm Programme (5731/10). Ministers welcomed the Commission paper, stressed, however, that the action plan should more closely mirror the objectives set out in the Stockholm Programme itself. The Council asked its preparatory bodies to swiftly start consultations on the action plan with a view to adopt the it in June 2010.

The Stockholm Programme is the multi-annual strategic work programme in the area of freedom, security and justice. It was adopted by the Council on 30 November 2009 and endorsed by the European Council on 10-11 December 2009. It sets out the priorities for EU action in the area for the next five years (2010-14). It puts the citizen at the heart of EU action and deals, among other things, with questions of citizenship, justice and security as well as asylum, migration and the external dimension of justice and home affairs.

It is ten years since the EU set itself the target of creating an area of freedom, justice and security. The Stockholm Programme will built on the progress made during the implementation of the Tampere Programme (2000-2004) and the Hague Programme (2005-2010).

But we are hardly much wiser as to the coming consultations.




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA: Stockholm Programme Action Plan in English, French and German

Earlier we linked to the English version of the Communication, which had been published. We have now been able to locate French and German language versions of the European Union’s Stockholm Programme Action Plan for justice and home affairs (JHA) 2010-2014. Thus, the three working languages of the European Commission are covered, but we still miss the text of COM(2010) 171 final in 20 official EU languages.



English



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens - Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme; Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final



French



Mettre en place un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice au service des citoyens européens - Plan d'action mettant en oeuvre le programme de Stockholm ; Bruxelles, le 20.4.2010 ; COM(2010) 171 final



German


Ein Raum der Freiheit, der Sicherheit und des Rechts für die Bürger Europas - Aktionsplan zur Umsetzung des Stockholmer Programms; Brüssel, den 20.4.2010; KOM(2010) 171 endgültig




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA Council: Stockholm Programme Action Plan

Ahead of the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council today, 23 April 2010, in Brussels, the European Commission has issued a brief outline of the matters to be discussed:


Justice and Home Affairs Council: 23 April 2010 in Brussels (22 April 2010; MEMO/10/148)

The Stockholm Programme Action Plan, to be presented by the Commission, is still available only in English:



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final; 69 pages).



Since there has been practically no opportunity for experts or the public to digest the proposed actions, we point out a few contributions of a more general nature, which we have not mentioned before.



Toby Archer


The Stockholm Programme had hardly been anointed by the European Council, when Toby Archer of the Finnish Institute of International Affairs published a briefing paper:



The Stockholm Programme: Europe’s next step to be an “area of freedom, security and justice” (Briefing paper 49; 15 December 2009; 7 pages)

Archer’s briefing paper is a good introduction to the development of the EU’s area of freedom, security and justice (FSJ), and to some of the sensitive issues affecting future work.



Hugo Brady

Hugo Brady, of the UK based think tank the Centre for European Reform (CER), gave a critical assessment of EU justice and home affairs, as well as the Stockholm Programme:



The seven sins of Stockholm (on CER website; published in E!Sharp magazineMarch/April 2010)



Tony Bunyan

In Tony Bunyan’s view the the values the Commission professes and the actions it proposes are at odds in the Action Plan:



Statewatch Analysis: Commission: Action Plan on the Stockholm Programme: A bit more freedom and justice and a lot more security (no date; 12 pages)




Ralf Grahn

EU JHA: Stockholm Programme Action Plan published in English

Yesterday we noted on Grahnblawg (in Swedish) the materials we were able to locate with regard to the Action Plan for the Stockholm Programme, the EU’s Justice and Home Affairs Programme for 2010-2014.

At the time, we did not find the Action Plan itself. We were perplexed by the Commission referring to the Swedish presidency web pages instead of the final version of the Stockholm Programme. Council document 5371/10 was headlined as the Stockholm Programme, but its meaning was left unclear.

Since then, we can take note of at least one improvement.

The European Commission has now published the final version of its communication COM(2010) 171 in English, in the newsroom of the Commission’s Area of freedom, security and justice (Justice and Home Affairs):



Delivering an area of freedom, security and justice for Europe's citizens Action Plan Implementing the Stockholm Programme (Brussels, 20.4.2010; COM(2010) 171 final; 69 pages).


There are no indications yet about other language versions of this important document.



The Commission is going to present the proposed Action Plan to the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council meeting tomorrow, 23 April 2010, exceptionally meeting in Brussels in April (instead of Luxembourg).




Ralf Grahn

European e-Justice action plan

The Council of the European Union has published a notice on a Multi-annual European e-Justice Action Plan 2009─2013, in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 31.3.2009 C 75/1.

The project aims at developing the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) at European level in the field of justice.

Objectives worth mentioning are:

• Improved access to information in the field of justice, in particular European legislation and case law as well as that of the EU member states.

• The dematerialisation of cross-border judicial and extrajudicial proceedings, by electronic communication between a court and the parties to cross-proceedings.

• Simplifying and encouraging communication between the judicial authorities and the Member States.

• The establishment of a European e-Justice Portal, which will provide access to the whole European e-Justice system, i.e. to European and national information websites and/or services.



Ralf Grahn

EU customs cooperation: IPR infringements

European Union customs cooperation against counterfeiting and piracy has advanced one step with the new EU customs action plan to combat infringements of intellectual property rights (IPR) for the years 2009 to 2012.


EU Customs Action Plan to Combat IPR Infringements 2009-2012

The new programme strives to take into account the growing threat posed by counterfeit goods to health and safety and to the environment, as well as the latest trends in the area of counterfeiting and piracy, especially with regard to the new challenges posed by the globalisation of world trade and Internet sales.

Council Resolution 2009/C 71/01 of 16 March 2009 on the EU Customs Action Plan to combat IPR infringements for the years 2009 to 2012 has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 25.3.2009 C 71/1.


Ralf Grahn