WRITTEN QUESTION P-1730/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Eurojust annual report for 2002.
Date: 2003-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU body, Eurojust, European Anti-fraud Office, Europol, Schengen Information System, activity report, cooperation policy, disclosure of information, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/133

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission is not a securities market supervisor and is therefore not in a position, on the basis of the
information supplied by the Honourable Member, to pronounce itself whether there are grounds to
consider that there has been a case of market manipulation with regard to the price and trading volume of
the concerned target company’s shares (Slovnaft a.s.). As regards the relevant Community legal framework
market manipulation is now covered by the new Directive 2003/6/EC of the Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on insider dealing and market manipulation (market abuse) (1). However, the deadline
for transposition into national law of this Directive is not until October 2004.

If it were to be the case that certain alleged transactions have been carried out with the use of inside
information, Council Directive 89/592/EEC of 13 November 1989 on insider dealing (2) might be
applicable. However, the Directive cannot be enforced in Slovakia before the Accession Treaties enter
into force. Nevertheless, in view of the seriousness of the matter, the Commission will make every effort to
liase with the Slovakian authorities in order to address the reported concerns satisfactorily in the context of
the accession process.

(1) OJ L 96, 12.4.2003.
(2) OJ L 334, 18.11.1989.

(2004/C 51 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1730/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Eurojust annual report for 2002

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

does the Commission not share my view:

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

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

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

C 51 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2003)

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

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

the Commission hopes that

these will be benefits of

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

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

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

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

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

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

(1) Council Decision 2002/187/JHA of 28 February 2002 setting up Eurojust with a view to reinforcing the fight

against serious crime, OJ L 63, 6.3.2002.

(2) OJ C 160, 4.7.2002.
(3) OJ L 239, 22.9.2000.
(4) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to

Parliament, Council and Commission documents, OJ L 145, 31.5.2001.

(5) OJ C 34, 13.2.2003.