 |
  |
|
Address, Imagine, someone stole your car in Poland, drove it to Vienna to pick up tons of heroine that were smuggled into the EU with the aim to extent the European drug market with teenage dependents. Months later your car is found in Italy. Under the current European provisions for police cooperation, noone would be able to trace this act of crime in a timely manner to protect the European teenagers - if at all. A European network of national DNA-, fingerprint- and vehicle registration data would change the situation enormously. [ I. Why is improvement in this field needed?] Today, crime is worthwhile itself. Half and underworld register growth rates, about which legal enterprises can only dream. While more and more Europeans use their right to move freely around the European Union either for business or personal reasons, and modern techniques such as mobile phones and the internet enable transborder communication across national boundaries, international terrorist groups and criminal organisations operate in their shadow. Trans-national organised crime is a rising threat in the post-Cold War world jeopardising the European market and the safety of the European citizens. As a consequence, the need for greater cooperation between national police forces, customs services and legal systems is set to increase enormously. Better and closer cooperation between national and local law-enforcement agencies in the European Union is crucial to ensure that the EU develops into a genuine single area of freedom, security and justice, where individuals' rights are protected and organised crime prosecuted. [ II. What is the Treaty of Prüm about?] Address, With the Treaty of Prüm seven EU Member States (Belgium, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria) agreed on their cross-border police cooperation. By establishing an enhanced cooperation outside the legal framework of the EU, those seven states decided to play a pioneer role with the aim to combat terrorism, cross-border crime and illegal migration in Europe. The Treaty establishes
two different spheres of cooperation:
In detail, the data exchange system includes mutual direct online access to DNA-, finger print- and vehicle registration-data bases. Instead of the instalment of a new elaborate central data system, the national data bases will be connected on common grounds. In case of a match, personal data are only be transferred by the respective prosecution authority if a letter of request-procedure is followed. Address, In the awareness that the supply of personal data to another contracting party requires data protection, with specific restrictions on the data transfer the Treaty of Prüm sets up highest possible standards in the observance of the fundamental rights. [deriving from the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the constitutional traditions common to the states concerned.] The operational
police cooperation includes joint patrols, cross-border intervention in the
event of imminent danger and the cooperation of police forces for the support
of security at major events like the World Cup last year. According to the Schengen integration process which is a driving force for the development of the European justice and home affairs, Prüm is meant to be a similar cutting-edge for the cooperation of police and judicial authorities. Since the developments in this sphere were halting before, with the Treaty of Prüm the contracting parties hoped to intensify and accelerate the process towards further integration of the police and judicial cooperation. Moreover, the Prüm countries have left participation in their cooperation open to all other Member States of the European Union and have sought from the outset to make the essential parts of the treaty applicable to all European partners. [ IV. Why the Treaty of Prüm outside the EU-System?] Unanimity voting in the council of the European Union and cumbersome decision-making in the justice and police cooperation combined with different justice and police traditions among the Member States lead to different interests regarding the scope and depth of border crossing police cooperation. Against this background consensus is not always easy to find.
With the Treaty of Prüm the seven contracting parties create a nucleus in which police cooperation is supposed to operate at a much higher level compared to the possible consensus among the EU-27. [ V. Challenges of the Treaty of Prüm?] Address, Of course, the treaty has its criticisers. But one should be aware that those do neither call the contents of the treaty nor the data protection provisions into question! Nevertheless, they argue, by circumventing the EU framework, the Treaty produces negative externalities for the European Union's area of freedom, security and justice. They fear that Prüm would undermine efforts to facilitate information-sharing in the EU, since it ignored related initiatives by the European Commission. Second, by reverting to an intergovernmental arena, the European Parliament is ignored precisely at a time when it is about to achieve an increasingly central role in law-making in this field. As a result, the criticisers ascertain that Prüm weakens the EU more than it strengthens it failing to provide the way forward to the establishment of a manageable area of freedom, security and justice. The first operative results of the Treaty of Prüm prove its value for the European police investigations: The first reconciliation of data bases according to a "hit / no hit-procedure" of mutual data exchange between Germany and Austria has already brought forward a sizable number of around 2000 matches on each side. Each match has the potential to contribute to the resolution of crime cases and the conviction of criminals. The Schengen-cooperation and the Treaty of Prüm are examples where intergovernmental negotiations and international agreements were efficient and effective. [ VI. Current status of police cooperation within the EU legal framework?] The Treaty of Prüm came into force in Germany, Austria, Spain and Luxemburg already last year. In the other signatory states the treaty is presently going through the ratification process. Address, At least nine additional EU member states have already expressed their intention to join the treaty: Italy, Finland, Portugal, Slovenia Slovakia, Sweden, Bulgaria, Romania and Greece. [Although usually silent when it comes to closer cooperation with the EU-partners, Great Britain shows interest to join the data exchange net!] All acknowledge the added value of the Treaty of Prüm which lies definitely in the simple but advanced and efficient provisions for cross-border information exchange. The technical innovation of the incorporation of the Prüm information-sharing aspects into the EU's legal framework would have an enormous impact on the police cooperation. Moreover, countries that so far do not have a DNA data base, such as Poland and Italy, would be initiated to establish one. Actually, the incompatible rules on how such information can be gathered would remain. For example, the British police have the right to take a DNA sample from anyone they arrest. This is different in Sweden, where DNA records can only be kept on criminals who have spent a minimum of two years in prison and only for a certain period of time. Already at the council meeting of the ministers of home affairs and justice on 15 February, the 16 Prüm countries, signatories and accession candidates, have put forth a draft council decision aiming at the conveyance of the essential elements of the Treaty of Prüm into the European legal framework. The treaty was initiated only in 2003, signed by seven governments in 2005 and is likely to come into force in all seven signatory countries his year. If the German presidency - according to its objective - succeeds to reach agreement of all Member States to incorporate the data-sharing parts of the Treaty of Prüm in the EU legal framework, Prüm would represent an incomparable legislative procedure. At this point, I dare to emphasise that due to the driving force of the Treaty of Prüm, the objective to improve police cooperation between the EU Member States for a more efficient and effective action against organised crime as it was aspired with the Hague Programme of November 2004 (No. 2.3, p.21) will be reached soon. [ VII. Outlook for an enhanced police cooperation among the EU Member States?] Address, Moreover, the EU-membeer states' interior ministries intend to go further in their police cooperation by allowing the law enforcement authorities to check an EU database on asylum seekers and the visa information system (VIS) of the Schengen-cooperation. According to the plans, this would allow national immigration services to access information on all visa applicants to EU countries by mid-2009 and help fight identity fraud using forged and stolen documents. In addition, information exchange could also be extended to telephone and internet data. Both areas are already subject to debates in Germany. According to the
Constitutional Treaty the European area of freedom, security and justice shall
be accompplished, EUROPOL strengthened and the third pillar abolished. Furthermore,
police cooperation would become a community competence, majority rule would
be introduced in the council, and similarly democratic control through the European
Parliament enhanced as wll as the European Court with control powers provided.
Anyway, the challenge for the near future will be to make the Prüm information-sharing arrangements work with 27 countries. European police forces would then be enabled to link cross-border crime evidences of 27 countries timely, and thus, become more effective in their struggle against criminal gangs and the danger they pose to our economies and citizens.
|