WRITTEN QUESTION P-1730/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Eurojust annual report for 2002

Given that the Eurojust annual report for 2002 highlights many problems linked to the functioning and the activities of that body,

does the Commission not share my view:

(a) as regards Eurojust and its relations with other bodies: that there is overlap between and confusion regarding the roles of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (particularly as the report itself acknowledges that those roles are similar in many ways and states that the difference is not yet by any means clear to legal practicioners at national level); given that they are two separate bodies which administer confidential, personal information, that relations between Eurojust and the European Judicial Network should be based on clear rules, rather than, as stated in the report, flexible, informal arrangements; that there is a need to make relations between Eurojust, on the one hand, and Europol and OLAF, on the other, more transparent and provide for legal and democratic scrutiny at European level; that there is a need to clarify Eurojust's role in the Joint Investigation Teams; that relations between Eurojust and third States and bodies which have already taken part in Eurojust meetings and exchanged information with Eurojust are consistent with Article 27 of the decision setting up Eurojust?

(b) as regards access to information, data protection and transparency: that Eurojust's proposal, set out in the 2002 report, to establish a database covering investigations (and, in particular, one dealing with child pornography on the Internet) is vague and raises doubts as to its conformity with the decision setting up Eurojust; that the current rules do not provide for Eurojust access to the Schengen database, or indeed direct or indirect access to the information contained in the SIS by the national members of Eurojust; that access to the minutes of Eurojust meetings should be guaranteed in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1049/2001(1); that the report contains no information regarding the appointment of a data protection officer; that the appointment, only in early 2003, of the final member of the Joint Supervisory Body for Data Protection which is responsible for Eurojust put an end to what had been, to that point, a major breach of the provisions on data protection in the decision setting up Eurojust?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

(1) The Commission considers that the roles of Eurojust and the European Judicial Network (EJN) are complementary. In broad terms, the EJN should focus on facilitating bilateral contacts between judicial authorities while Eurojust should focus more on the coordination of cases involving three or more countries. Concerning the degree of formality of relations between the two bodies, the Commission considers it would be unfortunate if cross-border cooperation to investigate and prosecute serious crime were hindered by inflexible arrangements. The Commission does agree, however, that Eurojust needs to adopt appropriate data protection rules (see below).

Article 26(3) of the Eurojust Decision(1) requires Eurojust to establish and maintain close cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Eurojust and OLAF have signed a memorandum of understanding setting out practical arrangements for their cooperation. The relations between Eurojust and Europol will be governed by an agreement currently being negotiated. In accordance with Article 27(3) of the Eurojust Decision that agreement will need to be approved by the Council. On the specific issue of improving democratic legitimacy and legal control, the Commission hopes that these will be benefits of the unification of the present pillars into a single Constitutional Treaty.

The role of Eurojust as regards joint investigation teams stems from the Eurojust Decision itself. Eurojust may, acting through the national members concerned or as a College, ask competent authorities of the Member States concerned to set up a joint investigation team (Articles 6(a)(iv) and 7(a)(iv)). Each Member State shall define the right for a national member to act in relation to foreign judicial authorities, in accordance with its international commitments (Article 9(3)). It follows that a national member of Eurojust may also take part in a joint investigation team.

The Commission does not take the view that contacts between Eurojust and third countries, as described in the annual report, are contrary to Article 27 of the Eurojust Decision as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(2) The Commission does not agree that it is of doubtful conformity with the Decision to create an index of data on investigations. Such an index is required by Article 16 of the Decision. The report states that the possibility of a database within Eurojust allowing the centralisation of information on child pornography is being evaluated. Without having more details as to what might be proposed, the Commission is unable to assess whether such a database would be in conformity with the Decision.

The Commission has no reason to believe that those Member States which have granted their national members access to certain information in the Schengen Information System have done so other than in conformity with the existing rules. In this context, Spain presented in 2002 an initiative(2) to amend the 1990 Schengen Convention(3) so as to provide for all national members of Eurojust to have access to certain information in the Schengen Information System. The initiative is currently being considered by the Council.

The Eurojust Decision (Article 39) requires that Eurojust's rules on access to documents take account of the principles and limits stated in Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001(4). It is Eurojust's rules, yet to be adopted, and not Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 that will apply to documents held by Eurojust. Whether access to notes of Eurojust's meetings should be granted is a matter for Eurojust when it examines individual requests under its future rules.

The annual report contains no information about the appointment of a Data Protection Officer because this post was advertised only after the period to which the report relates, on 13 February 2003(5). Finally, the appointment of the last member of the Joint Supervisory Body on data protection only in early 2003 has indeed meant that the system of data protection provided for by the Decision was not in place in 2002.

(1) Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight against serious crime, OJ L 63, 6.3.2002.

(2) OJ C 160, 4.7.2002.

(3) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.

(4) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

(5) OJ C 34, 13.2.2003.