13. EU judicial cooperation with the United States in combating terrorism
B5-0813/2001
European Parliament resolution on EU judicial cooperation with the United States in combating
terrorism
The European Parliament,
A. recalling
5dash the democratic values shared by the EU and the US, which are the foundation of their solid
commitment to the common fight against terrorism and of the trans-Atlantic solidarity manifestedfollowing the attacks on 11 September 2001 in the framework of UN Security Council Resolution1373,
5dash the commitment to respect human rights, as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union, as well as the principles of democracy and the rule of law contained in theTEU, in particular Articles2, 6, 11, 29 and 31 thereof,
5dash the relevant international legal instruments, in particular the United Nations Convention against
Torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the European Con-vention on Human Rights and especially Protocol 6 of the ECHR on the death penalty, as well asthe Geneva Convention on refugee status (1951),
5dash the relevant international and European legal instruments on data protection, namely the 1981
Council of Europe convention and Directives 95/46/EC of 24 October 1995(
1) and 97/66/EC of
15 December 1997(2),
B. in the expectation that, with due respect for the principles mentioned above, the European Union will
seek to establish before the end of the year a coherent legal framework, founded notably on thefollowing texts:
5dash framework decisions on combating terrorism and creating a European arrest warrant,5dash Joint Investigation Teams and Eurojust,5dash extending Europol’s powers to exchange data with third countries the first of which will be the
USA,
5dash freezing of assets,5dash list of terrorist organisations,
C. whereas, on the basis of this legal framework, the Union will therefore be in a position to negotiate a
judicial and police cooperation agreement in criminal matters with the USA, pursuant to Articles24and 38 of the TEU, aimed in particular at strengthening the common fight against terrorism,
D. taking into account the requests made by the USA by letter of 16 October 2001 from President Bush
to the President-in-Office of Council, Guy Verhofstadt, and to Commission President, Romano Prodi,and the fact that the list of 40 US proposals notably includes requests on:
5dash revision of EU rules on data protection and privacy,5dash authorisation for police authorities to deal directly with US law enforcement authorities,5dash authorisation of exchange of information on the basis of an oral request,
(1) OJ L 281, 23.11.1995, p. 31.
(2) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 1.C177E/288 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 13 December 2001
5dash exploration of alternatives to extradition, including expulsion and deportation,
5dash establishment of procedures to share information on immigration alerts for individuals associated
with terrorist organisations,
5dash improvement of cooperation on the removal of status violators, criminals and ‘inadmissible per-
sons’,
E. taking into consideration the fact that the USA has adopted some extraordinary acts such as the
Patriot Act and the President’s executive order on military tribunals,
F. concerned that in some respects the American and European approaches are incompatible and that
this weakens the common fight against terrorism,
1. Underlines that any international agreement on police and judicial cooperation signed by the Euro-
pean Union and its Member States must fully respect the ECHR and, consequently, the minimum pro-cedural guarantees that are common to all Member States in their respective legal systems; the followingprinciples, in particular, must be observed:
5dash not to limit in a disproportionate manner data protection standards (even if under a sunset clause) on
electronic surveillance provisions,
5dash not to admit any discrimination between third-country and non-third country citizens that would be
contrary to the ECHR,
5dash to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights as regards the monitoring of communications
between a prisoner and an attorney,
5dash the procedural guarantees to a fair trial, as consolidated by the European Court of Human Rights;
2. Considers that the US Patriot Act, which discriminates against non-US citizens, and President Bush’s
executive order on military tribunals are contrary to the principles established above;
3. Considers that, such being the legal situation, legal problems could arise from the fact that the USA
considers terrorists as war criminals, whereas this is not the case in the EU; considers that, therefore, noextradition could be allowed to the US from Member States for people who are to be tried before militarytribunals;
4. Expresses concern at the fact that the President’s executive order does not specify the limits on the
court’s jurisdiction, makes no provision for the presumption of innocence and the right to an impartialjudge and, above all, allows sentences, including capital punishment, to be decided by a two-thirds major-ity;
5. Reiterates its request for a complete abolition of the death penalty in the USA and reminds Member
States that they are bound not only on the basis of their individual ratification of Protocol 6 of the ECHRbut also as members of the Union, in accordance with Article6 of the Treaty; a general EU-USA agreementcannot therefore be reached; extradition cannot take place if the defendant could be sentenced to death;
6. Requests that expulsion or deportation proceedings should not be used as ‘disguised’ extradition
proceedings, and calls on the EU to guarantee European data protection standards that are proportionate,
effective and of limited duration and to ensure that no mandatory retention of data be allowed, whichwould undermine rights and guarantees;
7. Asks for the European Parliament to be fully informed and consulted before the adoption of any EU-
USA cooperation agreement in the field of JHA, and that the conclusion of such an agreement be con-ditional upon a ruling confirming its conformity with EC law, established by the Court of Justice;25.7.2002 EN C177E/289 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 13 December 2001
8. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of
the Member States, the US Congress, and the US administration.
14. WTO meeting in Qatar
B5-0819/2001
European Parliament resolution on the WTO meeting in Qatar
The European Parliament,
5dash having regard to its resolution of 25 October 2001, on the Fourth Ministerial Conference(1),
1. Welcomes the outcome of last month’s WTO Ministerial Conference in Qatar, which represents an
important step towards a new WTO, more responsive to the needs and interests of citizens;
2. Welcomes in particular the commitment in the Qatar declarations to redressing the imbalances
between developed and developing countries; notes with pleasure that the cohesion and assertiveness of
developing countries in Qatar and in the preceding weeks had a major impact both on the agreementsreached in Qatar and on the wider politics of the WTO, and urges the Commission to ensure that thework programme is translated into outcomes which deliver real benefits to developing countries;
3. Congratulates the Commission on the extent to which the agreements reached in Qatar reflected the
priorities laid down by the European Parliament, and acknowledges both the Council’s determined effortsto support the Commission’s negotiations and the close cooperation with its delegation;
4. Welcomes the Qatar declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, reflecting a worldwide
recognition of the need to address appropriately urgent health needs, and the possibilities of a more flex-ible application of intellectual property rights, and expects to see this agreement respected in practice byall concerned; also welcomes the approval of the WTO waiver for the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement;
5. Welcomes the prospect of greater opportunities for EU producers and gains for EU consumers,
through the opening of negotiations on more open markets; notes with approval that the text on agricul-ture recognises non-commercial aspects and therefore permits the European Union to proceed with reformof the CAP, shifting away from trade-distorting subsidies, especially where they penalise agricultural
exports from developing countries, whilst safeguarding instruments to ensure multifunctionality, and
underlines the importance in these negotiations of special and differential treatment for developing coun-tries, to take account of their needs, such as rural development and food security; welcomes the inclusionin the negotiations of all forms of agricultural export support as well as the protection of geographicalindications concerning agricultural products, namely wine;
6. Considers that the Qatar agenda represents a significant first step towards taking proper account in
the WTO of the relationship between trade and the environment, but emphasises the need for progress onthe clarification of the precautionary principle in WTO rules as an important protection for environmentand food safety standards;
7. Notes the reaffirmation in Qatar of the Singapore Ministerial’s commitment on labour rights; believes
that further progress is essential and calls on the WTO to cooperate with the ILO’s initiative on the socialdimension of globalisation;
(1) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 13.C177E/290 EN 25.7.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Thursday 13 December 2001