WRITTEN QUESTION P-0770/00

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Judicial cooperation with regard to paedophilia

The introduction in the Treaty of Maastricht of a policy of cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs was an important step in the process of European integration.

It is indeed hard to understand how in a Europe with total freedom of movement and establishment justice should continue to be subject to strict frontiers,

Unfortunately, this new pillar of European policy has overlooked international crime in the sphere of sexual abuse and trafficking in children and women, which is clearly growing.

The questioner feels that this is the kind of organised crime which most seriously undermines the democratic society in which we live.

A recent case involving a Belgian national (Frans de Ryck) and Portuguese children from the Autonomous Region of Madeira demonstrated the pitfalls created by the lack of cooperation in the field of justice as far as this kind of situation is concerned.

Belgium refused to extradite the accused to Portugal, since the Portuguese State, via the Public Prosecutor's Office, refused the victims any legal aid.

As reported in the press (Diário de Notícias), only efforts made privately by the Portuguese Victim Support Association and assistance from a Portuguese legal firm managed to solve the problem. In the meantime the accused has appealed against the decision and the victims do not know what the outcome of the appeal will be.

In view of this, can the Commission say whether it intends to take any steps to improve protection for victims of this kind of crime when they cross national borders?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2000)

The Commission considers that the Community has taken a number of initiatives and has developed a policy in fighting against trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children, including a central focus on the assistance to victims of these types of criminal offences. The Commission has previously delivered answers to the Parliament on these initiatives and this policy (see e.g. reply to Written Question E-2797/99 by Mr Matikainen-Kallström(1) and reply to Oral Question H-0140/00 by Mrs Kratsa during question time at Parliament's March 2000 session(2)). Therefore the Commission will not go into detail on that part of the question. It wishes however to underline that the Tampere conclusions identified the fight against trafficking in human beings and sexual exploitation of children as a high priority matter. This is also why the Commission has included this issue in the scoreboard designed to review progress on the creation of an area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

The refusal to extradite mentioned by the Honourable Member may have been due to the fact that the person claimed was a national of the requested Member State. Refusal of extradition for this reason is allowed under Article 6 of the 1957 Council of Europe Extradition Convention, which still forms the backbone of extradition relations between the Union Member States. The 1996 Community Extradition Convention in its Article 7 foresees that extradition may not be refused on the ground that the person claimed is a national of the requested Member State. However, Member States may declare that they will not comply with this requirement. Such a declaration has to be renewed every five years, otherwise it expires. In any event, the 1996 Community Extradition Convention has not entered into force yet, as not all Member States have ratified it.

As regards protection of victims of crime in general, the Commission on 14 July 1999 adopted a communication(3), striving for certain minimum levels or standards within the Union for some of the aspects of the protection of victims of crime, notably prevention, assistance, compensation, and the standing of victims in the criminal procedure. The communication is not specifically aimed at the victims of the crimes mentioned by the Honourable Member, but many of the measures proposed by it would go a long way towards improving their situation.

(1) OJ C 303 E, 24.10.2000, p. 111.

(2) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).

(3) COM(1999) 349 final.