European Parliament resolution on the report of the Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime (10972/2/1999 – C5-0039/2000 — 1999/0916(COS))
Date: 2001-02-01
Institutions: Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: exchange of information, fight against crime, international cooperation, judicial cooperation, mutual recognition principle, organised crime, penalty

C 267/78

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.9.2001

Thursday 1 February 2001

15.
Is convinced that, in the fight against illegal crops, negotiated and agreed solutions, agrarian reform
and alternative crops, together with criminal proceedings against traffickers and money launderers, should
take precedence over crop-spraying campaigns; believes in this regard that the Union must take the necess-
ary steps to secure an end to the large-scale use of chemical herbicides and prevent the introduction of
biological agents such as Fusarium oxysporum, given the dangers of their use to human health and the
environment alike;

16.
Highlights the importance of strengthening regional cooperation and dialogue on the basis of the
principle of international coresponsibility, given that past experience in the fight against illegal crops has
shown that tackling this problem in one country alone merely serves to transfer it to neighbouring coun-
tries;

Stresses the need to step up inter-regional cooperation to curb and stamp out drug trafficking and
17.
combat money laundering; in this respect, the European Union ought to support Colombia’s request to
sign the Strasbourg Convention;

Calls on the Venezuelan government to cooperate with the Colombian government in jointly estab-
18.
lishing mechanisms which will make it possible to resolve the border problems relating to the fight against
drug production and trafficking;

19.
Urges the Colombian government to follow the approach used in the talks with the FARC in estab-
lishing dialogue with the other guerrilla groups with a view to promoting the principles of neutrality and
transparency and thus earning the support of the various armed groups for planned programmes and
projects;

Urges all the armed groups to support a humanitarian agreement under which they would cease
20.
kidnapping, release their hostages, refrain from committing terrorist acts, from recruiting under-age sup-
porters and from carrying out attacks on the civilian population, and conclude a serious ceasefire agree-
ment;

Reiterates its support for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and its efforts

21.
to secure a humanitarian agreement in Colombia;

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments

22.
of Colombia, Venezuela and of the mediating countries.

13. Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime (MDG)

A5-0398/2000

European Parliament resolution on the report of the Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime
(10972/2/1999 ( C5-0039/2000 ( 1999/0916(COS))

The European Parliament,

5 having regard to the report of the Multidisciplinary Group on Organised Crime (10972/2/1999 5

C5-0039/2000),

5 having regard to the Joint Action of 5 December 1997, adopted by the Council on the basis of Arti-
cle K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, establishing a mechanism for evaluating the application and
implementation at national level of international undertakings in the fight against organised crime (1),

5 having regard Articles 29, 31, 32, 35, 36 and 39 of the Treaty on European Union,

(1) OJ L 344, 15.12.1997, p. 7.

21.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 267/79

Thursday 1 February 2001

5 having regard to the joint actions adopted by the Council on 29 June 1998 on the basis of Article K.3
of the Treaty on European Union on good practice in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (1)
and on the creation of a European Judicial Network (2),

5 having regard to conclusions Nos 30 (first part), 33, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 43, 46, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55

and 57 of the Tampere European Council,

5 having regard to the European Union strategy for the beginning of the new millennium 5 the pre-

vention and control of organised crime (3),

5 having regard to the Europol report of 1 February 2000 on the EU organised crime situation in 1998

(Doc. 14119/1/99),

5 having regard to the Commission communication to the Council and the European Parliament on

mutual recognition of final decisions in criminal matters (COM(2000) 495),

5 having regard to the French Presidency’s programme of action against crime and judicial cooperation

in criminal matters,

5 having regard to the conventions and other acts on judicial cooperation and mutual assistance in
criminal matters and, in particular, the relevant Council of Europe and European Union instruments,

5 having regard to its previous resolutions on judicial cooperation in criminal matters,

5 having regard to its opinion of 20 November 1997 on the draft joint action establishing a mechanism
for evaluating the application and implementation at national level of international undertakings in the
fight against organised crime (4),

5 having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

5 having regard to the report of the Committee on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home

Affairs (A5-0398/2000),

A. noting that, in the report, the subjects chosen for the first round of evaluations are the delays in the
operation of the system for mutual legal assistance and urgent requests for the seizure of assets,

B. whereas the inhabitants of the Member States have a right to expect the Union to take effective action
against the growing threats posed to their freedom and rights by crime, in particular the most serious
offences and organised crime, whether they are committed by indigenous groups or foreign or mixed
groups,

C. whereas, in order to tackle these threats, a radically new joint effort is needed aimed at fighting and
preventing crime and criminal organisations throughout the territories of the Member States and
whereas this effort must include the mobilisation of judicial resources,

D. whereas effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters is likely to help uphold the principle of
sovereignty against criminal organisations which are determined to show disregard for government
structures, democracy and the rules of the legal economy in Member States,

E. whereas, at present, the loopholes and shortcomings of existing national legal systems and interna-
tional agreements in criminal matters, as well as the conflicts and differing definitions of jurisdiction
arising from the adherence to the principle of sovereignty, can give rise to areas and situations of
impunity for those responsible for crimes and the proceeds from criminal activities,

(1) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 191, 7.7.1998, p. 4.
(3) OJ C 124, 3.5.2000, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 371, 8.12.1997, p. 201.

C 267/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.9.2001

Thursday 1 February 2001

F.

noting with concern that certain areas of criminal activity are at present more profitable and entail
fewer risks (e.g. high-tech crime or environmental crimes), are covered in many cases by milder legal
provisions and are given lower priority by national bodies responsible for implementing laws,

G. whereas the European Union’s needs with regard to judicial cooperation and criminal matters now go

well beyond mere exchanges of information or evidence and transfers of persons,

H. noting with satisfaction the successful launch of the European Judicial Network’s activities and its first
pilot projects, and encouraging the national contact points and their administrations to become more
and more closely involved in the network’s activities,

I. whereas the Treaty on European Union provides for the possibility of establishing a corpus of criminal
law provisions, in particular on organised crime, whose elements (criminal acts and penalties) will be
derived from the approximation of rules between the Member States,

J. whereas prime importance is attached in the Treaty to judicial cooperation in criminal matters, which
includes cooperation in relation to proceedings and the enforcement of decisions and ensuring com-
patibility in rules applicable, as a means of achieving the objective of providing citizens with a high
level of safety within an area of freedom, security and justice,

K. noting with deep concern that those in the legal sphere responsible for cross-border procedures are
often required simultaneously to apply a vast number of conventions and laws relating to different
geographical areas and laying down different procedures or responses to the problems arising, and
that these operators do not have easy access to laws on legal assistance in criminal matters or clear
instructions on the law to be applied in dealing with incoming and outgoing requests,

L.

noting the lack of uniform interpretation of the various conventions in the Member States both in
decisions on the legal assistance to be given and in judicial rulings on the admissibility of requests,

M. noting with concern that the absence of any sanction mechanism against states which fail to fulfil
(or do not fulfil within the appointed time-limit) their obligations under an international convention
or agreement which they have signed diminishes the system’s credibility in the eyes of operators and
undoubtedly has an adverse effect on crime prevention policies,

N. whereas the mutual evaluation mechanism established as part of the action plan against organised
crime approved in Amsterdam in June 1997 can be considered, per se, as a significant step forward,
together with the establishment of the European Judicial Network and other initiatives to modernise
and increase the effectiveness of systems to prevent and combat organised crime,

O. noting that the Council’s report to the European Parliament only covers five European Union Member
States, but that other documents relating to other countries have been made available in the mean-
time,

P. welcoming the decision taken by a number of Member States which have already been the subject of
an evaluation to bring forward the most urgent reforms and improvements in respect of their own
system,

Q. whereas, nonetheless, monitoring of compliance by the Member States with their obligations in the
fight against organised crime should, in the long run, be the responsibility of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities and whereas the introduction of any other monitoring system should be
seen as a provisional measure,

R. whereas the traditional system of judicial cooperation in criminal matters, based on the ‘request’ prin-

ciple, is slow, cumbersome and produces rather poor results,

S.

sharing the Commission’s view that the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in criminal mat-
ters, based on the Member States’ mutual trust in each other’s systems, leads to a proper evaluation of
the legitimacy, equivalence, adequacy and validity of provisions and of the application of laws, con-
cepts which are fundamental to the effective operation of judicial cooperation in criminal matters,

21.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 267/81

Thursday 1 February 2001

T. whereas solutions need to be found as a matter of urgency on the questions

5 raised by those active in the legal sphere, who are involved in practical work in the field of

judicial cooperation in criminal matters;

5 raised by Member States which do not respect their obligations under existing conventions and

other agreements;

5 linked to the principle of respect for individuals and their fundamental rights and freedoms, in
particular persons accused or sentenced and victims, who should under no circumstances be trea-
ted better or worse in international cooperation proceedings than in national proceedings,

1.
Reiterates that effective judicial cooperation in criminal matters can help uphold the principle of
sovereignty against criminal organisations which are determined to show disregard for government struc-
tures, democracy and the rules of the legal economy in Member States;

Notes with concern that the Council’s report to the European Parliament highlights, among the most

2.
serious difficulties, the following with reference to certain countries:

5 political control of letters rogatory or authorising role of the executive authority regarding the action
to be taken on requests for legal assistance, to the detriment of the hitherto acknowledged possibility
of direct transmission between judicial authorities;

5 possibility of misusing appeals as a delaying tool, duplication of procedures or procedures that are

unnecessarily complex for those carrying out investigations;

5 absence of an effective record keeping and control system regarding the number and functioning of

assistance procedures (statistics, monitoring of procedures, databanks);

5 inadequate human and financial resources;

5 adverse effect of the application of the dual criminality requirement;

5 lack of comprehensive and clear guidelines from the central authorities for the operation of interna-

tional legal assistance and need to redefine their role;

and calls on the Council and the Member States to take all the necessary legislative and budgetary mea-
sures to remedy these problems, in keeping with the provisions of the Treaty on European Union and the
Tampere conclusions on the area of security and justice;

Expects the results of the evaluations in respect of the remaining countries to be forwarded without

3.
delay;

4.
Calls for Article 35 of the Treaty on European Union to be revised so that, in the long run, the Court
of Justice of the European Communities is given the power to decide whether the Member States comply
including Council of Europe
with their obligations under conventions, agreements and European law,
instruments, with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters; this should also include the power
to issue enforceable decisions and to adopt any other necessary provisions, such as the establishment of
time-limits;

5.
Calls for the Union in due course to set up, pending the necessary approximation of criminal laws
and the relevant penalties, a Public Prosecutor’s Office with jurisdiction over the Member States’ territory as
a whole, assisted by national investigatory authorities for the most serious cases of cross-border crime, and
in particular organised crime, trafficking in human beings, exploitation of women and children, terrorism,
drug and arms trafficking, money laundering and fraud affecting the Community budget;

6.
Calls on the Council, as a matter of urgency, to establish the list of international legal instruments
providing an overall hierarchical framework of obligations currently applying to the individual Member
States and to lay down guidelines regarding compliance with deadlines;

C 267/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.9.2001

Thursday 1 February 2001

Calls for the following to be drawn up and made available to judges and public prosecutors, possibly

7.
through the European Judicial Network or Eurojust:

(a) a centralised documentation instrument which may be consulted at all times, containing the relevant
legislation on judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and taking account of any protocols, annexes,
declarations, reservations and other subsequent restrictions and amendments, as well as details of the
channels to be used and standard forms for forwarding requests for legal assistance;

(b) eventually, a European electronic register of final decisions and orders issued in criminal matters and
of procedures currently pending before national authorities to facilitate the implementation of the
principle of mutual recognition and improve coordination of criminal prosecution activities, inter alia
with a view to the execution of cumulative sentences and the bearing of related costs;

8.
Calls for determined action to be taken to resolve the problem of linguistic barriers affecting judicial
cooperation in criminal matters, for example by selecting arrangements based on a restricted number of
working languages, following the example and practice of international organisations such as the UN, the
Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights;

9.
Calls on the Council to consider including, among the ‘appropriate measures’ to be adopted at the
end of each evaluation cycle, indirect sanctions against Member States whose behaviour is deemed not to
comply with the principles of loyalty and efficiency in judicial assistance in criminal matters: such sanc-
tions could include, in particular, restrictions on their participation in Community and Union programmes
in the field of justice and action to combat crime and provisions to ensure that procedures are brought
into line with agreements concluded and the rules on good conduct;

10.
Calls for the future Eurojust unit to be open to all the applicant countries and, possibly in due
course, to all the Council of Europe member states in order to avoid creating new obstacles to the proper
functioning of judicial cooperation;

11. Welcomes some of the points contained in the ‘EU strategy for the beginning of the new millen-
nium 5 the prevention and control of organised crime’ and, in particular, considers the following to be
priority issues:

(a)

(b)

(c)

improving statistical data (collection, analysis, access to various categories, use and exchange) on trans-
national crime, partly through mutual evaluation;

review of criminal laws of the Member States, partly through the process of mutual evaluation, and
efforts aimed at approximation with regard to the most serious crimes at the sustained rate proposed
in the ‘strategy’ (one offence per presidency);

speeding up and intensifying the process of mutual evaluation on the basis of agreed standards and
stable and adequate resources; reaching agreement with the Commission and Parliament on the choice
of themes for the evaluation exercises; establishing ongoing evaluation mechanisms making it possible
to carry out evaluations on different aspects simultaneously without causing delays of several years in
the consideration of individual countries;

(d) approval of the principle of mutual recognition of final rulings, orders and other enforceable decisions
of judicial authorities in criminal matters with a view to their execution without delay and by means
of procedures that respect individual rights;

(e) provision of adequate resources, in particular for training, new means of investigating organised crime

and the tracing of the proceeds of crime;

(f)

speeding up exchanges of information and cutting red tape in relation to the tracing, freezing, seizure
and confiscation of the proceeds of crime, in particular where the measures are to be taken in a
Member State other than the applicant, without prejudice to the objective of achieving mutual recog-
nition;

(g)

speedy ratification of the conventions listed in Recommendation 27 of the EU Strategy for the begin-
ning of the new millennium, as well as the new convention of 29 May 2000 on legal assistance in
criminal matters;

21.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 267/83

Thursday 1 February 2001

(h) withdrawal by the European Union Member States of all reservations expressed in international con-

ventions;

(i)

(j)

consideration of proposals for accelerated extradition and fast track procedures, subject to a mutual
evaluation exercise regarding fulfilment by Member States of their obligations;

full involvement of the applicant countries in the strategy to combat organised crime and in action to
improve judicial assistance in criminal matters and support for regional cooperation against organised
crime;

12.
Supports the legislative initiative taken by the Commission and the Member States to specify, mod-
ernise and give an adequate legal status to instruments, in particular joint actions, adopted as part of the
1997 action plan against organised crime, on the basis of rational, simple and transparent codification
criteria for the benefit of users;

Urges the Member States, pending the harmonisation of criminal

13.
laws and the achievement of
greater compatibility of procedures, to guarantee the greatest possible degree of practical mutual cooper-
ation between judicial authorities;

Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the parliaments of

14.
the applicant countries and the Council of Europe.

14. New frontiers in book production

A5-0005/2001

European Parliament resolution on new frontiers in book production: electronic publishing and
printing on demand (2000/2037(INI))

The European Parliament,

5 having regard to Article 151 of the EC Treaty,

5 having regard to its resolution of 7 April 1995 on the establishment of a support programme in the

field of books and reading (Ariane) (1),

5 having regard to its resolution of 21 June 1996 on the adoption of a multiannual programme to

promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society (2),

5 having regard to its resolution of 30 January 1997 on the first European Commission report on the

consideration of cultural aspects in European Community action (3),

5 having regard to its resolution of 13 March 1997 on the information society, culture and education (4),

5 having regard to its resolution of 24 October 1997 on the impact of new technologies on the press in

Europe (5),

5 having regard to its resolution of 14 May 1998 on the Commission Communication ‘A European

initiative in Electronic Commerce’ (6),

5 having regard to its opinion of 9 October 1998 on the proposal for a European Parliament and
Council Decision amending Decision No 2085/97/EC establishing a programme of support, including
translation, in the field of books and reading (Ariane) (7)

(1) OJ C 109, 1.5.1995, p. 289.
(2) OJ C 198, 8.7.1996, p. 248.
(3) OJ C 55, 24.2.1997, p. 37.
(4) OJ C 115, 14.4.1997, p. 151.
(5) OJ C 339, 10.11.1997, p. 415.
(6) OJ C 167, 1.6.1998, p. 203.
(7) OJ C 328, 26.10.1998, p. 237.