Final Report on the first evaluation exercise — mutual legal assistance in criminal matters
Date: 2001-05-28
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: criminal court, judicial cooperation, project evaluation

C 216/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

(Acts adopted pursuant to Title VI of the Treaty on European Union)

Final Report on the first evaluation exercise (cid:151) mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (1)

(2001/C 216/02)

CONTENTS

SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(h)

(i)

(j)

(k)

(l)

Ratification of international conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Statutes of limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Grounds for refusal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tracing of bank accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tax offences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Double criminality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Rights of appeal

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Financial crimes (cid:151) specialised units

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transfer of materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard forms and computerised systems for outgoing requests

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Good practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(m)

Urgent requests

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(n)

(o)

(p)

(q)

(r)

(s)

(t)

(u)

Guidelines

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The role of the Central Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

European Judicial Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Direct communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Record keeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specialisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV.

V.

VI.

THE REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOLLOW-UP TO EVALUATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

EXTENSION OF EVALUATIONS TO CANDIDATE COUNTRIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII.

THE EVALUATION MECHANISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VIII.

CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

15

15

16

17

17

17

17

18

18

19

19

20

21

21

21

21

21

22

22

22

23

23

23

24

25

25

25

25

26

26

(1) Approved by the Council on 28 May 2001.

1.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 216/15

SUMMARY

has

that

procedure

evaluation

demonstrated

the process significant

The
the
mechanism itself has proved its usefulness and that in the
improvements have been
course of
made, both at practical and at legislative level. The authorities
of the Member States cooperated fully and positively with the
evaluation teams. The European Union should continue to
employ the mutual evaluation mechanism and ensure that full
use is made of it.

From the evaluations two quantitative findings emerged:

(cid:151) the flow of mutual assistance is increasing. All the Member
States have reported this, and some have had to obtain
additional resources or find ways of dealing with that
aspect of mutual assistance;

(cid:151) most of the mutual assistance flow concerns cooperation
the European Union

between the Member States of
(estimated at between 75 % and 95 %).

it

that

is slow,

its faults,

that, while mutual
The evaluation exercise made it clear
the criticism habitually
assistance is not without
inefficient and powerless is
levelled at
it
excessive;
in general mutual assistance does not operate as
badly as it is reputed to do. In the field of drugs or serious
offences under ordinary criminal law, a great majority of the
practitioners
assistance
operates efficiently and to the satisfaction of practitioners.
Moreover, the persons involved in mutual legal assistance are
devoted and conscientious practitioners who seek to assist
foreign authorities in the best manner possible, sometimes
under difficult material conditions. This finding, while not
invalidating the criticism of the current operation of mutual
assistance, does moderate it.

interviewed consider

that mutual

Mutual assistance can, however, be improved in many areas:

(cid:151) staff and material and budgetary resources are insufficient
to meet requirements and should be more in line with the
needs of today;

(cid:151) a legal complexity arises

from the accumulation of
international and national rules to be applied in the same
case; basic training in this matter for those involved in
mutual legal assistance is essential;

(cid:151) there are major discrepancies between the Member States
as to the application of Conventions; a better policy of
guidelines (whatever the method of establishing them and
whatever their legal status) should be put in place;

(cid:151) requests for mutual assistance based on offences which
may be categorised as tax offences give rise to problems; it
is desirable to remedy this for the future;

(cid:151) conventions

sometimes

to ratify than is
justified on purely technical grounds; speedier ratifications
are indispensable;

take longer

(cid:151) double criminality remains a potential ground for rejecting
requests when the measure requested is coercive;
the
European Union should continue to discuss this matter;

(cid:151) the exercise of rights of appeal should not be able to be

used for delaying purposes;

(cid:151) use of good practice should be implemented carefully in
the Member States and should be monitored by the
European Judicial Network;

(cid:151) statutes of limitation under the law of the requested State
should no longer be an obstacle to the execution of
requests;

and, finally, as a general lesson to be drawn,

approach to mutual

(cid:151) the high concentration of mutual assistance within the
European Union itself should encourage further use of a
specific
assistance between the
Member States in the area of freedom, security and justice,
in particular as it is likely that this aspect might become of
growing importance with the enlargement of the European
Union.

(cid:151) insufficient

language knowledge remains an obstacle to
improving mutual assistance and to direct communication
between judicial authorities; there is considerable need for
training in this area;

I.

INTRODUCTION

(cid:151) there is a considerable burden of outdated practice and
pointless red tape and hierarchical complexity; the result is
transmission and execution of
to slow down the
international requests; the solution would be to simplify
the channels and streamline the procedures;

(cid:151) it is imperative to train specialists in mutual assistance;

Pursuant to Article 8(5) and Article 10 of the Joint Action of 5
December 1997 (1), establishing a mechanism for evaluating
level of
the application and implementation at national

(1) Article 8(5):

(cid:145)At the end of a complete evaluation exercise, the

Council shall take the appropriate measures.(cid:146)
Article 10: (cid:145)No later than at the end of the first evaluation of all the
Member States, the Council shall examine the detailed rules and
scope of the mechanism and shall, if appropriate, make adjustments
to this Joint Action.(cid:146)

C 216/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

international undertakings in the fight against organised crime,
this report endeavours to draw conclusions relating to the first
evaluation exercise, with a view to enabling the Council to
take the decisions incumbent upon it.

The first evaluation exercise addressed delays in the operation
of the system for mutual legal assistance and urgent requests
for the seizure of assets.

This report is based on the individual evaluation reports, the
intermediate reports and discussions of those reports in the
Multidisciplinary Group. Its purpose is not to reproduce the
individual recommendations made to the Member States.
It
endeavours to highlight the main questions identified in the
course of the exercise, identify good practice, analyse it and,
form of
where
recommendations either to the European Union or to the
Member States
themselves depending on the case. These
recommendations are of course not all of the same importance
and one should therefore take this
into account when
examining the present report.

appropriate,

propose

action

the

in

II.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

The Member States have received individual recommendations
in each evaluation but the overall results of the evaluation of
Member States’
systems of mutual assistance in criminal
matters are also of major interest to the European Union. They
make it possible in particular to assess whether the difficulties
recorded, and indeed the often severe criticisms levelled in
recent years at the slowness and inefficiency of this form of
cooperation, are well-founded and, if so, to what extent.

Over the past
five to eight years the question of mutual
assistance has been discussed intensively within the European
Union and its Member States. Comments and criticisms have
been voiced from different sources and vary depending on
whether they are from practitioners or from academics. The
matter has also been given increased attention in national
parliaments and in the European Parliament.

In the Action Plan of 28 April 1997 to combat organised
crime, adopted by the European Council at Amsterdam,
starting from the assertion that judicial cooperation needs to
be brought up to a comparable level to police cooperation, the
High Level Group advocated research and solutions to facilitate
mutual assistance, setting up a European Judicial Network
promoting direct communication between judicial authorities
and improving forms of cooperation which would help to
combat organised crime. The Action Plan proposed also the
setting up of the mutual evaluation mechanism on which this
report is based.

law, a majority of
that mutual

The first finding to be drawn from the 15 evaluations is that,
while mutual assistance does not have the level of perfection
and reliability expected by many practitioners,
it does not
operate as badly as some claim. In the field of drugs or serious
the
offences under ordinary criminal
assistance
interviewed consider
practitioners
operates more efficiently than it is reputed to do. For example,
the evaluations made it clear that the alleged lack of direct
communication between one judicial authority and another
does not correspond to the facts. Even if the central authorities
were in almost every instance unable to provide statistics for
the flow of mutual assistance under Article 53 of the 1990
Schengen Agreement
Convention
(hereinafter
the
evaluations
communication between
judicial authorities is current practice, and one that is on the
increase. That
the
criticism of the current operation of mutual assistance, does
moderate it. However, in the interests of accuracy, it must be
said that, while mutual assistance does not operate as poorly
as it is reputed to do, there are still areas of difficulty, for
instance tax questions and certain types of economic crime.

the
(cid:145)1990 Schengen Convention(cid:146))

applying
called the
indicate

finding, while not

invalidating all of

that direct

1985

Secondly, the evaluations have demonstrated that even if the
statistics are not
totally reliable, most requests for mutual
assistance are between Member States of the European Union,
the proportion ranging between 75 % and 95 %. Moreover,
almost all of the remaining requests concern candidate States,
which will accede to the Union sooner or later. The conclusion
to be drawn is that in this area there is a dimension specific to
the Union, in its present or future configuration. This fact in
its turn leads to the conclusion that it is worthwhile for the
Union to have its own instruments and continue to develop
practices specific to the area of freedom, security and justice.
The move has already begun with the Convention on mutual
assistance in criminal matters from 29 May 2000 between the
Member States of the European Union (hereinafter called the
(cid:145)2000 Convention(cid:146)), which is complementary to the 1959
Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Assistance in
(cid:145)1959 European
Criminal Matters
Convention(cid:146)). Work is also at present being carried out, based
on a French initiative, in the Working Party on Cooperation in
Criminal Matters on elaborating another instrument
in the
field, focusing on economic crime. This approach deserves to
be pursued and taken further.

(hereinafter

called the

third

relates

finding

implementation of

The
the
to the
instruments. The experts noted that, 40 years after adoption,
the reference Convention (cid:151) the 1959 European Convention
(cid:151) is not applied in a uniform manner either between the
Member States or within a Member State. There is thus a real
problem of consistency, which needs to be resolved.

A fourth finding concerns the added complexity surrounding
legal problems as a result of outdated practices, administrative
that
routines

and bureaucratic hierarchy.

is obvious

It

1.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 216/17

improved mutual
assistance means updating operational
methods inherited from the past and making action more
flexible.

The fifth general finding relates to language usage. The fact that
the vast majority of judicial authorities are unable to express
themselves correctly and in legal terms in a language other
than their own greatly limits the scope of the provisions on
training
communications. Only increased language
direct
sustained over time will remove that obstacle.

The sixth, and last, finding concerns flows of mutual assistance:
they are on the increase. A general increase has been observed
by all the Member States but the proportion varies, depending
on the State and the circumstances, there is one certainty: the
upward trend in requests for mutual legal assistance.

a European Union strategy for the beginning of
the new
millennium(cid:146) (1), setting a target date for the end of 2001 and
priority 1. The 2000 Convention invites the Member States to
begin the procedure of ratification of the Convention before 1
January 2001.

The evaluations demonstrated how important it is that there
be no gaps in the area of mutual assistance conventions since
any failure to ratify may prevent or dilute mutual assistance.

international

requirements

constitutional

Recommendation 1: The Council urges the Member States to
in compliance with
devote particular attention to ratifying,
their
instruments
which facilitate mutual assistance in criminal matters within a
reasonable period. Special attention should be given to an
early ratification of the 2000 Convention. The Presidency of
the Council should write to its counterparts, asking them to
report to the Council before 1 October 2001 on their reasons
for not ratifying conventions. Those reports could form the
basis
the Belgian
Presidency.

for discussion in the Council under

III.

SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS

(b) Statutes of limitation

(a) Ratification of international conventions

As mentioned in the questionnaire which was the basis for the
evaluation exercise, the evaluation concerns mutual assistance
between Member States within the framework of the 1959
European Convention and its 1978 Protocol, the 1962 Benelux
Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal
Matters and its 1974 Protocol, the 1990 Schengen Convention
and other relevant treaties or arrangements, such as the 1990
the
Convention
Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (hereinafter called the
(cid:145)1990 Money Laundering Convention(cid:146)).

Laundering,

Seizure

Search,

and

on

the Member States of

While all
the European Union have
ratified the 1959 European Convention, the 1978 Protocol (on
facilitating mutual assistance in fiscal matters)
is not yet
ratified by one Member State and was ratified by another only
in 2000. The 1990 Money Laundering Convention has been
ratified by 14 of the Member States of the Union. Apart from
those specific cases, the experts noted that it nearly always
took a long time (often more than five years and sometimes
up to twenty years) to ratify conventions.

in some Member States the
The evaluations revealed that
judicial authorities did not execute a request where it appeared
that the offences on the basis of which it was made would be
covered by the statutes of limitation under its own law. In a
1999 law on international
judicial cooperation, one Member
State reaffirmed the principle that cooperation is not possible
if criminal proceedings are barred by the statutes of limitation
except where a convention expressly provides to the contrary.

It is not an explicit ground for refusal in the 1959 European
Convention that the offence giving rise to the request is barred
by statutes of
limitations in the requested State. This is,
however,
the case in the 1957 European Convention on
Extradition. In that area the Member States have taken one
step further. Pursuant to the 1996 Convention on Extradition
between the Member States of the European Union, extradition
may not be refused on the ground that the prosecution would
be statute-barred according to the law of
the requested
Member State. The raison d’Œtre to keep this ground for refusal
regarding mutual legal assistance should be questioned.

Recommendation 2: The Council invites the Member States
to review their national legislation and practises with a view to
ensuring that a request
legal assistance from
another Member State is not refused solely on the ground that
the offence giving rise to the request is barred by statutes of
limitations in the requested Member State.

for mutual

The European Union has already stated its concern regarding
the time taken to ratify instruments. It did so in the Action
Plan of 28 April 1997 to combat organised
crime
(recommendations 13 and 14); the target date set then was the
end of 1998. It did so again in recommendation 27 of the
document on (cid:145)The prevention and control of organised crime:

The evaluations revealed that, of the four grounds of refusal
listed in Article 2(b) of the 1959 European Convention, three

(1) OJ C 124, 3.5.2000, p. 1.

(c) Grounds for refusal

C 216/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

(sovereignty, security, ordre public) are only rarely invoked to
refuse a request from another Member State of the Union.
Essential interests are a different matter. At least one Member
State referred to its essential interests as grounds for making it
compulsory for requests relating to a search or seizure in a
bank to be checked by the Ministry of Justice before action is
taken, although it appears that this practice has been changed
through recent legislation as a result of the evaluations.

Member States thought that such requests could be executed
the requested Member State had a centralised
efficiently if
register of all bank accounts rather than having to request all
bank institutions in the country. On the other hand it must be
recognised that certain Member States who do not have a
centralised register of all bank accounts could have difficulties
to provide such information.

current

state of

development of

In the
international
instruments, an assessment made by the executive on the basis
of Article 2(b)
is a unilateral decision with an undisputably
political dimension since it relates to protecting a State’s
sovereignty. The evaluations did, however, demonstrate that
mutual assistance is now developing in an increasingly judicial
framework, as evidenced by the direct communication between
judicial authorities in the Member States provided for in the
1990 Schengen Convention and in the 2000 Convention, and
as promoted and facilitated by the European Judicial Network.
That
and
examination by the judicial authorities has been analysed in
several evaluations as a cause of delay in execution and a
source of confusion regarding allocation of responsibilities
between ministries and judicial authorities.

ambivalence

assessment

between

political

The draft instrument that at present is being considered in the
Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters includes a
proposal to limit the application of Article 2(b) of the 1959
European Convention.

is not easy to
Those operating in this area know that
identify, detect and designate a bank account opened in
another Member State, but it happens fairly frequently that
they know of its existence without having sufficiently precise
information to pinpoint the bank where it was opened.

it

The draft instrument that at present is being considered in the
Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters includes a
proposal relating to the provision upon request by another
Member State of a list of the bank accounts of a natural or
legal person.

Recommendation 3: The Council notes with satisfaction that
work is being carried out
in the Working Party on
Cooperation in Criminal Matters on an expedited procedure
for tracing bank accounts of natural or legal persons and
requests the Working Party to seek satisfactory solutions to
this matter as quickly as possible.

(e) Tax offences

The Council notes that work is being carried out in the
Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters on grounds
for refusal. In that context, proposals have been made to limit
between the Member States the application of the grounds for
refusal in Article 2(b) of the 1959 European Convention.

The evaluations showed that the issue of tax offences remained
such a sensitive one that mutual assistance could, on this basis
be limited and slowed down or at worst be refused.

(d) Tracing of bank accounts

assets

appropriate,

and coercive measures

An effective means of combating crime,
the restraint and,
and property
confiscation of
where
presuppose their prior identification and tracing. It emerged in
the course of the evaluations that a number of Member States
for mutual assistance involving
would agree to a request
in respect of
interim protective
property and assets only if
the latter were completely
identified. But
is precisely the stumbling block in
combating crime as frequently the identification is incomplete.
It even happens that the property is quite simply in the name
of a third party. The evaluators commented that Member
States offered only limited means of
tracing the least well
identified assets, and some refused to undertake investigations,
which they considered were too broad in scope and which
they described as (cid:145)fishing expeditions(cid:146). This mainly applies to
bank accounts. The experts noted that practitioners in some

this

The experts observed that 14 Member States have ratified the
Additional Protocol to the 1959 European Convention of 17
March 1978 while one Member State had not yet done so.
Furthermore, of
the Member States which had ratified the
Protocol, there were many which maintained requirements for
dual criminality, for proportionality, and for speciality, mostly
expressed through reservations
to the
Protocol.

and declarations

This situation is all
the more unfortunate in that certain
aspects of organised crime also come within the scope of
taxation, such as cigarette smuggling. It would be regrettable if
a measure of restraint against a bank account harbouring the
proceeds of this type of activity could not be executed on the
grounds that the offence concerned taxation.

The draft instrument that at present is being considered in the
Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters includes a
provision according to which a request for mutual assistance
may not be refused on the ground that the request concerns a
fiscal offence.

1.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 216/19

The Council notes, with satisfaction that work is being
carried out in the Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal
Matters with a view to ensure that requests for mutual legal
assistance are not refused on the ground that the offence is a
fiscal offence.

(f) Double criminality

The experts systematically examined the question of double
criminality, which is sometimes invoked as a ground for not
responding to requests for mutual assistance or for not sending
a request at all. They found that that condition took different
forms in different Member States and was used to varying
degrees.

Nevertheless, they noted that:

(cid:151) the evaluations did not lead to the conclusion that double
criminality is a major restraint on mutual assistance since
in most cases the crimes for which requests were made
constituted serious crimes for which Member States have
fairly
violence,
swindling, etc.),

legislation (drugs,

crimes of

similar

(cid:151) opinions differ as to whether and to what extent

the

requirement causes problems in practice,

(cid:151) practices vary significantly from one country to another

and even from one court to another,

(cid:151) the mere

existence of

judicial
the
authorities not to send out requests because they know in
advance that their request will be rejected.

some

leads

rule

In addition to these general remarks, some more specific
observations may be made.

The first relates to the fact that the very concept of double
criminality is not carved in stone; where it exists, it is almost
always envisaged with flexibility, not as a requirement that the
elements constituting an offence be exactly the same in the
law of the requesting and requested State, but frequently as a
mere question of double punishability, which is an approach
focusing more on the offences than on the law. Double
punishability means inquiring whether there is in the law of
the requested State an offence of the same nature which allows
a charge to be brought even if it does not correspond exactly
to the legal definition of the offence on the basis of which the
request is made.

The second observation is that despite that variable approach,
often described as an assessment in concreto, double criminality
remains to a considerable extent a condition of admissibility
for the request that, even if in most cases fulfilled, needs to be
checked in each case. It is hence not only a potential obstacle
to mutual assistance, but may also imply an additional
time-consuming element in the procedure. The experts also

requirement

noted that one Member State considers
the double
into
far
extends
criminality
taking
consideration the extenuating circumstances surrounding the
offence on which the request
is based. That approach
considerably extends the scope of the legal requirements and is
the provision of mutual
by its nature liable to prevent
assistance.

that
as

as

A third observation relates to the fact that in many Member
States double criminality is analysed differently depending on
that
the person in charge of
demonstrates
requesting
authorities are left. Thus in one Member State it became
apparent that one court executing requests had a much stricter
concept of the double criminality requirement than the central
authority.

the uncertainty

in which the

executing

request;

the

that

the double

fourth observation is

The
criminality
requirement is analysed more strictly when the request relates
to a coercive measure. The fact is that searches and seizures,
to the fight
coercive measures par
against organised crime both to obtain evidence and to stop
the assets of the most enterprising international criminals. It
was noted, however, that one Member State never applies the
double criminality rule vis-(cid:224)-vis Member States of the Union
even where there is a request for search and seizure.

excellence, are essential

The question of double criminality should become less acute as
harmonisation of substantive criminal laws develops within the
European Union, even though an observation from the
evaluations is that double criminality could be a potential
obstacle to mutual assistance, principally where coercive
measures are requested.

The draft instrument that at present is being considered in the
Working Party on Cooperation in Criminal Matters includes a
proposal relating to the double criminality requirement
in
relation to requests for search and seizure.

that

double
and

States

Recommendation 4: The Council
criminality
among Member
recommends continued discussion on this subject.

remains

topical

notes

(g) Procedure

Compatibility between laws on criminal procedure in Member
States remains a sensitive issue. The principle is that
the
requested State applies its own laws in executing the request.
For
judicial
authorities of one Member State could tolerate the presence of
judicial
a defence lawyer at

the hearing, whereas other

remarked that

evaluators

example,

the

the

C 216/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

into their national

authorities of the same Member State categorically refused to
do so, citing their laws on criminal procedure, which did not
so provide. Certain Member States have already introduced
provisions
law on the question of
international cooperation making it possible to apply the law
of the requesting State, if so requested. The 2000 Convention
includes a provision that the requested State shall comply with
the formalities and procedures expressly indicated by the
requesting Member State provided that such formalities and
procedures are not contrary to the fundamental principles of
law in the requested Member State.

for mutual

All the evaluations devoted time to the internal procedure in
the central authorities and other authorities that
take part
when executing a request
legal assistance. The
experts found timeworn bureaucratic practices, which were not
in line with the increasing needs arising from a steady and
significant increase in the flow of requests. In several Member
States the work of the prosecutors is rendered cumbersome by
a bureaucratic hierarchy, which slows the dispatch of requests
for mutual assistance considerably even when the Member
State’s laws authorise prosecutors to establish and dispatch
them themselves.
delays
attributable to pointless routing through hierarchical channels
could run to weeks or even months.

Evaluations

showed

that

the

These administrative
in line with the
routines are not
provisions of the 1990 Schengen Convention and the 2000
individual
Convention. Less
responsibility appear indispensable.

formal hierarchy and more

In several of the Member States evaluated, the cumbersome
bureaucratic channels through which requests are passed from
the central authority to the staff responsible for executing
them struck the experts. In most instances, the justification for
that long, slow progression is the need for control. Yet it
became apparent that this succession of filters did not ensure
real control of the execution of the requests. Genuine control
actually takes place either when the request arrives at
the
the judicial authority
the level of
central authority or at
executing it. To save precious time, responsibility for control
should in cases relating to the European Union be vested in a
single authority, which in most Member States would be the
judicial authority executing the request.

Several requests received by a Member State relate to service of
documents and not
to obtaining evidence in a criminal
proceeding. Even if the service of documents may have great
importance for the addressee or the authority that issue the
documents they do not require the same complex measures by
the requested Member State as other requests for mutual legal
assistance. The evaluations showed that service of documents
and other requests for mutual legal assistance often were dealt
with in the same manner even though the service of
documents could be dealt with less formally and thus more
quickly.

In this context
the experts were
it should be noted that
impressed with the informal approach to judicial cooperation,
which existed in certain Members States. This approach was
achieved with a minimum of formality and appeared to be
successful. Since the entry into force of the 1990 Schengen
Convention this informal approach is finding its way between
the judicial authorities, although the situation may still be
improved.

The Council reiterates its earlier recommendation of an early
ratification of the 2000 Convention, which provides in general
for direct contacts and direct transmissions of documents to be
served. The Convention also calls on the authorities of the
requested Member State to accept a procedure even if it is
unfamiliar. This will no doubt entail that the difficulties in
general with incompatibility between laws on criminal
procedure will become less significant.

Recommendation 5: The Council calls upon the Member
States to:

legal assistance by defining exact

(cid:151) rationalise the internal procedures and the administrative
path and to eliminate red tape in the authorities dealing
lines of
with mutual
demarcation and specific tasks, simplifying the role of the
hierarchy and making the officials concerned responsible.
The objective is to achieve a flexible and dynamic service;
the informal approach developed in some Member States
should be taken into consideration.

(cid:151) ensure that a request for a specific measure from another
Member State will not be executed in a less efficient way
than a measure in a domestic case.

(h) Rights of appeal

Although they rarely have suspensive effect, rights of appeal
offered by the requested Member State may considerably slow
the transmission of material
to the requesting authorities,
thereby delaying both the analysis and exploitation by the
requesting
for
example,
the procedural system in one Member State
offered a right of appeal to any person having an interest. That
facility had been abused by some defendants for delaying
purposes and the Member State acknowledged the situation
and had recently amended its legislation to restrict such abuse.

evaluators noted,

authority. The

judicial

that

In another Member State a bank may exercise a right of appeal
against a decision to seize an account and in a third Member
State appeal procedures have suspensive effects. If it is to be
assumed that the Member States of the European Union have
confidence in one another’s legal systems and that mutual
assistance is granted in the interests of the requesting Member

1.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 216/21

State, consideration should be given to limiting rights of
appeal in the requested Member State or, at least, removing
their suspensive effect while not losing sight of the question of
fundamental rights.

Recommendation 6: The Council calls upon the Member
States to examine their national procedural provisions in order
to prevent rights of appeal
from being used for delaying
purposes.

(i) Financial crimes (cid:151) specialised units

The evaluations showed that several Member States have set
up special units or established specific procedures with the aim
of enhancing the fight against financial crime and improving
the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. These units contain
experts from different areas and field of experiences and this
approach has
in several Member States proved to be a
successful tool in combating financial crime.

Recommendation 7: The Council calls upon the Member
States to examine their structures relating to investigations into
financial crime with a view to drawing on best practises on
how other Member States are organised and examining if it is
necessary to reorganise their own structures
to
improve cooperation between the Member States.

in order

(j) Transfer of materials

In some Member States material or objects seized following a
decision of a court, acting on the basis of a request from the
requesting court, is not transferred directly. Quite frequently, a
judicial authority must examine whether all of
the seized
objects and documents actually relate to the criminal offences
defined in the requests and, if necessary, remove those which
do not.

this additional stage in the
The evaluations concluded that
transfer of material relating to the execution of the requests
was a pointless requirement, which could hardly be regarded
as providing additional guarantees, and was therefore simply a
cause of delay. Moreover, this procedural stage is often covered
concerned
by old
acknowledged that.

legislation and

the Member

States

recommendations

This aspect of the problem is to be viewed in conjunction with
relating to simplifying the
the previous
instances involved and
procedure, reducing the number of
making
requests
the
judicial
executing
responsible,
avoiding any (cid:145)over-bureaucratisation(cid:146) of
thus
mutual assistance.

authority

the

(k) Standard forms and computerised systems for outgoing requests

Several experts recommended the Member States to take all
necessary initiatives to improve the quality of requests for
mutual legal assistance in order to avoid requests from being
misunderstood and in the long run facilitate mutual
legal
assistance.

The experts were also impressed by the development of
computerised systems in some Member States in dealing with
requests for mutual legal assistance, which in particular could
be one way of improving the quality of outgoing requests.
Particularly in one Member State the use of computers was
found to be a powerful tool for all of those involved in the
preparation of requests.

Recommendation 9: The Council calls upon the European
Judicial Network to continue the further development of a
standard form for outgoing requests aiming at
facilitating
mutual assistance and make it available as soon as possible.
The Council also recommends the Member States to examine
the potential within their own country for a computerised
system for the drafting of outgoing requests and coordinate
these efforts at EU level, possibly with Community funding,

(l) Good practice

The evaluation exercise had already begun several months
before the European Union adopted the Joint Action on good
practice in mutual legal assistance in criminal matters. That did
not prevent the evaluators from checking that the provisions
of that Joint Action were actually being implemented. Their
finding was
the 15 Member States had made the
statements provided for in the Joint Action of 29 June 1998.

that

is difficult

to check whether

in practice the judicial
It
authorities now take care to indicate in requests all
the
telephone numbers and electronic addresses for direct contact
and whether other points of good practice are applied. In view
of the major advantage, which respect for good practice offers,
the Member States must devote special attention to it.

Recommendation 10: The Council invites the Member States
to assess the respect for the measures set out in the Joint
Action of 29 June 1998 on good practice in mutual
legal
assistance in criminal matters. The European Judicial Network
contact points could assist by notifying their own judicial
authorities or their counterparts in the Network of any failings
encountered.

(m) Urgent requests

Recommendation 8: The Council calls upon the Member
States to simplify the procedure for transfer of material to the
requesting Member State by dispensing with multiple controls.

The judicial authorities or officials of the central authorities in
several Member States complained of abuse of the (cid:145)urgency(cid:146)
mark, which is seen as a way of having requests dealt with as

C 216/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

soon as possible. There is often no explanation of the grounds,
which led the requesting authority to mark the case (cid:145)urgent(cid:146)
even if no reason for urgency could be deduced from
examination of the file and material.

is not

Notwithstanding that, the requested State, on the grounds that
it
the measures
requested by the requesting State, nearly always takes action
within the deadline requested.

to assess the advisability of

for it

That situation is unsatisfactory because it further delays the
requests, which are not marked urgent and
execution of
discredits the use of the urgency mark.

The Joint Action of 29 June 1998 on good practice in mutual
legal assistance in criminal matters includes an obligation for
Member States to ensure that, where a request
is marked
(cid:145)urgent(cid:146), to explain the reasons for the urgency and not to
mark as (cid:145)urgent(cid:146) requests which are of minor importance.

The Council stresses the importance of a full implementation
of
Joint Action of 29 June 1998 referred to in
Recommendation 10, in particular as regards urgent requests.

the

(n) Guidelines

The evaluations showed that dissimilar practices could develop
on the territory of a Member State with regard to the
execution of
for
incoming requests. The experts noted,
example, differences in the interpretation of national rules.

Such differences have great disadvantages and also make it
difficult to obtain a clear picture of mutual assistance in the
Member State concerned. The use of guidelines to ensure
unified approaches and practices would be a logical solution.
Moreover, the use of such guidelines is certainly a simple way
of ensuring that good practice in mutual assistance becomes
widespread.

Justice has become a central point, which ensures the proper
to it. The
requests
distribution and execution of
evaluations have revealed that
these central points have
varying levels of control: in some Member States they merely
ensure proper transmission and receipt of requests, while in
other Member States they are more involved in the execution
of the request.

sent

it

such as

instruments,

the coming years,

Given the developments in Mutual Legal Assistance envisaged
by the new international
the 1990
Schengen Convention and the 2000 Convention it was
confirmed in the evaluations that
is necessary for most
Member States to revisit the concept of a central unit as it has
developed within the Member States and to seek to clarify the
in particular in
role that such a central unit should play,
relation to other Member States of
the European Union.
Within some Member States already, a majority of requests are
trend can only
bypassing the central authority, and this
continue and indeed increase over
in
particular taking account that the evaluations seem to indicate
that some of 75 % to 95 % of all requests for mutual
legal
assistance concern the Member States of the European Union.
Against the move towards decentralisation must be weighed
the fact
the central
authority could have an influence on the effectiveness of
mutual
legal assistance with countries that are not Member
States. The central authorities could also play a important role
in assisting candidate countries in the process of developing
judicial cooperation in criminal matters, as well as in relation
to third countries with which the European Union intends to
develop closer cooperative links. Through the promotion of an
active policy of direct contacts between judicial authorities
resources will be freed in central
among Member States,
training, more difficult cases of
for planning,
authorities
mutual
and
and
assistance
legal
international negotiations.

the capability of

reductions of

coordination

central

that

central

Recommendation 12: The Council calls upon the relevant
Working Party to discuss the role of the central authority and
how this
towards
decentralisation, could maintain an effective role, and examine
whether there are any functions, such as overall guidance and
monitoring, which central authorities are best placed to
perform in the developing scenarios.

the moves

despite

unit,

Recommendation 11: The Council encourages the Member
States to issue guidelines, through the means which are in line
with their constitutional traditions, to their judicial authorities
to ensure the dissemination of homogeneous practices.

(p) European Judicial Network

(o) The role of the central authority

Pursuant to Article 15(1) of the 1959 European Convention,
the normal method for transmission of requests is between the
ministries of Justice. In most Member States the Ministry of

The evaluations have confirmed that
the European Judicial
Network is playing an important role more and more in
speeding up the execution of mutual legal assistance requests
and in ensuring better cooperation between investigators both
at judicial and law enforcement level. The European Judicial
Network is considered by practitioners to be one of the major
developments
in the European Union for ensuring better
judicial cooperation and more efficient fight against serious
forms of crime. It has also led to a far better understanding of
each other systems.

1.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 216/23

However, it has been noted in the evaluations that important
efforts are still needed at national as well as European Union
level and that there is a need to make the Network better
known to practitioners.

etc. The evaluations showed that automatic issue reminders,
full execution to the requesting
notification of partial or
authorities, did not always follow up the requests for mutual
legal assistance.

Recommendation 13: The Council calls upon the Member
States and the European Judicial Network to make the
Network more widely known to the judicial authorities in the
Member States and remind them of the advantages to make
more extensive use of the Network’s contact points, especially
in urgent cases.

Recommendation 14: The Council calls upon the Member
States to provide the European Judicial Network contact points
with all necessary resources and training, and insists on the
speedy implementation of the Council decision (1) to provide
the contact points with Intranet facilities as well as a secure
e-mail.

(q) Direct communications

The recording and control of figures should not be justified in
itself, but may be seen as a useful method by which a Member
State may acquire a complete knowledge of the system it is
operating and the demands being put on it. It is not merely a
question of knowing how many cases are going in and out of
a country. A better knowledge of the figures gives a Member
State the ability to determine whether all parts of a system are
able to cope with the demands being put on them and ensure
effective coordination of the resources.

Recommendation 16: The Council calls upon the Member
States to install and use a computerised system for record
keeping in order
the actual
situation regarding mutual assistance and enable a better
monitoring and follow-up for each case.

to give a clearer picture of

According to Article 53 of the 1990 Schengen Convention
requests for mutual assistance in criminal matters may be
made directly between the judicial authorities.
In the 2000
Convention direct communications is made mandatory with
in most
some exceptions. The evaluations
Member States direct
even if
available, is not enough put in practice. The reasons for this
differ but generally practitioners at operational level seem not
to be familiar with these new channels. The evaluations
showed that the practitioners in several Member States were of
the opinion that requests that go through ministries or other
channels create significant delays and that direct transmission
of requests considerably improve practical cooperation.

revealed that
requests,

transmission of

States

In reiterating the need for an early
Recommendation 15:
ratification of the 2000 Convention the Council calls upon the
Member
direct
communication between judicial authorities of requests for
legal assistance in accordance with the provisions of
mutual
the Convention.
the implementation of the
In this respect,
European Judicial Atlas will play an instrumental role.

promote

support

and

the

to

(r) Record keeping

In all the evaluations the experts found shortcomings in the
Member States regarding the record keeping and control of
incoming and outgoing requests. Most Member States could
not provide a clear picture of the actual situation regarding
number of cases pending, cases completed, outgoing and
incoming requests, the time involved in executing the requests,

(1) A decision was taken on 11 January 2001 to implement the pilot
project concerning the virtual private network with a view to it
becoming operational in August 2001.

(s) Resources

The evaluations revealed that there is a general problem of
resources and tools both in the central administrations and in
the judicial authorities. Until recently the flow of mutual
assistance was limited. But the regular increase related directly
to greater mobility and the extension of the economic field has
led to an increasing mismatch between the tools and resources
of another age and today’s needs. The experts concur with that
finding regarding the increase in flows.

Of the Member States evaluated, some have been forced to
react vigorously to make good a lag, which, over time, has
become structural. While this effort is to be applauded, the
experts are looking to the future and asking whether there is a
need not only to make up for time lost but also to take steps
to ensure that
the means really do match the end. The
question can no longer be approached in purely reactive terms;
it has become essential to think and formulate forward-looking
mutual assistance policies, which make provision in particular
for the allocation of means and resources vital for the smooth
and efficient management of these matters. This approach is all
the more essential as major crime is steadily increasing, so the
situation is unlikely to improve. As an example, the evaluators
the use of out-of-date
noted the shortage of computers,
software which inhibited high performance,
the rarity of
mobile telephones and portable computers amongst officials
dealing with these matters, etc. Finally, premises sometimes
proved to be in poor condition and almost always unsuitable.

C 216/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

The evaluators also looked at travels by magistrates and police
officers abroad to monitor and follow-up the execution of
requests. The general finding was that there was a complete
lack of flexibility and that resources for missions abroad were
restricted owing to the strong suspicion of
(cid:145)administrative
tourism(cid:146). The lack of flexibility was mainly attributable to the
fact that the final decision to authorise a mission often went
right up through the hierarchy, sometimes as far as the
Minister in person. The type of
investigations
which police and judicial authorities were likely to encounter
these days (cross-border trafficking in migrants, drugs, etc.)
calls
reaction incompatible with cumbersome
bureaucratic procedures. The restriction on resources showed
that the methods employed belonged to another age. The need
to give the authorities the means to carry out their activities
must now be recognised.

international

swift

for

Reports obtained during evaluations from those active in this
area all concurred on one point: visits to the requested State
contributed to speed and relevance in executing requests,
particularly where searching or interviewing a witness was
involved. Even if it had no right to take action on the territory
visited, the authority could have questions put on the basis of
its knowledge of the dossier; it could react since it was on the
spot; it returned home with a copy of evidence or statements
the originals of which would take the official, and inevitably
longer, route.

a genuine

Recommendation 17: The Council calls on Member States to
formulate
forward-looking policy on mutual
assistance, which could include a policy to facilitate visits
abroad by police and judicial authorities concerning mutual
assistance, and accordingly to provide the administrative
these
departments and judicial authorities
matters with the premises, means and resources they need.

responsible for

(t) Training

All the evaluations highlighted a pronounced need for initial
and further training directly geared to the fact that the subject
matter of mutual assistance was developing over time. The
training to communicate
three main requirements were
through
applicable
in
language,
fluency
international and national
instruments and training in the
judicial systems of other Member States.

training

in

The evaluations showed that several conventions and other
international regulatory instruments as well as a variety of
national
instruments could be applicable when executing or
applying for mutual legal assistance. It is therefore essential for
Member States to speed up and lay greater emphasis on basic
and specialist training for magistrates in order to put them in a
position to practice mutual assistance in accordance with the
international and national instruments in force. Otherwise, the
international instruments negotiated and the new laws adopted
by the Member States will remain largely a dead letter.

training should supplement

The vital
the role which the
European Judicial Network contact points must play in this
connection in providing information for the judicial authorities
which request it regarding the most relevant instruments for
obtaining the measures sought in the requested State.

Knowledge of other Member States’
legal and institutional
systems also appeared to be necessary to understand the
requirements of the various systems. Two advantages would
ensue making pointless requests, which would be doomed to
failure, could be avoided and obstacles could be circumvented
through suitable, targeted presentation of requests.

Recommendation 18: The Council calls on Member States to:

from recruitment and during the
(cid:151) promote and extend,
course of careers,
the
initial and further
purpose of at very least acquiring and maintaining and
subsequently improving knowledge and fluency in at least
one language in addition to the mother tongue. This
judicial and
could apply to the police,
requirement
administrative authorities operating in the field of mutual
assistance,

training for

(cid:151) accelerate, amplify and update the initial and continuous
training for prosecutors and judges in order to ensure that
judicial authorities have the necessary minimum skills to
practice active and passive mutual assistance. Specialist
training should be encouraged for the prosecutors and
judges most involved in these issues,

communication between judicial

authorities often
Direct
in
involves adequate mastery of one or more languages
addition to one’s mother tongue; otherwise this provision in
the 1990 Schengen Convention and the 2000 Convention
remains purely theoretical. The inability to express oneself in a
language other than one’s own is a major obstacle to flexible
and speedy mutual assistance.

(cid:151) encourage and promote initial and further training to
judicial and
impart and improve knowledge of the legal,
the other Member States. The
institutional systems of
initiatives taken by certain Member States in this area and
also in the framework of
the Eurojustice conferences
should be supported and the initiative by France regarding
a European Judicial Training Network could, when
adopted, contribute to furthering this process.

1.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 216/25

(u) Specialisation

to

designed

In a number of the Member States visited and evaluated the
experts’ attention was attracted by the existence of specific
assistance,
improve mutual
institutions
coordination of
the judicial action taken by the different
prosecutors
responsible for a particular case and, where
appropriate, coordination with foreign judicial authorities:
national magistrate, national prosecutor,
liaison magistrate,
the
anti-Mafia directorate,
national
European Judicial Network plays a similar role in certain
Member States. All
is expected,
Eurojust when set up, constitute de facto specialisation by a
limited number of magistrates in international cooperation
matters. Such specialisation presents numerous advantages in
terms of efficiency and restricting training to a select circle of
officials.

these institutions and,

example, while

for

it

Recommendation 19: The Council calls on the Member States
to examine the possibility of having judicial and administrative
staff specialising in the management of mutual assistance in
In that context should be examined the
criminal matters.
possibility of having a specific Union financing programme
under Title VI to meet these needs. Such a programme could
for instance address training in mutual legal assistance.

IV.

THE REPORTS

judicial and legal systems of

It would be a pity if
to benefit

The practical
information contained in the fifteen reports
drawn up by the experts constitutes an incomparable fund of
data on the institutional,
the
the Union and the
Member States.
Member States were not
from this body of
theoretical and practical
information, which could be made
available to the central authorities, courts, prosecutors and
police in the Member States, the European Judicial Network,
definitive, Unit),
Eurojust
the
subsequently
(provisional,
European Police Office (Europol),
the European Anti-Fraud
Office (OLAF), the International Criminal Police Organisation
(cid:151) Interpol,
their
criminal mutual assistance, cooperation and coordination tasks.

to facilitate the day-to-day execution of

the Council of

Recommendation 20: The Council calls on the General
the European Union and the
Secretariat of
European Judicial Network to make the information contained
in the evaluation reports available in electronic form (e.g.
CD-ROM or the website of the European Judicial Network).

V.

FOLLOW-UP TO EVALUATIONS

The value of the peer evaluation system lies largely in the
process itself and in the incentive it provides to take comments
into account. With this in mind, the follow-up to evaluations
should be envisaged as a request to the authorities of the
Member State concerned to describe either the action taken
since the evaluation to remedy the problems pinpointed by the
experts, or the reasons for their inaction.

As the evaluations proceeded,
the experts were moved to
comment that Member States were taking steps to amend their
mutual assistance system, to change the law or actually to
draw up more detailed legislation, to make up for structural
backwardness, etc. Major efforts have sometimes been made to
catch up. It would be useful to maintain this momentum. The
follow-up to evaluations might serve this purpose.

the conclusions of

Recommendation 21: The Council asks the Presidency to
prepare a letter on the basis of
the
evaluation report on each Member State and to forward it to
the Member States according to a timetable reflecting the
original order of evaluations; each State would then have to
describe the institutional,
legal, practical, administrative and
logistical measures it had taken or will take in response to the
recommendations addressed to it. The outcome could then be
passed on to the Council by means of a Presidency report.

VI.

EXTENSION OF
COUNTRIES

EVALUATIONS

TO CANDIDATE

The Joint Action of 5 December 1997, which served as a legal
basis for the evaluations has now become part of the Union
acquis. However, the candidate States for accession have not
yet benefited from it.

In view of the volume and the relevance of the information,
both legal and practical, collected on international mutual
assistance during the first evaluation exercise and in the light
of the provisions of the Pre-accession Pact as set out in the
text approved by the Council on 28 May 1998 (1), it would
seem useful to extend this procedure now to the candidate
It will be an easy matter to take this step now
countries.
owing to experience accumulated. Moreover,
it should be
stressed
its meeting on 24 May 2000 the
Multi-disciplinary Group, sitting as the expert group on the
Pre-accession Pact, referred to this possibility of extending the
Joint Action of 5 December 1997. However, no decision has

that

at

the experts
When drawing up each of
addressed precise recommendations
to the Member States
inviting them to correct, alter or amend particular aspects of
their mutual assistance systems.

the fifteen reports,

(1) Pre-accession Pact on organised crime between the Member States
of the European Union and the applicant countries of central and
eastern Europe and Cyprus. (OJ C 220, 15.7.1998, p. 1).

C 216/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.8.2001

been formally adopted. In any event, it will be essential first of
all to evaluate the cost of extending this procedure which
would necessarily have to draw on the resources of
the
Council General Secretariat, supported by national experts.

Recommendation 22: The Council calls upon the relevant
Working Party to extend the mechanism for evaluating
international mutual assistance to the candidate States for
accession.

VII. THE EVALUATION MECHANISM

Article 10 of the Joint Action of 5 December 1997, which is
the basis
to
examine the detailed rules and scope of the mechanism and, if
appropriate, make adjustments to the Joint Action.

the evaluations, calls upon the Council

for

the time of

Throughout this first evaluation exercise, the mechanism in
place has given full satisfaction. Its provisions have not created
any particular difficulties and the procedure has been without
a hitch. Discussion took place in the Multi-disciplinary Group
at
to resolve
ambiguities of interpretation on a few points of detail. The
procedure is now well-honed and the second exercise on
enforcement agencies and the fight against drugs is now in
progress and is proving satisfactory. Moreover,
the Multi-
disciplinary Group has already decided to devote the third

intermediate report

the first

evaluation exercise to extradition and begin work before 1 July
2001 (1).

It may also be noted that, although the confidential nature of
it was not an
the procedure slowed down the translation,
in
factor
insurmountable obstacle and was an important
inspiring confidence in the Member States; after discussion,
they all agreed to remove the confidentiality requirement. A
(cid:145)restricted(cid:146) procedure, rather than a confidential procedure, is
being used in relation to the second round of the evaluations.
This simplifies administrative treatment of evaluations without
losing the
evaluation mechanism
inspires.

confidence, which the

VIII. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, while the evaluation procedure is certainly a
constraint and demanding on resources, which the Member
States sometimes find difficult, its critical aspect is very useful,
given that it is in the hands of peers, and indeed to some
extent irreplaceable. The first exercise has demonstrated that
this tool works well.

the Council

On the basis of a report from the Presidency before the end of
2003,
should take note of progress made
following implementation of the recommendations set out in
this report.

(1) Recommendation 28 in the document on (cid:145)The prevention and
control of organised crime: a European Union strategy for the
beginning of the new millennium(cid:146) (OJ C 124, 3.5.2000, p. 1).