Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "The local and regional dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice"
Date: 2003-11-20
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU migration policy, EU police cooperation, EU visa policy, European judicial area, fight against crime, right of asylum

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/41

recommends that ‘subsidiarity’ and ‘continuing rel-
2.11.
evance’ be included in the list of indicators for screening the
acquis for simplification;

recommends that consideration be given to creating
2.12.
an independent expert advisory group to monitor impact
assessments, assure objectivity and encourage good practice.

The group might comprise lawyers and practitioners from
relevant bodies, including the CoR, and would provide expert-
ise for the Commission in its systematic screening of legislative
proposals and assessments of the existing acquis with a view
to repeal, codification or simplification. The group could
include, or work in parallel with, advisors from the business
community, and would complement the political role of the
CoR during later phases of the decision-making process.

Brussels, 20 November 2003.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on ‘The local and regional dimension of the Area of
Freedom, Security and Justice’

(2004/C 73/08)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

having regard to the decision by its Bureau on 1 July 2003 to instruct the Commission for Constitutional
Affairs and European Governance, in accordance with Article 256(5) of the Treaty establishing the
European Community, to draw up an opinion on ‘The local and regional dimension of the Area of
Freedom, Security and Justice’;

having regard to the conclusions of the Tampere, Laeken, Seville and Thessaloniki European Councils;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:
Biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘freedom, security and
justice’ in the European Union (first half 2003), COM(2003) 291, 22.5.2003;

having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament:
Biannual update of the scoreboard to review progress on the creation of an area of ‘freedom, security and
justice’ in the European Union (second half 2002), COM(2002) 738, 16.12.2002;

having regard to the European Parliament resolution on progress in 2002 in implementing an area of
freedom, security and justice (rapporteur: Baroness Sarah Ludford) (B5-0193/2003);

C 73/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

having regard to the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe by the European Convention
(CONV 850/03), especially: the enshrinement of AFSJ in Part I (Article 41) and Part III (Articles 158-178);

having regard to CoR opinions on individual items of AFSJ legislation, especially in the field of the
immigration, status and integration of third-country nationals;

having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 61/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 26 September 2003 by the
Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance (rapporteur: Mr Peter Winter, Leader of
Saarlouis District Council (D-PES));

having regard to the discussions conducted by the Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European
Governance at the seminar entitled ‘The local and regional dimension of the Area of Freedom, Security
and Justice’ held in Caserta (I) on 7 November 2003 which highlighted the need to promote
complementarity between the different levels of government, on the one hand, and to develop inter-
institutional cooperation at European level on the other,

adopted the following opinion unanimously at its 52nd plenary session on 19 and 20 November 2003
(meeting of 20 November).

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

2. The recommendations of

the Committee of the

Regions

The Committee of the Regions

1.1.
points out that it has already issued opinions on the
Commission’s individual proposals for legislation, especially
on the subject of the immigration, status and integration of
third-country nationals;

1.2.
in view of the major importance of the legislative
programme decided on by the European Council in Tampere
(October 1999)
and operational
comprising legislative
measures to implement AFSJ, and the follow-up decisions
taken by the Laeken (December 2001), Seville (June 2002) and
Thessaloniki (July 2003) European Councils;

1.3.
and in the light of the Convention’s draft for a future
EU constitution, feels it is necessary to draw up an opinion on
AFSJ and the Tampere process as a whole;

and notes that, since legislation on the regulatory
1.4.
instruments of AFSJ will shortly be completed, the implemen-
tation of AFSJ must be addressed as a matter of priority in this
opinion, particularly in the areas of crime prevention and the
social and economic integration of legally resident third-
country nationals in the EU;

The Committee of the Regions

notes that policy to implement AFSJ

is of great
2.1.
importance to both citizens and local and regional authorities,
referring in this respect to the following passages in the
conclusions of the Tampere European Council, where the
dimension of citizenship is clearly expressed: ‘The European
Union has already put in place for its citizens the major
ingredients of a shared area of prosperity and peace: a single
market, economic and monetary union, and the capacity to
take on global political and economic challenges. The challenge
of the Amsterdam Treaty is now to ensure that freedom, which
includes the right to move freely throughout the Union, can
be enjoyed in conditions of security and justice accessible to
all. It is a project which responds to the frequently expressed
concerns of citizens and has a direct bearing on their daily
lives’ (1). ‘The area of freedom, security and justice should be
based on the principles of
transparency and democratic
control. We must develop an open dialogue with civil society
on the aims and principles of this area in order to strengthen
citizens’ acceptance and support. In order to maintain confi-
dence in authorities, common standards on the integrity of
authorities should be developed’ (2).

and notes that, since the Convention’s draft Consti-
1.5.
tution does not provide for the regional and local level to be
involved in a way which is commensurate with the existing
division of powers in a number of Member States, this opinion
must also address the institutional aspects.

(1) Tampere European Council — Presidency Conclusions, 15-
16.10.1999, Towards a Union of freedom, security and justice:
The Tampere milestones, point 2.

(2) Tampere European Council — Presidency Conclusions, October
15-16 1999, Towards a Union of freedom, security and justice:
The Tampere milestones, point 7.

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/43

endorses this view and notes that citizens of the Union
2.2.
are entitled to expect the EU to counteract the threat to their
freedom and legal rights posed by serious crime. This requires
joint efforts to prevent and combat crime and criminal
organisations throughout the EU. Police and judicial resources
must be pooled in order to ensure that there are no havens for
criminals or the proceeds of criminal acts in the EU;

2.3.
highlights the vertical dimension of AFSJ, which stems
from the differing conditions for AFSJ implementation per-
taining in different parts of the territory, proximity to the
citizens and the responsibilities of regional and local auth-
orities; draws attention to the need to improve the day-to-day
security of European citizens within the EU, especially in urban
areas;

2.4.

points out that

— in a number of Member States, decentralised authorities
have responsibility in the areas of justice, the police and
home affairs, both for legislation and implementation;

highlights the particular problems faced by regions and
2.7.
localities on the external borders of the accession countries,
which in a very short time will have to take on important tasks
to secure these external borders;

2.8.
also notes that special efforts continue to be required
on the present EU’s internal and external borders and on the
internal borders of the future Member States to maintain a
high level of security;

points out that it is such action to defend freedom and
2.9.
protect against crime in particular which caters to people’s
most basic needs. Such issues are a very clear demonstration
to the EU’s citizens of the benefit of Europe working together.
Guaranteeing domestic security is in many cases the task of
the regional and local level;

and in this connection recommends measures to
2.10.
maintain the level of security through cross-border cooper-
ation (promoting multilingualism, opening border crossings,
cooperation between local police authorities, chambers of
commerce and general and vocational schools and youth
work);

— local authorities are responsible for risk management
under their local security and public order powers, or act
on behalf of the State, depending on the particular
Member State’s division of powers;

and recommends creating the legal conditions at the
2.11.
level of the particular Member States concerned for regional
and local authorities and other public bodies in border regions
to enter into cooperation agreements.

— regional and local authorities provide a range of services
of general interest which help to prevent crime and to
promote social and economic integration.

Implementation of the Tampere programme

2.5.
also points out that AFSJ is not being implemented in
an abstract legal area, but in the concrete context of each
particular region and locality, with its own particular character-
istics, which may consist of a high concentration of third-
country nationals, social and economic exclusion and mar-
ginalisation, above-average crime rates or its location on the
EU’s external or internal borders. The social, cultural and
economic development of areas with these characteristics is
often severely hampered, in addition to the considerable extra
administrative and financial burdens they have to bear;

2.12.
In creating an area of freedom, security and justice,
the principles of transparency and democratic control must be
the key pillars. We must develop an open dialogue with civil
society on the objectives and principles of this area in order to
achieve greater acceptance and more support from the citizens;

therefore shares the view of the European Parliament
in particular,

in the sensitive policy area of AFSJ

2.13.
that,
democratic accountability is essential;

expects the EU to respect the competences of the local
level and to collaborate with the relevant

2.6.
and regional
authorities in all matters connected with those competences;

2.14.
is pleased to note that, according to the latest
the Commission
Scoreboard for the first half of 2003,
concludes that it has been possible to make up some of the
backlog in implementing the Tampere programme and that
the Greek and Italian presidencies have made it a priority of
their programmes to keep to the schedule;

C 73/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.3.2004

nevertheless notes with concern that

the Com-
2.15.
mission’s assessment of the Tampere programme concludes
that there is a risk that the instruments agreed upon will
ultimately be less effective than expected in terms of the
ambitions of Tampere and that the policy followed with
various legislative projects is that of ‘the lowest common
denominator’, thereby undermining the additional benefit of
joint European action;

2.16.
calls for a new EU programme (Tampere II) to be put
forward to continue the Community fight against crime and
terrorism after completion of the measures to establish an area
of freedom, security and justice commissioned by the Tampere
summit;

calls for account to be taken of the following aspects
2.17.
in proposed AFSJ legislation and when drawing up operational
measures inasfar as they are relevant to the specific case:

— an assessment of the impact, effectiveness and practicality,

as well as the cost,

— subsidiarity,

— examining the possibility of risk management through

prevention,

— compatibility with the issues and institutional conditions
resulting from specific regional and local circumstances
and

— information, coordination and evaluation.

Operational measures to implement AFSJ

2.18.
welcomes the conclusions of the Thessaloniki Euro-
pean Council, which not only pressed for completion on
schedule of the Tampere programme (May 2004), especially
in the field of asylum and immigration, but also addressed the
question of the Community financial resources needed to
implement AFSJ and mechanisms for sharing the burden as
part of a policy for integrating third-party nationals who are
legally resident in EU territory;

particularly welcomes the fact

it seems the
2.19.
financial conditions are to be created for implementing AFSJ
with regard to integration measures of this kind, which are of
particular importance from the local and regional point of
view;

that

is pleased to see pilot projects to integrate third-
2.20.
country nationals being implemented and hopes that some
generally applicable findings on how best to proceed at
regional and local level can be extrapolated from these and
made available in the form of reports or manuals where
necessary;

recommends supplementary studies to examine the
2.21.
requirements and instruments for a combination of Com-
munity, regional and local policies, using case studies, for
example;

2.22.
endorses the intention to continue beyond 2004 the
European Refugee Fund, which is used to resource 15 % of
projects at regional and local level, and to increase its size;

2.23.
notes with interest that the Commission services are
currently looking into using the Structural Funds, including
the Urban and Interreg Community initiatives, to support and
develop instruments to implement AFSJ with a regional and
local focus;

2.24.
calls for indicators such as ‘location on internal or
external borders of EU accession countries’ and ‘areas with a
high rate of
to bear when
determining the extent of European structural policy measures;

to be brought

immigration’

2.25.
welcomes the Commission’s intention to submit a
communication on crime prevention before year end mapping
out the priorities for EU action.

Involvement of regional and local authorities and the Committee of
the Regions in implementing AFSJ

2.26.
insists that local and regional authorities be involved
in the forums on existing and future programmes aimed at
exchanges of experience on AFSJ;

2.27.
notes that, in the process of enshrining the creation
of the AFSJ as a matter of Community policy, the Maastricht
and Amsterdam Treaties failed to take adequate account of the
input of the regions and localities and their European body,
the Committee of the Regions, pointing out that in a number
of Member States it is not central government, but regional
authorities who are responsible for justice and home affairs
and that they must therefore be involved in drawing up
legislative and operational measures as part of the process of
implementing AFSJ, and thus calls for the draft constitution to
be modified accordingly;

23.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 73/45

insists that

the amendments tabled by the CoR
2.28.
observers at the Convention be taken on board, particularly
those referring to the following articles:

— Article 283 (Judicial control)

— Article 167 (Asylum)

— Part I of the Constitution

— Article 170 (Judicial cooperation in civil matters)

— Article 41 (Implementation of the Area of Freedom,

— Article 171 (Criminal procedure)

Security and Justice)

— Part III of the Constitution

— Article 160 (Role of state parliaments)

— Article 161 (Evaluation mechanisms)

— Article 162 (Operational cooperation)

— Article 164 (Cooperation between the relevant

departments)

Brussels, 20 November 2003.

— Article 173 (Crime prevention)

— Article 177 (Europol),

as this will ensure that the distribution of competences in a
number of Member States is taken into account;

calls for

2.29.
the Regions to be
adequately involved in the legislative processes and on the
committees envisaged for the implementation of AFSJ.

the Committee of

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Albert BORE