The EU Treaty of Lisbon incorporates the foundations of Europol – the European Police Office – into the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
The ordinary legislative procedure, with qualified majority voting in the Council and co-decision by the European Parliament, will apply instead of the current intergovernmental convention-based cooperation. Scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments is enhanced.
But, is Europol an armed villain ready to pounce on our cherished liberties, or is it potentially hampered by the limitations imposed by the member states?
***
Article 88 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) lays out Europol’s mission to support and strengthen action by the EU member states’ police authorities. The Article is found in the consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, now published in the Official Journal of the European Union, OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/84. The location of the provision is added from the TFEU table of equivalences (page 368–371):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 5 ‘Police cooperation’
Article 88 TFEU
(ex Article 30 TEU)
1. Europol's mission shall be to support and strengthen action by the Member States' police authorities and other law enforcement services and their mutual cooperation in preventing and combating serious crime affecting two or more Member States, terrorism and forms of crime which affect a common interest covered by a Union policy.
2. The European Parliament and the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall determine Europol's structure, operation, field of action and tasks. These tasks may include:
(a) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of information, in particular that forwarded by the authorities of the Member States or third countries or bodies;
(b) the coordination, organisation and implementation of investigative and operational action carried out jointly with the Member States' competent authorities or in the context of joint investigative teams, where appropriate in liaison with Eurojust.
These regulations shall also lay down the procedures for scrutiny of Europol's activities by the European Parliament, together with national Parliaments.
3. Any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of the Member State or States whose territory is concerned. The application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities.
***
In Article 2, point 68, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) stated (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/66):
POLICE COOPERATION
68) The following Chapter 5 and Articles 69 F, 69 G and 69 H shall be inserted. Articles 69 F and 69 G shall replace the current Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union, and Article 69 H shall replace Article 32 thereof, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty: …
The IGC 2007 then laid out the text of Article 69g TFEU (ToL) as above. After renumbering this provision became Article 88 TFEU in the consolidated version. Cf. ToL table of equivalences, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/210.
***
The current Article 30 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) belongs to the intergovernmental third pillar, in Title VI ‘Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’. The provision, to be replaced, is found in the latest consolidated version of the treaties in force (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/24–25):
Article 30 TEU
1. Common action in the field of police cooperation shall include:
(a) operational cooperation between the competent authorities, including the police, customs and other specialised law enforcement services of the Member States in relation to the prevention, detection and investigation of criminal offences;
(b) the collection, storage, processing, analysis and exchange of relevant information, including information held by law enforcement services on reports on suspicious financial transactions, in particular through Europol, subject to appropriate provisions on the protection of personal data;
(c) cooperation and joint initiatives in training, the exchange of liaison officers, secondments, the use of equipment, and forensic research;
(d) the common evaluation of particular investigative techniques in relation to the detection of serious forms of organised crime.
2. The Council shall promote cooperation through Europol and shall in particular, within a period of five years after the date of entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam:
(a) enable Europol to facilitate and support the preparation, and to encourage the coordination and carrying out, of specific investigative actions by the competent authorities of the Member States, including operational actions of joint teams comprising representatives of Europol in a support capacity;
(b) adopt measures allowing Europol to ask the competent authorities of the Member States to conduct and coordinate their investigations in specific cases and to develop specific expertise which may be put at the disposal of Member States to assist them in investigating cases of organised crime;
(c) promote liaison arrangements between prosecuting/investigating officials specialising in the fight against organised crime in close cooperation with Europol;
(d) establish a research, documentation and statistical network on cross-border crime.
***
We look at the previous stages of the treaty reform process.
The European Convention proposed a unified treaty, which would have abolished the pillar structure. Under Section 5 ‘Police cooperation’, Article III-177 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was meant to replace the provisions on Europol (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/61).
In substance, Article III-177 laid the foundations for the later stages of the treaty reform process. The only differences between the draft Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty TFEU are either ones of general terminology or stylistic, so I leave it to the interested reader to look up the draft text if needed.
***
The IGC 2004 adopted the text of the European Convention without change.
The corresponding provision is Article III-276 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/122).
***
The provision on Europol was, in essence, written by the European Convention, with the ordinary legislative procedure, including the application of qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council and co-decision by the European Parliament. The European Convention also held out the promise of scrutiny by the European Parliament and national parliaments.
The result was adopted by, first the IGC 2004 and then the IGC 2007, with minimal modifications.
***
Almost every provision on EU powers, including the one on Europol, has led to spates of ‘creative’ writing in the blogosphere, where counterfactual allegations have been brandished as gospel truth, on the sole authority of previous ill-informed (or worse) writers. I have seldom or never seen writers of this kind of wild allegations retract their phantasms even if confronted with undeniable facts.
Therefore, it falls to citizens to try to find and to evaluate more objective (but often sadly dull) information about realities.
For instance, with a cool head, read the third paragraph of Article 88 TFEU. Is it likely that we are going to be ‘invaded’ by armed teams of foreign police aiming to crush our liberties?
The member states have, in my view, severely limited the action of Europol. Any operational action by Europol must be carried out in liaison and in agreement with the authorities of the Member State or States whose territory is concerned.
In liaison and agreement with the national authorities. Do ‘invading’ hordes ask for permission?
The application of coercive measures shall be the exclusive responsibility of the competent national authorities.
Force is the sole responsibility of the member states. How can you square this with invading armies?
***
Would it be amiss for a European citizen to ask if the restrictions are not a high price to pay for member states’ sensitivities?
We could start with the assumption that most citizens of good regard an effective combat against serious crime as important for their own and their society’s security and prosperity.
We know that the free movement for all within the EU regrettably makes it easier for serious crime to spread across borders.
We also know that corruption and organised crime are deeply entrenched in some member states, including old ones, and in some prospective members.
If these assumptions are correct, can we be sure that a Europol cast in a supportive role and dependent on the good will of the member states’ authorities is going to be able to perform effectively, without being frustrated in its efforts by corrupt forces?
And, if crime and mystery is the field where the important questions for European citizens are to be decided, would it not be better to look towards Eliot Ness and “The Untouchables” than at fantasies about invading aliens?
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label serious crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label serious crime. Show all posts
Monday, 12 May 2008
Saturday, 10 May 2008
EU TFEU: European public prosecutor
Considering the criticism levelled at the European Commission and the European Union in general for mismanagement of EU funds by authorities of the member states, it should come as no surprise that the Commission would like to see outlays for inexistent olive groves and unbuilt roads recovered and the perpetrators diligently pursued.
The Treaty of Lisbon fails to bring the new provision on the European public prosecutor’s office under qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure, but it enables a group of nine or more member states to establish enhanced cooperation.
***
Europe Day brought EU citizens one valuable, although belated, gift: Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) were published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which makes them feel somewhat more official than the Council’s consolidated version made available 16 April 2008.
From now on we are going to use OJ 9.5.2008 C 115 as our reference.
We look forward to the arrival of these consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon in book form to our distant shores.
***
Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) forms the basis for the eventual establishment of a European public prosecutor. The Article is found in OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/82–83. The location of the provision is added from the table of equivalences (page 368–371):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 4 ‘Judicial cooperation in criminal matters’
Article 86 TFEU
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
In the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft regulation be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft regulation concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the regulation provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
3. The regulations referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.
4. The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.
***
In Article 2, point 67, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) stated (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/62):
“67) Article 66 shall be replaced by Article 61 G, as set out in point 64 above, and Articles 67 to 69 shall be repealed. The following Chapter 4 and Articles 69 A to 69 E shall be inserted. Articles 69 A, 69 B and 69 D shall replace the current Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty: …”
The IGC 2007 then presented the wording of Article 69e TFEU (ToL) otherwise as above, but the clarifying words ‘in the Council’ were later added to the second subparagraph of the first paragraph (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/65–66). In the consolidated version Article 69e was to become Article 86 TFEU. Cf. TFEU table of equivalences, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/210.
***
The provisions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters are generally based on the Constitutional Treaty, with the modifications introduced by the IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 19(l), page 8):
“l) In the Chapters on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and on police cooperation, as amended in the 2004 IGC, in the Articles on mutual recognition of judgments, minimum rules on definition of criminal offences and sanctions, the European Public Prosecutor, and police cooperation, a new mechanism will be inserted enabling Member States to go forward with adopting measures in this field while allowing others not to participate (see point 2)(c) and (d) of Annex 2).Moreover, the scope of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland (1997) will be extended so as to include, in relation to the UK, and on the same terms, the Chapters on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and on police cooperation. It may also address the application of the Protocol in relation to Schengen building measures and amendments to existing measures. This extension will take account of the UK's position under the previously existing Union acquis in these areas. Ireland will determine in due course its position with regard to that extension.”
***
The mechanism enabling member states to go forward while allowing others not to participate was then duly detailed in point 2(d) of Annex 2 (page 16).
Given the determining influence of the IGC 2007 Mandate, in this and most other questions the intergovernmental conference was actually concluded before it started, leaving it to the specialist lawyers of the Council and the member states to wrap up the coming Lisbon Treaty technically before the agreed amendments could be signed.
***
The possible European public prosecutor is a new office, so there is no directly corresponding provision in the current treaties.
***
We look at the previous stages of the treaty reform process.
The European Convention proposed a European public prosecutor’s office with a wide mandate: to combat serious crime having a cross-border dimension, as well as crimes affecting the interests of the Union. But, due to resistance from some members (or, in fact, member states), the proposed new office came at the price of unanimity in the Council.
Here is Article III-175 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/61):
Article III-175 Draft Constitution
1. In order to combat serious crime having a cross-border dimension, as well as crimes affecting the interests of the Union, a European law of the Council of Ministers may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council of Ministers shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of and accomplices in serious crimes affecting more than one Member State and of offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
3. The European law referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.
***
The IGC 2004 narrowed the primary scope of the European public prosecutor’s office to crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU, although a new fourth paragraph opened up the possibility to extend the powers of the office, at the same time or later.
This is the text of Article III-274 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/121):
Article III-274 Constitution
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, a European law of the Council may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
3. The European law referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.
4. The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a European decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.
***
The provision on the European public prosecutor’s office is one more example where the member states have been unable to reach an unanimous agreement to move to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council and the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision), with a fully developed role for the European Parliament.
In the face of long-standing opposition, no unanimous decision would have materialised in the Council in a foreseeable future.
On the other hand, certain member states feel strongly that the fight against serious cross-border crime, or at least crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU, should be stepped up by the means of more effective action.
This Gordian knot was cut by the IGC 2007 Mandate and the resulting Article 86 TFEU, by enabling a group of at least nine member states the option to forge ahead with enhanced cooperation. The worst curses of unanimity can be avoided, when unwilling member states are unable to prevent the progress of others, but are spared the discomfort of being dragged into arrangements they dislike.
***
The discussion date back to at least the European Convention, but here we are satisfied with a small sample of comments and views post Lisbon.
United Kingdom
In the Statewatch analysis ‘EU Reform Treaty: Analysis 1: Version 3 JHA provisions’ (22 October 2007), Steve Peers commented on what was to become Article 69e TFEU (ToL), Article 86 TFEU (page 19):
“This is a new provision as compared to the current Treaties. The additions to this Article in the draft Reform Treaty (as compared to the Constitutional Treaty) provide for possibility of a group of Member States applying a ‘flexibility’ procedure in the event of a veto by one or more Member States. This is distinct from the separate power of the UK, Ireland and Denmark to opt out of proposals at the outset.”
The JHA analysis and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:
http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm
***
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) published another convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008), offering the following summary of the results with regard to Article 86 TFEU, Article 69e TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty:
“New. Enables the Council, by unanimity and with EP consent, to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and prosecute crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests. A passerelle enables the European Council, by unanimity and with EP consent, to extend the powers and functions of the EPP to include serious cross-border crime.”
The FCO comparative table is available at:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp
***
The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) dedicates page 45 to 48 to a presentation of a history of varying degrees of, including some reasons for, official British opposition under the heading ‘European public prosecutor’.
The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf
***
The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) discusses ‘Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ at length in Chapter 6 (from page 139). Under ‘Eurojust and a European Public Prosecutor’ the Committee documented a fairly nuanced exchange of views by witnesses on the European public prosecutor, on pages 151 to 153.
The general feeling among witnesses and the Committee seemed to be that the European public prosecutor’s office would be created under the provisions on enhanced cooperation, by a group of states, but without British participation.
There was no definitive answer to the question if the extension of the European public prosecutor’s powers to other serious cross-border crime fell under the same rules for enhanced cooperation, or if the fourth paragraph was meant to uphold the unanimity rule in case nine or more states included the extension of powers in the original draft regulation or a later amending proposal.
The report is accessible at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf
***
Sweden
The consultation paper of the government of Sweden, ‘Lissabonfördraget; Statsrådsberedningen, Departementsserien (Ds), Ds 2007:48’ published 20 December 2007, under ‘En europeisk åklagarmyndighet’ refers to the protracted debate about the need for a European public prosecutor, summarising opposing views, and the government ends up with the conclusion to wait and see (pages 323 to 325).
The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ is available at:
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf
***
Finland
The Finnish ratification bill ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp) offers a detailed description of Article 69e TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 86 TFEU on pages 202–203.
In addition, there is a value judgment on page 89: Finland has not found the establishment of the European public prosecutor’s office to be necessary, but the agreed arrangement is acceptable.
The bill is available at:
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rp), presents the same remarks on page 205, with the value based judgment on page 91.
The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:
http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
Ralf Grahn
The Treaty of Lisbon fails to bring the new provision on the European public prosecutor’s office under qualified majority voting and the ordinary legislative procedure, but it enables a group of nine or more member states to establish enhanced cooperation.
***
Europe Day brought EU citizens one valuable, although belated, gift: Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and on the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) were published in the Official Journal of the European Union, which makes them feel somewhat more official than the Council’s consolidated version made available 16 April 2008.
From now on we are going to use OJ 9.5.2008 C 115 as our reference.
We look forward to the arrival of these consolidated versions of the Treaty of Lisbon in book form to our distant shores.
***
Article 86 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) forms the basis for the eventual establishment of a European public prosecutor. The Article is found in OJ 9.5.2008 C 115/82–83. The location of the provision is added from the table of equivalences (page 368–371):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 4 ‘Judicial cooperation in criminal matters’
Article 86 TFEU
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, the Council, by means of regulations adopted in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
In the absence of unanimity in the Council, a group of at least nine Member States may request that the draft regulation be referred to the European Council. In that case, the procedure in the Council shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council for adoption.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft regulation concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the regulation provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
3. The regulations referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.
4. The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.
***
In Article 2, point 67, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) stated (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/62):
“67) Article 66 shall be replaced by Article 61 G, as set out in point 64 above, and Articles 67 to 69 shall be repealed. The following Chapter 4 and Articles 69 A to 69 E shall be inserted. Articles 69 A, 69 B and 69 D shall replace the current Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty: …”
The IGC 2007 then presented the wording of Article 69e TFEU (ToL) otherwise as above, but the clarifying words ‘in the Council’ were later added to the second subparagraph of the first paragraph (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/65–66). In the consolidated version Article 69e was to become Article 86 TFEU. Cf. TFEU table of equivalences, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/210.
***
The provisions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters are generally based on the Constitutional Treaty, with the modifications introduced by the IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07, point 19(l), page 8):
“l) In the Chapters on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and on police cooperation, as amended in the 2004 IGC, in the Articles on mutual recognition of judgments, minimum rules on definition of criminal offences and sanctions, the European Public Prosecutor, and police cooperation, a new mechanism will be inserted enabling Member States to go forward with adopting measures in this field while allowing others not to participate (see point 2)(c) and (d) of Annex 2).Moreover, the scope of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland (1997) will be extended so as to include, in relation to the UK, and on the same terms, the Chapters on judicial cooperation in criminal matters and on police cooperation. It may also address the application of the Protocol in relation to Schengen building measures and amendments to existing measures. This extension will take account of the UK's position under the previously existing Union acquis in these areas. Ireland will determine in due course its position with regard to that extension.”
***
The mechanism enabling member states to go forward while allowing others not to participate was then duly detailed in point 2(d) of Annex 2 (page 16).
Given the determining influence of the IGC 2007 Mandate, in this and most other questions the intergovernmental conference was actually concluded before it started, leaving it to the specialist lawyers of the Council and the member states to wrap up the coming Lisbon Treaty technically before the agreed amendments could be signed.
***
The possible European public prosecutor is a new office, so there is no directly corresponding provision in the current treaties.
***
We look at the previous stages of the treaty reform process.
The European Convention proposed a European public prosecutor’s office with a wide mandate: to combat serious crime having a cross-border dimension, as well as crimes affecting the interests of the Union. But, due to resistance from some members (or, in fact, member states), the proposed new office came at the price of unanimity in the Council.
Here is Article III-175 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/61):
Article III-175 Draft Constitution
1. In order to combat serious crime having a cross-border dimension, as well as crimes affecting the interests of the Union, a European law of the Council of Ministers may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council of Ministers shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of and accomplices in serious crimes affecting more than one Member State and of offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
3. The European law referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.
***
The IGC 2004 narrowed the primary scope of the European public prosecutor’s office to crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU, although a new fourth paragraph opened up the possibility to extend the powers of the office, at the same time or later.
This is the text of Article III-274 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/121):
Article III-274 Constitution
1. In order to combat crimes affecting the financial interests of the Union, a European law of the Council may establish a European Public Prosecutor's Office from Eurojust. The Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. The European Public Prosecutor's Office shall be responsible for investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment, where appropriate in liaison with Europol, the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, offences against the Union's financial interests, as determined by the European law provided for in paragraph 1. It shall exercise the functions of prosecutor in the competent courts of the Member States in relation to such offences.
3. The European law referred to in paragraph 1 shall determine the general rules applicable to the European Public Prosecutor's Office, the conditions governing the performance of its functions, the rules of procedure applicable to its activities, as well as those governing the admissibility of evidence, and the rules applicable to the judicial review of procedural measures taken by it in the performance of its functions.
4. The European Council may, at the same time or subsequently, adopt a European decision amending paragraph 1 in order to extend the powers of the European Public Prosecutor's Office to include serious crime having a cross-border dimension and amending accordingly paragraph 2 as regards the perpetrators of, and accomplices in, serious crimes affecting more than one Member State. The European Council shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament and after consulting the Commission.
***
The provision on the European public prosecutor’s office is one more example where the member states have been unable to reach an unanimous agreement to move to qualified majority voting (QMV) in the Council and the ordinary legislative procedure (co-decision), with a fully developed role for the European Parliament.
In the face of long-standing opposition, no unanimous decision would have materialised in the Council in a foreseeable future.
On the other hand, certain member states feel strongly that the fight against serious cross-border crime, or at least crimes affecting the financial interests of the EU, should be stepped up by the means of more effective action.
This Gordian knot was cut by the IGC 2007 Mandate and the resulting Article 86 TFEU, by enabling a group of at least nine member states the option to forge ahead with enhanced cooperation. The worst curses of unanimity can be avoided, when unwilling member states are unable to prevent the progress of others, but are spared the discomfort of being dragged into arrangements they dislike.
***
The discussion date back to at least the European Convention, but here we are satisfied with a small sample of comments and views post Lisbon.
United Kingdom
In the Statewatch analysis ‘EU Reform Treaty: Analysis 1: Version 3 JHA provisions’ (22 October 2007), Steve Peers commented on what was to become Article 69e TFEU (ToL), Article 86 TFEU (page 19):
“This is a new provision as compared to the current Treaties. The additions to this Article in the draft Reform Treaty (as compared to the Constitutional Treaty) provide for possibility of a group of Member States applying a ‘flexibility’ procedure in the event of a veto by one or more Member States. This is distinct from the separate power of the UK, Ireland and Denmark to opt out of proposals at the outset.”
The JHA analysis and other useful Statewatch analyses are available through:
http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm
***
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) published another convenient source of brief annotations on Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008), offering the following summary of the results with regard to Article 86 TFEU, Article 69e TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty:
“New. Enables the Council, by unanimity and with EP consent, to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office to investigate and prosecute crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests. A passerelle enables the European Council, by unanimity and with EP consent, to extend the powers and functions of the EPP to include serious cross-border crime.”
The FCO comparative table is available at:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp
***
The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) dedicates page 45 to 48 to a presentation of a history of varying degrees of, including some reasons for, official British opposition under the heading ‘European public prosecutor’.
The Library Research Paper 07/86 is available at:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf
***
The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) discusses ‘Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ at length in Chapter 6 (from page 139). Under ‘Eurojust and a European Public Prosecutor’ the Committee documented a fairly nuanced exchange of views by witnesses on the European public prosecutor, on pages 151 to 153.
The general feeling among witnesses and the Committee seemed to be that the European public prosecutor’s office would be created under the provisions on enhanced cooperation, by a group of states, but without British participation.
There was no definitive answer to the question if the extension of the European public prosecutor’s powers to other serious cross-border crime fell under the same rules for enhanced cooperation, or if the fourth paragraph was meant to uphold the unanimity rule in case nine or more states included the extension of powers in the original draft regulation or a later amending proposal.
The report is accessible at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf
***
Sweden
The consultation paper of the government of Sweden, ‘Lissabonfördraget; Statsrådsberedningen, Departementsserien (Ds), Ds 2007:48’ published 20 December 2007, under ‘En europeisk åklagarmyndighet’ refers to the protracted debate about the need for a European public prosecutor, summarising opposing views, and the government ends up with the conclusion to wait and see (pages 323 to 325).
The consultation paper ’Lissabonfördraget’ is available at:
http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/09/49/81/107aa077.pdf
***
Finland
The Finnish ratification bill ‘Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle Euroopan unionista tehdyn sopimuksen ja Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen muuttamisesta tehdyn Lissabonin sopimuksen hyväksymisestä ja laiksi sen lainsäädännön alaan kuuluvien määräysten voimaansaattamisesta’ (HE 23/2008 vp) offers a detailed description of Article 69e TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 86 TFEU on pages 202–203.
In addition, there is a value judgment on page 89: Finland has not found the establishment of the European public prosecutor’s office to be necessary, but the agreed arrangement is acceptable.
The bill is available at:
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
The Swedish language version of the ratification bill ‘Regeringens proposition till Riksdagen med förslag om godkännande av Lissabonfördraget om ändring av fördraget om Europeiska unionen och fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen och till lag om sättande i kraft av de bestämmelser i fördraget som hör till området för lagstiftningen’ (RP 23/2008 rp), presents the same remarks on page 205, with the value based judgment on page 91.
The ratification bill in Swedish can be accessed at:
http://www.finlex.fi/sv/esitykset/he/2008/20080023.pdf
Ralf Grahn
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
EU TFEU: Cross-border crime
The EU Treaty of Lisbon clarifies the powers to establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension. Qualified majority voting in the Council and co-legislation by the European Parliament make for more effective, democratic and transparent law-making.
There is an emergency brake for laggards, and enhanced cooperation for member states willing to move forward.
Here are the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the drafting history of Article 83 TFEU, and some further reading on the substantive contents of the new provision.
***
Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) deals with establishing minimum rules concerning criminal offences and sanctions for serious crime with cross-border dimensions. The Article is presented as it stands after the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) in the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), then renumbered and provisionally consolidated by the Council of the European Union (document 6655/08; page 105–106), with the location of the provision added from the table of equivalences (page 460 to 463):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 4 ‘Judicial cooperation in criminal matters’
Article 83
(ex Article 31 TEU)
1. The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.
These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
On the basis of developments in crime, the Council may adopt a decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.
Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.
3. Where a member of the Council considers that a draft directive as referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft directive be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft directive concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
***
In Article 2, point 67, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) stated (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/62):
“67) Article 66 shall be replaced by Article 61 G, as set out in point 64 above, and Articles 67 to 69 shall be repealed. The following Chapter 4 and Articles 69 A to 69 E shall be inserted. Articles 69 A, 69 B and 69 D shall replace the current Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty: …”
It then went on to present the agreed wording (as above, except the referrals later renumbered) of Article 69b TFEU (ToL), which became Article 83 TFEU after renumbering in the consolidated version of the treaty. Cf. TFEU table of equivalences, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/210.
One minor difference was noted between the two versions of the second paragraph. In the ToL version there was only one paragraph 2 (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/64), but in the Council’s consolidated version the second sentence ‘Such directives …’ had become a second subparagraph.
***
Article 31 of the current Treaty on European Union (TEU), to be replaced partly by Article 82 TFEU, is found in TEU Title VI ‘Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’, in the latest consolidated version of the current treaties (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/25):
Article 31 TEU
1. Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States, including, where appropriate, cooperation through Eurojust, in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;
(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;
(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking.
2. The Council shall encourage cooperation through Eurojust by:
(a) enabling Eurojust to facilitate proper coordination between Member States' national prosecuting authorities;
(b) promoting support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of serious cross-border crime, particularly in the case of organised crime, taking account, in particular, of analyses carried out by Europol;
(c) facilitating close cooperation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, particularly, in order to facilitate the execution of letters rogatory and the implementation of extradition requests.
***
We look at the previous stages of the treaty reform process.
The European Convention proposed the following Article III-172 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/60):
Article III-172 Draft Constitution
1. European framework laws may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with cross-border dimensions resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.
These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
On the basis of developments in crime, the Council of Ministers may adopt a European decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. If the approximation of criminal legislation proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, European framework laws may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.
Without prejudice to Article III-165, such framework laws shall be adopted by the same procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures referred to in the preceding subparagraph.
***
The IGC 2004 agreed on the wording of the first two paragraphs of Article III-271 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe with a few stylistic changes, but added a third paragraph with the so called emergency brake and a fourth paragraph authorising enhanced cooperation among at least a third of member states willing and able (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/119–120):
Article III-271 Constitution
1. European framework laws may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.
These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
On the basis of developments in crime, the Council may adopt a European decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, European framework laws may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such framework laws shall be adopted by the same procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article III-264.
3. Where a member of the Council considers that a draft European framework law as referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft framework law be referred to the European Council. In that case, where the procedure referred to in Article III-396 is applicable, it shall be suspended. After discussion, the European
Council shall, within four months of this suspension, either:
(a) refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the procedure referred to in Article III-396 where it is applicable, or
(b) request the Commission or the group of Member States from which the draft originates to submit a new draft; in that case, the act originally proposed shall be deemed not to have been adopted.
4. If, by the end of the period referred to in paragraph 3, either no action has been taken by the European Council or if, within 12 months from the submission of a new draft under paragraph 3(b), the European framework law has not been adopted, and at least one third of the Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft framework law concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly.
In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Articles I-44(2) and III-419(1) shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
***
The provision we are studying has changed at every stage of the treaty reform process. The current Article 31 TEU gives only vague indications of where the present intergovernmental cooperation might lead.
The European Convention gave the provision its essential contents, which survived two intergovernmental conferences.
The IGC 2004 inserted the ‘emergency brake’ for each member state worried that fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system might be affected. This was counterbalanced by the guarantee that at least a third of the member states would be able to advance if unanimity could not be found in the European Council.
The IGC 2007 took over the text of the Constitutional Treaty with the general terminological changes used in the Treaty of Lisbon, but the third and fourth paragraph were re-written according to the IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07; point 19(l) on page 8 and Annex 2, point 2(c) on page 16).
Since unanimous decision-making easily leads to paralysis or acts based on the lowest common denominator, it is important that recalcitrant members do not stand in the way of progress, if a group of member states are willing and able to forge ahead. The unity of EU legislation is sacrificed (even more than today), but enhanced cooperation allows experiments within the EU structures instead of outside, which has been the case with the Schengen, Dublin and Prüm Conventions.
***
The United Kingdom, with its predilection for minimalism and its opt-outs and emergency brakes, is a fascinating object of study. We look at some British views.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) presents a short version of the Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008), offering the following summary of the results with regard to Article 83 TFEU, Article 69b TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty:
“Draws on Article 31(1)(e) TEU. Decision-making moves to co-decision. A new passerelle enables the Council, by unanimity and with EP consent, to identify additional areas of serious cross-border crime that might be the subject of minimum rules. The adoption of minimum rules is subject to a new emergency brake procedure.”
The FCO comparative table is available at:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp
***
The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) dealt with ‘Approximation of criminal law’ (page 41), where it quoted the European Scrutiny Committee:
“…, harmonisation of criminal law within the European Union should proceed by agreement of all Member States, or it should not proceed at all.”
The Research Paper 07/86 is available at:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf
***
In the Statewatch analysis ‘EU Reform Treaty: Analysis 1: Version 3 JHA provisions’ (22 October 2007), Steve Peers gave a thorough explanation of what was to become Article 69b TFEU (ToL), Article 83 TFEU. He remarked on the changes agreed in the IGC 2007 Mandate and remarked i.a. (pages 16–17):
“The voting procedures otherwise is QMV and co-decision, a change from the present unanimity and consultation.”
“The competence on these issues is far more precise than the current Article 31(1)(e) TEU …”
“Paragraph 2 would resolve a long-running dispute as to whether, and to what extent, under the current Treaties, the ‘first pillar’ can be used to adopt criminal law measeures …”
The JHA analysis and other Statewatch analyses are available through:
http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm
***
The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) discusses ‘Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ at length, with the pages 143 to 149 dedicated to an interesting and enlightening treatment of Article 83 TFEU under ‘Approximation of substantive criminal law’.
The report is accessible at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf
Ralf Grahn
There is an emergency brake for laggards, and enhanced cooperation for member states willing to move forward.
Here are the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the drafting history of Article 83 TFEU, and some further reading on the substantive contents of the new provision.
***
Article 83 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) deals with establishing minimum rules concerning criminal offences and sanctions for serious crime with cross-border dimensions. The Article is presented as it stands after the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) in the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL), then renumbered and provisionally consolidated by the Council of the European Union (document 6655/08; page 105–106), with the location of the provision added from the table of equivalences (page 460 to 463):
Part Three ‘Policies and internal actions of the Union’
Title V TFEU ‘Area of freedom, security and justice’
Chapter 4 ‘Judicial cooperation in criminal matters’
Article 83
(ex Article 31 TEU)
1. The European Parliament and the Council may, by means of directives adopted in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.
These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
On the basis of developments in crime, the Council may adopt a decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, directives may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.
Such directives shall be adopted by the same ordinary or special legislative procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article 76.
3. Where a member of the Council considers that a draft directive as referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft directive be referred to the European Council. In that case, the ordinary legislative procedure shall be suspended. After discussion, and in case of a consensus, the European Council shall, within four months of this suspension, refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the ordinary legislative procedure.
Within the same timeframe, in case of disagreement, and if at least nine Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft directive concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly. In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Article 20(2) of the Treaty on European Union and Article 329(1) of this Treaty shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
***
In Article 2, point 67, of the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) stated (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/62):
“67) Article 66 shall be replaced by Article 61 G, as set out in point 64 above, and Articles 67 to 69 shall be repealed. The following Chapter 4 and Articles 69 A to 69 E shall be inserted. Articles 69 A, 69 B and 69 D shall replace the current Article 31 of the Treaty on European Union, as set out above in point 51 of Article 1 of this Treaty: …”
It then went on to present the agreed wording (as above, except the referrals later renumbered) of Article 69b TFEU (ToL), which became Article 83 TFEU after renumbering in the consolidated version of the treaty. Cf. TFEU table of equivalences, OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/210.
One minor difference was noted between the two versions of the second paragraph. In the ToL version there was only one paragraph 2 (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/64), but in the Council’s consolidated version the second sentence ‘Such directives …’ had become a second subparagraph.
***
Article 31 of the current Treaty on European Union (TEU), to be replaced partly by Article 82 TFEU, is found in TEU Title VI ‘Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’, in the latest consolidated version of the current treaties (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/25):
Article 31 TEU
1. Common action on judicial cooperation in criminal matters shall include:
(a) facilitating and accelerating cooperation between competent ministries and judicial or equivalent authorities of the Member States, including, where appropriate, cooperation through Eurojust, in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions;
(b) facilitating extradition between Member States;
(c) ensuring compatibility in rules applicable in the Member States, as may be necessary to improve such cooperation;
(d) preventing conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States;
(e) progressively adopting measures establishing minimum rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking.
2. The Council shall encourage cooperation through Eurojust by:
(a) enabling Eurojust to facilitate proper coordination between Member States' national prosecuting authorities;
(b) promoting support by Eurojust for criminal investigations in cases of serious cross-border crime, particularly in the case of organised crime, taking account, in particular, of analyses carried out by Europol;
(c) facilitating close cooperation between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network, particularly, in order to facilitate the execution of letters rogatory and the implementation of extradition requests.
***
We look at the previous stages of the treaty reform process.
The European Convention proposed the following Article III-172 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/60):
Article III-172 Draft Constitution
1. European framework laws may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with cross-border dimensions resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.
These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
On the basis of developments in crime, the Council of Ministers may adopt a European decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. If the approximation of criminal legislation proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, European framework laws may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned.
Without prejudice to Article III-165, such framework laws shall be adopted by the same procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures referred to in the preceding subparagraph.
***
The IGC 2004 agreed on the wording of the first two paragraphs of Article III-271 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe with a few stylistic changes, but added a third paragraph with the so called emergency brake and a fourth paragraph authorising enhanced cooperation among at least a third of member states willing and able (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/119–120):
Article III-271 Constitution
1. European framework laws may establish minimum rules concerning the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the areas of particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension resulting from the nature or impact of such offences or from a special need to combat them on a common basis.
These areas of crime are the following: terrorism, trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of women and children, illicit drug trafficking, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, corruption, counterfeiting of means of payment, computer crime and organised crime.
On the basis of developments in crime, the Council may adopt a European decision identifying other areas of crime that meet the criteria specified in this paragraph. It shall act unanimously after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
2. If the approximation of criminal laws and regulations of the Member States proves essential to ensure the effective implementation of a Union policy in an area which has been subject to harmonisation measures, European framework laws may establish minimum rules with regard to the definition of criminal offences and sanctions in the area concerned. Such framework laws shall be adopted by the same procedure as was followed for the adoption of the harmonisation measures in question, without prejudice to Article III-264.
3. Where a member of the Council considers that a draft European framework law as referred to in paragraph 1 or 2 would affect fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system, it may request that the draft framework law be referred to the European Council. In that case, where the procedure referred to in Article III-396 is applicable, it shall be suspended. After discussion, the European
Council shall, within four months of this suspension, either:
(a) refer the draft back to the Council, which shall terminate the suspension of the procedure referred to in Article III-396 where it is applicable, or
(b) request the Commission or the group of Member States from which the draft originates to submit a new draft; in that case, the act originally proposed shall be deemed not to have been adopted.
4. If, by the end of the period referred to in paragraph 3, either no action has been taken by the European Council or if, within 12 months from the submission of a new draft under paragraph 3(b), the European framework law has not been adopted, and at least one third of the Member States wish to establish enhanced cooperation on the basis of the draft framework law concerned, they shall notify the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission accordingly.
In such a case, the authorisation to proceed with enhanced cooperation referred to in Articles I-44(2) and III-419(1) shall be deemed to be granted and the provisions on enhanced cooperation shall apply.
***
The provision we are studying has changed at every stage of the treaty reform process. The current Article 31 TEU gives only vague indications of where the present intergovernmental cooperation might lead.
The European Convention gave the provision its essential contents, which survived two intergovernmental conferences.
The IGC 2004 inserted the ‘emergency brake’ for each member state worried that fundamental aspects of its criminal justice system might be affected. This was counterbalanced by the guarantee that at least a third of the member states would be able to advance if unanimity could not be found in the European Council.
The IGC 2007 took over the text of the Constitutional Treaty with the general terminological changes used in the Treaty of Lisbon, but the third and fourth paragraph were re-written according to the IGC 2007 Mandate (Council document 11218/07; point 19(l) on page 8 and Annex 2, point 2(c) on page 16).
Since unanimous decision-making easily leads to paralysis or acts based on the lowest common denominator, it is important that recalcitrant members do not stand in the way of progress, if a group of member states are willing and able to forge ahead. The unity of EU legislation is sacrificed (even more than today), but enhanced cooperation allows experiments within the EU structures instead of outside, which has been the case with the Schengen, Dublin and Prüm Conventions.
***
The United Kingdom, with its predilection for minimalism and its opt-outs and emergency brakes, is a fascinating object of study. We look at some British views.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) presents a short version of the Lisbon Treaty amendments in ‘A comparative table of the current EC and EU treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon’ (Command Paper 7311, published 21 January 2008), offering the following summary of the results with regard to Article 83 TFEU, Article 69b TFEU (ToL) in the original Lisbon Treaty:
“Draws on Article 31(1)(e) TEU. Decision-making moves to co-decision. A new passerelle enables the Council, by unanimity and with EP consent, to identify additional areas of serious cross-border crime that might be the subject of minimum rules. The adoption of minimum rules is subject to a new emergency brake procedure.”
The FCO comparative table is available at:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm73/7311/7311.asp
***
The UK House of Commons Library Research Paper 07/86 ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: amendments to the Treaty establishing the European Community’ (published 6 December 2007) dealt with ‘Approximation of criminal law’ (page 41), where it quoted the European Scrutiny Committee:
“…, harmonisation of criminal law within the European Union should proceed by agreement of all Member States, or it should not proceed at all.”
The Research Paper 07/86 is available at:
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-086.pdf
***
In the Statewatch analysis ‘EU Reform Treaty: Analysis 1: Version 3 JHA provisions’ (22 October 2007), Steve Peers gave a thorough explanation of what was to become Article 69b TFEU (ToL), Article 83 TFEU. He remarked on the changes agreed in the IGC 2007 Mandate and remarked i.a. (pages 16–17):
“The voting procedures otherwise is QMV and co-decision, a change from the present unanimity and consultation.”
“The competence on these issues is far more precise than the current Article 31(1)(e) TEU …”
“Paragraph 2 would resolve a long-running dispute as to whether, and to what extent, under the current Treaties, the ‘first pillar’ can be used to adopt criminal law measeures …”
The JHA analysis and other Statewatch analyses are available through:
http://www.statewatch.org/euconstitution.htm
***
The House of Lords European Union Committee report ‘The Treaty of Lisbon: an impact assessment, Volume I: Report’ (HL Paper 62-I, published 13 March 2008) discusses ‘Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’ at length, with the pages 143 to 149 dedicated to an interesting and enlightening treatment of Article 83 TFEU under ‘Approximation of substantive criminal law’.
The report is accessible at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeucom/62/62.pdf
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
