Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Crime prevention in the European Union
Date: 2004-09-29
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: European social policy, crime, deprived urban area, juvenile delinquency, prevention of delinquency

C 43/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.2.2005

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the
Council and the European Parliament Crime prevention in the European Union

(2005/C 43/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the European Commission to the Council and the
European
European Union of 12 March 2004
in
Parliament
(COM(2004) 165 final),

on crime

prevention

the

HAVING REGARD TO the Commission's decision of 22 September 2003 to consult it on the subject
under the first paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community,

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of its Bureau of 1 July 2003 to instruct the Commission for Consti-
tutional Affairs and European Governance to draw up an opinion on this subject,

HAVING REGARD TO the European Parliament resolution of 24 January 1994 on small-scale crime in
urban areas and its links with organised crime (1) and the European Parliament resolution of 17 November
1998 on combating organised crime (2),

HAVING REGARD TO the 1997 Action Plan to Combat Organised Crime (3),

HAVING REGARD TO the Vienna Action Plan of 3 December 1998 on how best to implement the
provisions of the Treaty of Amsterdam on an area of freedom, security and justice (4),

HAVING REGARD TO Recommendation 1531 (2001) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe on security and crime prevention in cities: setting up a European observatory, and Resolution 180
(2004) of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe on local policing in
Europe,

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament – The prevention of crime in the European Union. Reflection on common guidelines and
proposals for Community financial support (5),

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion of 20 November 2003 on the local and regional dimension of the
area of freedom, security and justice (CdR 61/2003 fin),

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 355/2003 rev. 2) adopted on 2 July 2004 by the Commis-
sion for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance (rapporteurs: Ms Mercedes Bresso, President of
the Province of Turin (IT-PES) and Mr Michel Delebarre, former Minister of State – Mayor of Dunkirk
(FR-PES);

Whereas:

1)

2)

the European Parliament adopted on 24 January 1994 a resolution on small-scale crime in urban
areas and its links with organised crime and on 17 November 1998 a resolution on guidelines and
measures for the prevention of organised crime with reference to the establishment of a comprehen-
sive strategy for combating it;

the reference framework for crime prevention measures is laid down by the Treaty establishing the
area of freedom, security and justice, which laid the foundations for a genuine European system of
law and order whose three objectives are closely related and must be linked to the Charter of Funda-
mental Rights;

(1) OJ C 20 of 24.1.1994
(2) OJ C 379 of 7.12.1998
(3) OJ C 251 of 15.8.1997
(4) OJ C 19 of 23.1.1999
(5) COM (2000) 786 final of 29.11.2000

18.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/11

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

Article 29 of the Treaty stipulates that the Union's objective in this area is to be achieved by
preventing and combating crime, organised or otherwise;

the 1998 Vienna Action Plan called for crime prevention measures to be adopted during the five
years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam;

the Tampere European Council of 15 and 16 October 1999 concluded that crime prevention
measures and the exchange of best practices should be developed, that the network of competent
national authorities for crime prevention and cooperation between national crime prevention orga-
nisations should be strengthened and that the first priorities for this cooperation could be juvenile,
urban and drug-related crime. It called for the possibility of a Community funded programme to be
explored for these purposes;

a number of seminars and conferences on crime prevention, in particular those held in Stockholm,
Zaragoza and Brussels in 1996, in Noordwijk in 1997, in London in 1998 and in the Algarve in
2000, called for the development of an EU network enhancing cooperation in the field of crime
prevention;

of the various conferences sponsored by the European Union, the Algarve high-level conference of 4
and 5 May 2000, played a significant role: it gave the go-ahead for the Hippocrates programme and,
most importantly, laid the foundations for the Commission Communication of 29 November 2000;

this Communication defined the targets of a European crime prevention strategy: to reduce the
factors which facilitate entry into the world of crime and repetition, to avoid victimisation, to
reduce the sense of insecurity, to promote and disseminate a law-abiding culture and a management
culture designed to avert conflicts, and to implement good governance measures in order to prevent
corruption;

the policies must be multidisciplinary: crime prevention and security measures must go hand in
hand with supporting social and education policies and partnerships with players on the ground,
with the local authorities being given a key role;

10) moreover, these principles and targets make it possible to speak of a ‘European model’ of crime
prevention, under which action of the European Union, without replacing national, regional or local
action, will supplement the ‘pyramid of responsibilities’;

11)

a feeling of insecurity increased slowly but surely in Europe between 1996 and 2002;

12)

it is necessary to involve the whole of society in creating a partnership between national, local and
regional authorities, non-governmental organisations, the private sector and the European people:
there are many different causes of crime and they therefore need to be addressed with measures
adopted at various levels by different groups of society, including civil society, in cooperation with
the parties involved, with their differing experience and skills;

13) most of the crime committed against EU citizens takes place in urban areas; priority therefore needs

to be given to proper integrated urban policies;

at its plenary session of 29 and 30 September 2004 (meeting of 29 September) adopted the
following opinion by a majority:

C 43/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.2.2005

1. The positions of the Committee of the Regions

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

be emphasised, along with the fact that the Commission is
looking at the need to involve all the different social players;
however, statements to this effect must be reflected in the way
the EUCPN functions in practice, with players that are currently
excluded being involved and given a role;

1.1 welcomes the fact that a process is to be set in motion
for monitoring the network's activities with a view to reinvigor-
ating European-level crime prevention policies which target
non-organised crime – known as volume crime – and identify
juvenile, urban and drug-related crime and crime against
women and other disadvantaged groups, such as children,
young people, the elderly and immigrants, as priorities;

1.8
is concerned to note the structural inadequacy of the
EUCPN and the fact that it is merely a facility for exchange of
quite random experiences, with no working parameters or
objectives.

1.2
stresses that, for the Member States, crime prevention
policies are an area in which the European Union can contri-
bute effectively to bringing genuine ‘European added value’ to
national, regional or local measures;

2. The Recommendations of

the Committee of

the

Regions

1.3
stresses the need for crime prevention measures to be
seen as initiatives not just addressing crime per se but seeking
also to prevent all anti-social behaviour, to remove the causes
of such behaviour and to reduce the public's feelings of fear
and insecurity;

is concerned to note, moreover, that the Communica-
1.4
tion limits itself to dealing practically with minor issues such as
defining more clearly the types of crime which need to be
targeted, with no recommendations or proposals being put
forward for addressing the social dimension of crime preven-
tion;

seeking to prevent anti-social behaviour,

points out that crime prevention – taken to mean a set
1.5
of measures
to
remove the causes of such behaviour and to reduce the public's
feelings of fear and insecurity – is a horizontal
issue which
touches upon many areas of public policy such as social policy,
education policy, urban policy, the integration of immigrants
and increasing the involvement of the citizens;

1.6
believes that the Commission must acknowledge the
close connection between crime and anti-social behaviour and
the processes of social exclusion engendered by economic and
technological change in contemporary society; however, any
statement to this effect must be followed up with coherent
undertakings in the field of policy coordination;

1.7
calls for the key role of the regional and local authori-
ties in supporting Member States' crime prevention policies to

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.1 would draw attention to the specifics of insecurity
perceptions, which are, of course, a result of crime-related vari-
ables (actual risk of falling victim to crime), but also of many
other social, psychological and cultural factors such as age,
gender,
insecure or
marginal social status, the perceived crisis of society and its
values, the role of the media, and the poor quality of the urban
environment;

lack of confidence in the authorities,

2.2
calls on the Commission to provide for measures
within existing programmes and if necessary within new ones,
to provide a support strategy for the development of security
policies designed to integrate social, urban planning and educa-
tion initiatives and enhance public participation and a sense of
community, bearing in mind that action to enhance public
security perceptions requires investment in crime prevention,
social reassurance and addressing public perceptions and fears;

underlines the importance of

2.3
the European Union's
role in monitoring criminal activity at European level; in asses-
sing national, regional and local policies and experience; and in
supporting the dissemination of crime prevention and urban
safety expertise and good practices across the Member States;

asks the Commission to ensure that the practical imple-
2.4
mentation of
its instruments translates into cross-sectional,
inter-disciplinary action in order to provide a genuine urban
crime prevention strategy: issues such as management of public
spaces,
transport or disadvantaged urban areas are among
those that should be at the heart of policy-making;

18.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 43/13

2.5
asks the Commission to make implementation of
regional and local policies a priority in the 2005 budget, and
to make the case for inclusion of
the Municipalities and
Regions at institutional level;

highlights, in this respect, the important role played by
2.6
the European Forum for Urban Safety (EFUS)
in promoting
European-level awareness of crime prevention and urban safety,
with particular reference to public policy appraisal and dissemi-
nation of good practice;

2.7 would make the case for establishing a European
Observatory for urban safety as a lightweight structure in order

for

to equip the European Union and the Member States with a
common instrument
the collection, organisation and
processing of data relating to the victims of crime and percep-
insecurity; promoting and coordinating research;
tions of
designing security policies for other areas of EU competence,
and for building regional and local partnerships;

2.8
and lastly, calls on the Commission, when framing
prevention policies, always to bear in mind that these should
not translate in practice into a violation of fundamental rights
while meeting the security objective for citizens.

Brussels, 29 September 2004.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Draft Commission decision on the application of
Article 86 of the Treaty to state aid in the form of public service compensation, the draft directive
amending Commission Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between
Member States and public undertakings and the draft Community framework for state aid in the
form of public service compensation

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

(2005/C 43/05)

Having regard to the draft Commission decision on the application of Article 86 of the Treaty to state aid
in the form of public service compensation,
the draft directive amending Commission Directive
80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings and
the Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation,

Having regard to the letter sent by Mario Monti, member of the European Commission responsible for
competition policy, on 19 March 2004 requesting the opinion of the Committee under the first paragraph
of Article 265 of the EC Treaty,

Having regard to the decision of its president of 26 May 2004 to instruct the Commission for Economic
and Social Policy to draw up an opinion on the subject,

Having regard to Article 16 of the EC Treaty concerning services of general economic interest as well as
Articles 2, 5, 73, 81, 86, 87, 88 and 295 of the Treaty,

Having regard to Article 36 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights concerning access to services
of general economic interest,

Having regard to Article III-6 of the draft European Constitution,

Having regard to the White Paper on services of general interest (COM (2004) 374 final),