Resolution on the setting up of Europol

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the motions for resolutions tabled by Mr Janssen van Raay and others, on the establishment of Europol (B3-1461/91), and by Mr Lafuente Lopez, on setting up a Community police force (B3-0432/92),

- having regard to its resolution of 23 November 1989 on the signing of the Supplementary Schengen Agreement (1),

(1) OJ No C 323, 27.12.1989, p. 98.

- having regard to its resolution of 15 March 1990 on the free movement of persons in the internal market (2),

(2) OJ No C 96, 17.4.1990, p. 274.

- Having regard to its resolution of 14 June 1990 on the Schengen Agreement, the Convention on the right of asylum and the status of refugees as defined by the ad hoc Group on Immigration (3),

(3) OJ No C 175, 16.7.1990, p. 170

- having regard to its resolution of 13 September 1991 on the free movement of persons and security in the EC (4),

(4) OJ No C 267, 14.10.1991, p. 197.

- having regard to its resolution of 11 June 1992 on the murder of Giovanni Falcone and the need to combat organized crime in the European Community (5),

(5) OJ No C 176, 13.7.1992, p. 120.

- having regard to the statement by the Presidency after the European Summit in Lisbon on 26 and 27 June 1992, particularly in respect of Europol,

- having regard to the Treaty on European Union, notably Title VI - provisions on cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs - and in particular Article K.1(9) concerning police cooperation as an intergovernmental matter,

- having regard to the declaration on police cooperation annexed to the Treaty on European Union,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Civil Liberties and Internal Affairs (A3-0382/92).

A. whereas the intergovernmental approach has disadvantages: a democratic deficit, disruption of relations between the Community Institutions and disruption of relations between citizens and national authorities, and whereas it impedes proper parliamentary and judicial supervision,

B. whereas systematic provision for an Executive Committee with wide powers may give rise to constitutional problems in the Member States,

C. whereas there are precedents for the proposal of Community Regulations (for instance a Regulation for the creation of a European Drugs Monitoring Centre and a European Information Network on Drugs and Drug Addiction - REITOX) and the EEC Treaty permits this on the basis of Article 235,

D. whereas the Community's existing political structure and the considerable disparity in legislation between Member States only permit the joint gathering , processing and exchange of information between services or parts of services with police powers and whereas the difference in systems for the protection of personal data in connection with police and judicial data already causing serious difficulties,

E. whereas cooperation between police forces, customs authorities and other services or parts of services comprising officials with police powers, together with suitable forms of collaboration with security or intelligence services, is necessary,

F. whereas the gathering, processing and communication of information relating to personal data must respect human rights and the privacy legislation of the Member States,

G. whereas, rather than remaining confined to the field of combating drugs, Europol's work could in future also include other aspects of organized crime,

H. whereas at the same time measures should also be taken to protect the rights of persons who may be concerned,

I. whereas, particularly in the field of combating drugs, all manner of overlapping initiatives exist and efforts must be made towards greater simplicity and efficiency by means of a Community approach,

J. whereas there are numerous intergovernmental consultation and cooperation bodies which have been set up by governments or international organizations and which deal with international police cooperation, among other matters, such as Interpol, GAFI (G15), CEPC and the pompidou Group in the framework of the Council of Europe, the Coordinators' Group, Trevi, Uclaf, MAG. MAG'92, DAF, ECCD and the ad hoc Group on Immigration within the framework of the EC or the 12 Member States, the Benelux or Schengen countries, the police working group etc,

K. whereas the numerous international agreements, arrangements for international cooperation and bodies responsible in the field of international judicial and police cooperation can serve to create a human rights and democratic deficit, and whereas the citizens concerned are sometimes not fully informed of their rights and obligations in this area,

L. whereas political and judicial monitoring of the gathering and exchange of information is very important,

M. whereas interest groups, including those representing police officers, have a right to clear and accurate information and to some measure of input, and whereas at present there is too little consultation between police officers, members of parliament and organizations representing members of the judiciary,

N. whereas police officers must also be protected and, in respect of exchanges of information, need to be kept closely informed as to which activities are permitted and which are not.

1. Takes the view that the setting up of Europol, the introduction of the European Drug Unit(EDU) and rules on protection of personal data in connection with the gathering and exchange of information should have already been established in principle by Community legislation;

2. Calls on the Commission to submit a proposal for a Regulation on the setting up of Europol, based on Article 235 of the EEC Treaty;

3. Calls for the European Parliament and national parliaments to be intensively involved in deciding the objectives, powers and instruments of Europol and of the European Information System (EIS);

4. Calls, in connection with the setting up of Europol and the EIS, for protection of privacy and of procedural safeguards to be guaranteed: to this end, calls for any such initiative to be conditional on the introduction of legal provisions on the protection of privacy in all Member States;

5. Believes, in this context, that Europol should have responsibility involving:

(a) advice and support for national police forces, customs authorities and other services or parts of services comprising officials with police powers;

(b) temporary transfer of staff to these organizations;

(c) provision of information to any Community institution for supervisory purposes;

6. Recognizes that, given the existing legal situation, during the initial stage Europol will be able only collect, analyse and exchange relevant data and produce situation reports based on them; believes, however, that within the framework of convention law a basis needs to be created which will make it possible to transfer operational duties to Europol subject to parliamentary and judicial control; during the transitional stage, calls upon the Member States in special cases to set up ad hoc committees comprising officials from other EC States as well as national officials, if this appears necessary in order to fight organized crime more efficiently;

7. Takes the view that both 'information' and the procedure to be applied must be defined precisely in order to prevent the uncontrolled transfer of data;

8. Considers that Europol's remit should not only include combating drug trafficking but the whole field of organized crime, including economic crime and crime against property and that in the future, in addition to combating drugs, it should primarily concentrate on organized international financial and fiscal crime and combating crimes against the Community, such as subsidies fraud; considers that its remit should also include the illicit traffic in archeological and art treasures especially after the abolition of border checks between the Twelve;

9. Takes the view that there is a need for international cooperation with financial and banking institutions;

10. Takes the view that within Europol there should be cooperation between police forces, customs authorities and other services or parts of services comprising officials with police powers, identifying suitable forms of collaboration with security or intelligence services;

11. Takes the view that there is too little consultation and public debate- including at international level- between those responsible for the police, bodies representing the police, members of parliament, organizations representing members of the judiciary and human rights organizations and calls on the Commission to have research carried out on international police cooperation and to make proposals;

12. Believes that the relations between Europol and Interpol should be clearly defined;

13. Believes that a decision on the seat should be taken on the basis of consierations of logistics and efficiency and only if effective political and judicial control can be guaranteed;

14. Calls on the governments of the Member States to take seriously into consideration the fact that the creation of Europol will be the precondition for a potential Federal Police of Europe;

15. Is of the opinion that, in addition to the protection of privacy, arrangements must be made to protect the rights of the persons concerned; there must be at least the right to information, to access and to legal aid, and rules governing the legal consequences of unlawful or improper action by the authorities are required; such protection must be afforded not only to citizens of the Member States, but to all those legally resident in the Community;

16. Calls on the Member States formally to incorporate respect for the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the text of their Regulations and to adopt legislation on the protection of privacy, especially with regard to police and judicial data;

17. Takes the view that Europol should be treated as a Community body against which complaints can be made to the European Ombudsman provided for in the Maastricht Treaty;

18. Asks that the numerous international police cooperation initiatives be rationalized as a matter of urgency and takes the view that a Community approach may be helpful; proposes that not more than one working party be set up for each of the areas of responsibility referred to in Article K.1. pargraphs 1 to 9, of the Treaty on European Union, ensuring that one central working party is responsible for international police cooperation;

19. Takes the view that the necessary Community budget funds should be allocated as a matter of urgency;

20. Takes the view that association agreements and applications for accession to the Community are not a sufficient basis for exchanging data or for police cooperation and is concerned about police cooperation with States that commit gross violations of human rights;

21. Calls upon political office-holders who are involved in preparations for Europol to inform the European Parliament and national parliament accurately and fully about the setting up of Europol and calls for all general documents and guidelines for gathering, processing and exchanging personal data to be made available to them;

22. Considers that Europol should be established under the executive responsibility of the Commission, financed out of the Community budget, under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, and accountable to a body set up by the European Parliament;

23. Calls upon the Council to prepare, during 1994 at the latest, and with the appropriate involvement of the Commission and the European Parliament, a European Security Programme for which Europol would become the operational arm;

24. Believes that responsible and appropriate officers of Europol and other police forces cooperating in Europol should be encouraged to exchange views with the appropriate committee of the European Parliament on pratical aspects of police cooperation, to enable the European Parliament to arrive at well-informed opinions on the issues facing Europol, and that the committees of the European Parliament, in accordance with long-standing practice, have a right to hear and question such officials;

25. Instructs its President to forward this resolution and the report of its committee to the Commission, the Council, the ministers of the Member States belonging to the Trevi Group and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.