Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Establishing for the period 2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice Proposals for Decisions establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programmes: Fight against violence (Daphne) and drugs prevention and information Fundamental rights and citizenship Criminal justice Civil justice as part of the General programme Fundamental Rights and Justice
Date: 2006-02-16
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU programme, European security, access to the courts, drug addiction, fight against crime, fundamental rights, violence

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/25

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament — The Hague
Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years — The Partnership for European renewal in the
field of Freedom, Security and Justice

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Establishing a
framework programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties for the period 2007-2013 Proposal
for a Council Decision Establishing the specific Programme Prevention, Preparedness and Conse-
quence Management of Terrorism Prevention of and Fight against Crime for the period 2007-2013
as part of the General Programme ‘Security and Safeguarding Liberties’

Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament Establishing
for the period 2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice Proposals
for Decisions establishing for the period 2007-2013 the specific programmes: Fight against violence
(Daphne) and drugs prevention and information Fundamental rights and citizenship Criminal
justice Civil justice as part of the General programme Fundamental Rights and Justice

(2006/C 192/06)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament of 10 May 2005 on The Hague Programme: Ten priorities for the next five years. The Partnership for
European renewal in the field of Freedom, Security and Justice, COM(2005) 184 final;

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament of 6 April 2005 Establishing for the period 2007-2013 a framework programme on Fundamental
the period 2007-2013 the specific
Rights and Justice — Proposals for Decisions establishing for
programmes: Fight against violence (Daphne) and drugs prevention and information, Fundamental rights
and citizenship and Criminal justice as part of the General Programme Security and Safeguarding Liberties
COM(2005) 122 final — 2005/0037 (COD) — 2005/0038 (CNS) — 2005/0039 (CNS) — 2005/0040
(COD);

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament of 6 April 2005 Establishing a framework programme on Security and Safeguarding Liberties for the
period 2007-2013 Proposal for a Council Decision Establishing the specific Programme Prevention, Prepa-
redness and Consequence Management of Terrorism for the Period 2007-2013 as part of the General
Programme Security and Safeguarding Liberties COM(2005) 124 final — 2005/0034 (CNS) — 2005/0035
(CNS);

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of the European Commission of 10 May 2005 to consult it on these
questions, in accordance with Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision of its Bureau of 12 April 2005 to instruct its Commission for
Constitutional Affairs and European Governance to draw up an opinion on the subject;

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on The area of freedom, security and justice: the role of regional and local
authorities in implementing the Hague Programme (CdR 223/2004 fin (1));

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion of 12 October 2005 on Prevention, preparedness and response to terrorist
attacks, Prevention of and the fight against terrorist financing through measures to improve the exchange of informa-
tion, to strengthen transparency and enhance the traceability of financial transactions, Preparedness and consequence
management in the fight against terrorism and Critical infrastructure protection in the fight against terrorism (CdR
465/2004 fin);

(1) OJ C 231, 20.9.2005, p. 83.

C 192/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.8.2006

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 122/2005 rev.) adopted on 12 December 2005 … by its
Commission for Constitutional Affairs and European Governance (rapporteur: Mr Opstelten, Mayor of
Rotterdam);

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

WHEREAS the degree of success of the European policy on freedom, security and justice over the
coming years will decisively influence the European public's judgement of the value added by the
European Union;

WHEREAS in most Member States, local and regional authorities have public order and security
responsibilities, and are often also (jointly) responsible for tackling social and community problems
that can foster a sense of insecurity;

WHEREAS the local and regional authorities are often partly responsible for determining the effec-
tiveness and efficiency of a number of aspects of the European Union's policy on security, freedom and
justice — such as citizenship, crisis management, the fight against terrorism, integration, informa-
tion sharing and combating organised crime — through the way in which they fulfil their responsi-
bilities in these areas;

WHEREAS the crucial role played by local and regional authorities in these aspects of security
policy is at present insufficiently recognised and acknowledged;

WHEREAS recognition of the role of local and regional authorities at European Union level should
help create the conditions for, encourage and facilitate their involvement on the basis of a clear
vision of an effective and balanced division of tasks in the field of freedom, security and justice
between, on the one hand, the European Council and the Commission and, on the other hand, the
national governments, combined with a proactive approach on the part of the local and regional authori-
ties themselves, both within and outside the framework of the Committee of the Regions;

adopted the following opinion at its 63rd plenary session, held on 15 and 16 February 2006
(meeting of 16 February):

1. Views of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

1.1
appreciates the way the Commission has set about
fleshing out the Hague Programme. The comprehensive list of
measures and actions in the Action Plan COM(2005) 184 final
and the framework programmes COM(2005) 124 final and
COM(2005) 122 final are evidence of the will and determin-
ation to promote the interests of freedom, security and justice
in Europe.

1.2
believes that freedom, security and justice are rightly
high-priority issues in the European Union. These are issues to
which the people of Europe are attached. The discussion
concerning the Constitutional Treaty has shown that many
people are dissatisfied with the achievements of the European
Union. It is clear that the policy pursued up until now of
‘reconnecting Europe to the people’ has not worked well. As
local and regional authorities are close to the grass roots, they
are well aware that people are turning their backs on the Euro-
pean Union more and more.

1.3
believes that there is a unique opportunity to attract
fresh public support by renewing and modernising European
policy on freedom, security and justice. The average person
should be able to see that the European Union is making a real
and important contribution to improving security in his neigh-
bourhood and protecting his rights and freedoms.

1.4
notes that renewal and modernisation of policy on
freedom, security and justice require, however, recognition of
the crucial role played by regional and local authorities; points
out an important omission in current policy, with its strong
emphasis on the role of national governments. There are many
problems which national governments cannot solve without the
efforts of local and regional authorities. Local and regional
authorities form the front line in providing the initial administra-
tive and operational response, for example, to serious terrorist
attacks, pandemics, natural disasters, explosions or fires at
industrial sites, power failures, disasters at public events, etc.
Local and regional authorities also form the front line in, for
example, dealing with anti-social behaviour, street crime and
violence, encouraging the effective integration of new European
citizens and adopting measures to prevent intimidating radicali-
sation in whatever sphere of activity.

1.5
believes that the European Union — the Member
States collectively — and the local and regional authorities —
need each other in order to achieve an improvement in freedom,
security and justice that is visible and noticeable to the ordinary
person. This is not sufficiently taken into account in present
European policy. Clearly therefore, if the policy is continued in
its present form, it will not be sufficiently effective. The front line
receives insufficient support and its strategic deployment is
inadequate. There is also insufficient awareness that, with many
problems in the field of freedom, security and justice, an appro-
priate and efficient deployment by the front line can be enough
to win the battle.

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/27

1.6
considers that renewal and modernisation must also
take the form of a more systematic, structured vision of European
policy on freedom, security and justice. The long list of very
varied and, at first sight, disconnected measures and actions,
which forms an annex to the Action Plan, is not conducive to
the understanding, recognition and practicality of the policy. It
is revealing that not all the points of the Hague Programme are
fully worked out in the Action Plan, that in some areas the
Action Plan contains new points compared with the Hague
Programme, and that
framework programmes
the financial
published to date do not cover the entire Action Plan.

calls for a combining of

forces to tackle the serious
1.7
problems in the field of
freedom, security and justice in
Europe. There is a great sense of urgency among the public,
the business community, organisations, institutions, administra-
tors and (democratically elected) representatives at all levels of
government. It is no longer enough to exchange more or less
non-committal opinions. A decisive approach, free of bureau-
cratic obstacles, is essential, for which it makes a number of
concrete proposals below, which could form the starting point.

and solutions are, after all, not the same in all Member
States of the European Union;

— the activities of local and regional authorities, which are
broader in scope than a single sub-programme, effectively
spanning different sub-programmes, should also qualify for
support. Examples which come to mind are (inter) city
programmes aimed at combating violence, tackling orga-
nised crime, improving information exchange and linking
databases, combating radicalisation, etc. Steps should be
taken to ensure that such initiatives can be submitted to
one office and can be dealt with by one clear decision-
making process.

notes that

the present

framework programmes are
2.3
described in the explanatory texts as a significant simplification
of the system of budgeting and financing. From the Brussels
point of view, this may well be true; from the perspective of
the local and regional authorities, however, the system in its
present form is far too complicated and does not meet practical
needs.

2. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

The Committee of the Regions

2.4
proposes that, for the purposes of the mid-term review
of the Action Plan, an outline report be drawn up for each
Member State on the significance of the Hague programme and
the Action Plan for the local and regional authorities of the
Member State concerned. In any event, the following questions
need to be answered:

General recommendations with regard to the development and
implementation of European policy on freedom, security and
justice

— In what way are the local and regional authorities actively
involved in the preparation of European policy on freedom,
security and justice?

considers that the contents of the Action Plan for the
2.1
implementation of the Hague Programme should be adapted to
reflect its opinions. In the Action Plan the Commission itself
already comes to the conclusion that — in view of the political
nature of the policy on freedom, security and justice — it must
be possible to adapt the Action Plan where necessary. A mid-
term review of the Action Plan is scheduled for the end of
2006. It should be made explicit in the texts drawn up in
connection with the mid-term review how the position of local
and regional authorities in the policy has been strengthened.

supports the adoption of the framework programmes in

2.2
the following ways:

— the principle should be established that part of the funds
for the implementation of the Action Plan should go to the
local and regional authorities;

— it should be made absolutely clear that initiatives by local
and regional authorities with a potential European impact
may receive support. Article 4 of the relevant plans should
be clarified or supplemented to this end. ‘Impact at a Euro-
pean level’ should in this context mean: important conse-
quences for policy on freedom, security and justice in a
number of Member States. Security-related problems, causes

— In what way are the local and regional authorities actively
involved in ensuring effective implementation of European
policy on freedom, security and justice?

— In what way can the active involvement of the local and
regional authorities in the preparation and implementation
of European policy on freedom, security and justice be
improved in the Member State concerned?

— To what extent are local and regional authorities involved
in European coordination, support, supply of information
freedom, security and justice — for
etc in the field of
example by making use of existing best practices or by
jointly developing best practices?

2.5
asks that local and regional authorities in the Member
States be involved in compiling these reports. A European
benchmark should be drawn up on the basis of the reports. A
round table conference should be held in 2006-2007 attended
by the Commission, representatives from the Member States
and its members, if possible together with experts and relevant
network organisations, to discuss this benchmark and come up
with conclusions and recommendations.

C 192/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.8.2006

2.6
requests authorisation to draw up — in conjunction
with the Commission — an Action Plan on Freedom, Security and
Justice in 2006/2007 that contains concrete objectives for the
local and regional authorities committed to the plan. These
objectives could contribute to a more effective European policy
on freedom, security and justice, among other reasons, because
of the ‘spin-off’ of such an action plan for other local and
regional authorities. Such objectives should in any case include
reference to:

— the development and dissemination of best practices, for
example with regard to crisis management, the fight against
terrorism, integration, combating radicalisation, and an offi-
cial approach to tackling organised crime;

— information exchange and organising support networks;

— organising knowledge
training programmes.

transfer, quality assurance,

and

2.7
stresses the need for local and regional authorities
themselves to be (jointly) responsible for taking initiatives in
order to strengthen their position with regard to European
policy on freedom, security and justice, with a view to
increasing the overall effectiveness of the policy.

proposes that steps be taken to ensure that local and
2.8
regional authorities have sufficient
information on European
policy on freedom, security and justice. A great deal of infor-
mation is indeed available but is not easy to find or is not
accessible enough. Those in the local and regional authorities
who have little or no idea of the relevance of the activities of
the European Union in the field of freedom, security and justice
— and this is still a large group of people — are not getting
this information. The following possibilities should be consid-
ered:

— informing the target group of local and regional authorities
in a more active, focused and specific way about European
policy on freedom, security and justice (what does it mean
for you?), for example by organising interactive information
markets;

— taking account in information policy of different categories

within the target group, as outlined above;

— making administrative arrangements — for example in
terms of a front office with several back offices — to which
local and regional authorities can go to obtain help with all
their questions and requests for information on European
policy on freedom, security and justice.

hardly noticeable. This opinion should be considered at the
round table conference referred to in point 2.3.

2.10
considers that we should progress beyond vague
phrases such as ‘it is very important to actively involve local
and regional authorities’, and take more specific action, for
example by adapting the working methods of the Council,
Commission and European Parliament. Thus,
in the field of
freedom, security and justice, we could, for example, include a
standard chapter on The role of local and regional authorities in
the explanatory texts of communications, proposals and deci-
sions. The added value of such a chapter does not lie so much
in its final content as in the stimulus it gives to the process of
preparing documents.

2.11
points out that use should be made — in line with
point 2.6 — of local and regional authorities as a ‘breeding
ground’ for concrete, operational ideas with regard to the policy
on freedom, security and justice. As the ‘front line’, the local
and regional authorities in Europe collectively have at their
disposal practical experience,
insight and expertise which are
often less available at national government level. The available
brainpower should be mobilised and be given a prominent role
in preparing policy.

2.12
stresses that specialist teams from the local and regional
authorities should be encouraged to become involved in the
proposed monitoring of the Hague Programme and Action Plan
(the annual scoreboard) with regard to the policy issues for
which local and regional authorities are directly responsible. In
this way we can learn at first hand how the policy works in
practice.

2.13 would like a more systematic, structured vision to be
adopted if it is considered desirable to continue the current
programmed approach of European policy on freedom, security
and justice. The basic assumption must be that measures have
a chance of success only if they are implemented as part of a
logical chain of interconnected activities.

2.14
points out that there is little point in giving govern-
ments more powers to obtain information about the integrity
of individuals (for example applicants for licences or subsidies),
if governments have no policy in this area, no means of
conducting integrity tests and if they do not enforce the rules
on integrity. Equally there is little point in stepping up policing
in individual areas to tackle insecurity if there is no investment
in the physical or social infrastructure.

2.9
considers that the process of developing, implementing,
maintaining and evaluating European policy on freedom,
security and justice should be organised in such a way that the
involvement of local and regional authorities — especially in
those policy areas that directly involve the responsibilities of
those authorities — is ensured throughout the whole chain. In
so far as there is any involvement at present, the results are

2.15
recommends that we focus on such linkages of inter-
connecting activities so that it can be established what areas —
with due regard to the subsidiarity principle — the European
Union should concentrate on. A number of priority issues
should be carefully chosen and other issues should be left to
national governments. As many tangible objectives as possible
should be established. Economy and concentration lead auto-
matically to the necessary transparency and stability.

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/29

2.16
considers that local and regional authorities should be
given the opportunity to consider not only the separate,
specific components of European policy on freedom, security
concepts. The
and justice, but also the underlying strategic
substantive scope of the policy field should be determined as well
as possible and also the opportunities to strengthen the role of
security in other policy areas (external integration). A stronger
emphasis on security in the field of environmental policy, for
example, could mean the rules on access to companies' envir-
onmental information allowing more scope for non-disclosure
of sensitive data.

2.17
highlights the need to give consideration to the extent
to which local and regional authorities' usual systems and orga-
(for example categorisation of policy
nisational principles
according to individual criteria, target group,
issue or area)
could also be useful at a European level.

notes that,

in establishing a (renewed) systematic,
2.18
freedom,
structured vision in the European policy field of
security and justice, the legal basis should also be (re)considered.
The Constitutional Treaty has served as a guideline for the
the Hague Programme intends to reach. We
standard that
should consider the consequences of
the current situation
regarding the Constitutional Treaty for policy on freedom,
security and justice, and the appropriate response to it. On the
other hand,
it can also be deduced from a (renewed) vision
which preconditions the (European) legal basis should comply
with. Legitimatisation of policy on freedom, security and justice
on a solid democratic, rule-of-law basis is indispensable. More-
over, the essential contribution of local and regional authorities
ought to be properly defined.

recommends that a clear communication strategy with
2.19
regard to European policy on freedom, security and justice
should be drawn up for the benefit of the public and the busi-
ness community. Local and regional authorities are usually the
first (official) point of contact for the public and business. It is
then precisely the local and regional authorities which should be
actively involved in order to show the public and business how
Europe is helping to ensure public security.

Recommendations concerning aspects of European policy on freedom,
security and justice which are (partly) the responsibility of the local
and regional authorities

Cr i si s man a g e me nt

the outbreak of

2.20
points out that the terrorist attacks in London and in
Madrid, the flooding which affected large areas of Europe in
2005,
infectious diseases affecting both
humans and animals, the effects of protracted power failures
and the recent disturbances in French cities are all examples of
situations where local and regional authorities are, to a large
extent, (primarily) responsible for an effective policy of crisis
management.

2.21
crisis
management is a necessary development; certainly in relation

the professionalisation of

points out

that

to the fight against terrorism, but also in a broader sense. The
recent establishment of a European network in the field of
crisis management, the Council of Europe's European Forum of
Local and Regional Disaster Management, is an example of the
widely felt urgent need to reach such a level of professionalisa-
tion.

2.22
considers that European policy on freedom, security
and justice must support an effective approach to crisis
management in two ways:

— by means of a coordinating, accompanying role, where interna-
tional cooperation is essential
in the field of prevention,
preparation, response and follow-up. This should cover all
sorts of crises with an international impact. It is out-of-date
to concentrate policy only on crises in border areas with
possible cross-border implications. In present-day society,
crises affecting vital
infrastructure — such as (air)ports,
intersections where goods and services converge, energy
supply networks — but also infectious diseases etc. almost
always have cross-border consequences;

— by means of a stimulating role, where the quality of crisis
management can be increased to a significant extent by
networking and sharing information (for example on best
practices), by making available means, methods and tech-
nology (for instance in relation to risk-assessment and
detection systems) or by encouraging practical training for
dealing with crisis situations.

2.23
recommends that crisis management be designated as a
priority, and stresses in this context that the responsibility for
an efficient organisational framework for crisis management is
primarily a matter for the national governments.

2.24
is convinced that both the coordinating, accompa-
nying role as well as the stimulating role of the European
Union should be worked out in concrete measures, which can
be added to the agenda for 2007-2013 at the mid-term review
of the Action Plan. High priority should also be assigned to the
implementation of the measures listed in point 3.5 of the
Annex to the Action Plan. Funds should be made available to
professionalise crisis management in the broader sense (not just
related to the fight against terrorism), inter alia:

— by enabling local and regional authorities to develop new
techniques and best practices (among other things
methods,
crisis communication, developing close ties between local
social organisations and government, administrative and
operational organisational structure in crisis situations);

— by enabling local and regional authorities to optimise and
arrange frequent exercises for their crisis management plans;

— by enabling local and regional authorities to involve the
public in crisis exercises, on the one hand in order to raise
public risk awareness, and on the other hand in order to be
able to properly incorporate the response of the public into
their planning.

C 192/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.8.2006

asks that

the scope of the Proposal

2.25
for a Specific
Programme on Prevention, Preparedness and Consequence Manage-
ment of Terrorism, for the period from 2007 to 2013, be broa-
dened, with a basis being laid for financing the improved
management of crises not caused by terrorism.

T h e fi g h t a g a i n s t te r r or i s m

2.26
notes that people who live in fear of indiscriminate
terrorist attacks have lost their fundamental freedoms. This
ought not to be the future of the European Union. Following
terrorism (CdR
on from its opinion on the fight against
465/2004), measures in the field of prevention, preparation
and response have been supported. The Committee stresses
that, if a preventive approach is to be successful, it is necessary
to look into and take appropriate action regarding the deeper
causes of terrorism, which is rooted in extremism, and calls for
the connection with integration policy to be recognised as well
as the need to ensure that integrated immigrants can also actu-
ally play a full part in European society.

2.27
stresses that encouragement should be given — espe-
cially in a number of European regions where radicalisation
constitutes a real threat — to focusing on radicalisation trends
and to establishing which groups are susceptible to radicalisation
and extremism. In addition to the threat which arises from the
limited numbers of people who make the transition from a
process of radicalisation to actual terrorist activities, there is
also no less a threat from the process of polarisation. From the
point of view of security, quality of life and tolerance, undesir-
able consequences might arise which could threaten the cohe-
sion of society. These processes constitute a great risk in
several European countries. As a means to identifying these
radicalisation and polarisation processes, early warning indicators
could be established. With the help of such indicators, govern-
ments but also housing associations, social, youth, educational,
health and welfare organisations etc. could identify and
respond at an early stage to people who might become radica-
lised, offering another way of combating the creation of ‘home
grown’ terrorists. At the same time it must be ensured that the
measures undertaken will not hinder
the integration and
employment of immigrants. It is highly important to prevent
large groups of people in the centre ground, who feel that they
are not (yet) or only to a lesser degree part of European society,
from developing in the direction of radicalisation.

2.28
points out that this type of reaction capacity should
take shape mainly at local authority level and that support should
be given to local authorities to improve their information posi-
tion, for example by setting up a local information exchange for
early warnings of radicalisation, able to advise local bodies on
the interpretation of signals and on possible responses.

considers that encouragement should be given to the
2.29
development and organisation of
training courses for local
authority officials on how to recognise and report relevant
signs of radicalisation.

also recommends

2.30
an examination of ways of
preventing recruitment by extremist organisations and that an
effective approach be adopted to dealing with extremist rallying
calls and the dissemination of practical instructions for terrorist
acts via the Internet.

2.31
recommends that a decision be taken on a faster and
thorough exchange of information on financial transactions, which
should contribute to greater transparency on the part of institu-
tions and organisations, also for the benefit of local authorities.
Money often appears to flow via institutions and organisations
supported by local authorities (for example for the purpose of
integration activities). Intelligence can help cut off this flow of
money. The planned proposals on the subject should be
brought forward to 2006.

points out that, in order to research ways of fighting
2.32
terrorism effectively, greater cooperation and exchange of
information is needed both between EU Member States and
between authorities within Member States. The Action Plan
proposes the establishment of a contact point in each country,
which will have access to all relevant information on (possible)
terrorist activities. A contact point can only be effective,
however, if there is also a good information network involving
local and regional authorities — on the basis of the ‘need to
know, need to share’ principle. The Member States should have
to show how this information network has been made secure
and — where necessary — draw up plans in order to achieve
an improved information network.

2.33 wishes to see the exchange of expertise on a structural
basis on the learning effects of combating terrorism,
for
example by setting up a centre of expertise for this purpose.
The exchange of information on current operational matters is
of great importance, but it is certainly just as important after-
wards to share experience on the strategic approach to the
fight against terrorism as rapidly as possible. Networks of local
and regional authorities in particular should be involved.

2.34
recommends that attention be paid to listing not only
vulnerable infrastructure — as proposed in the Action Plan —
but also crowded places such as stations, stadiums, event sites,
tourist attractions, etc. and points out that local and regional
authorities often play an important role in securing and safe-
guarding such places.

asks that local and regional authorities be assisted in
2.35
drawing up professional risk analyses and the development of
best practices for protection and security, stresses that a
suitable legal basis should be provided for local authorities to
ensure that owners and managers comply with regulations on
and
the protection and security of
encourages the introduction of ‘toolkits’, by which the authori-
ties could assist owners and managers to enforce the regula-
tions effectively.

vulnerable

targets

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/31

2.36
urges that there be a revision — for example in the
field of access to environmental information — of the basic
principles of the rules on what the public has the right to
know about the hazards in their surrounding neighbourhood
and the extent of disclosure of operational information on the
characteristics and security of vulnerable targets.

integrated newcomers can fully take part

towns to provide for effective integration in the structural,
social, economic and cultural sense, with practical guarantees
that
in European
society being an absolute pre-condition. The recent distur-
bances in the French cities likewise demonstrate the importance
of such an approach.

recalls that the quality of (private) security organisa-
2.37
tions is essential to ensure the security of vulnerable targets
and that,
to this end, research should be undertaken on
whether further measures to improve quality are necessary or
indeed possible.

2.38
regrets the absence of any reference in the Action Plan
to ways of raising the risk awareness of the public, which
expects local authorities to keep them properly informed about
the risk of possible attacks in their neighbourhood, and advo-
cates the establishment of a clear communication strategy.

stresses that attention must be paid in the process of
2.44
integration to an individual's attachment
to the society of
which he or she is part, i.e. not ‘non-committal’ integration and
recommends that the European Union ensure clear frameworks
and pre-conditions for successful integration, but also recognise
that integration is in practice chiefly a national matter. Local
authorities should be assisted in managing the integration
process — with information and funding as well as the development
of best practices. A good basis for this was laid at the conference
of European ministers responsible for integration, held in
Groningen (Netherlands) in November 2004.

Fu ndamental r i g hts a nd ci ti zenshi p

2.39
recalls that the debate on fundamental rights places a
great deal of emphasis on preventing the erosion of funda-
mental rights and regrets the fact that insufficient attention is
paid to the sustained efforts of the authorities to promote the
security of the population.

notes that the debate on fundamental rights can be
2.40
effective only if it includes a discussion about duties — e.g. in
relation to integration and calls for European policy on this
point to be brought closer to the people by encouraging active
local discussions on the subject — for example in the form of
in order to
town hall debates. Such discussions are essential
determine the measures which can be effectively deployed to
maintain the balance between rights and duties.

supports the establishment of an office for fundamental
2.41
rights — as provided for in the Hague Programme — which
could list, describe and disseminate best practices and contri-
bute to the debates on discrimination, racism, integration and
the increasing concern over possible
terrorism in view of
attacks or disturbances.

deplores the fact that, as a consequence of the uncer-
2.42
tainty concerning the Constitutional Treaty,
the proposed
improvements with regard to legal protection at the European
Court of Justice are threatened, especially regarding the power
of any natural or legal person to institute proceedings against
regulatory acts of the Union which are of direct concern to
him or her, and therefore asks that this gap in legal protection
be filled, in the knowledge that Community policy on freedom,
security and justice is to be stepped up over the next few years.

Integ r a ti on

that

points out

2.43
the impact of newcomers, both
migrants and asylum seekers, if they have been granted refugee
status or similar humanitarian protection, on our society is
sometimes spread over several generations — particularly at
local level — and therefore considers that it very important in

2.45
proposes that support be given to city debates, dialo-
gues, language instruction, naturalisation courses, employment
schemes, equal opportunity courses and anti-discrimination
schemes, etc. and that systematic exchange and monitoring of
experience, new approaches, successes and failures be ensured
at local level.

2.46
considers that social despair in population groups
should be prevented and measures encouraged to contribute to
a harmonious balance in the inner city districts, for example
incomes policy and
measures in the field of housing policy,
training.

2.47 welcomes the fact that a new edition of the European
the
Integration Handbook is due out shortly, regrets that
impression exists that the first edition of the handbook did not
receive sufficient attention and hopes that the new edition will
receive more attention from local and regional authorities.

2.48
strongly supports the idea of organising an annual
European Forum on integration and proposes that the local and
regional authorities with their experience and expertise be
closely involved in this.

Pr i v a c y a nd se c u r i ty i n i nf or ma t i on e x c h a ng e

2.49
points out that in the second half of the last century,
the safeguarding of privacy was strongly directed towards the
protection of the public from the government, fuelled by fears
of a police state and calls for a new balance, which takes
greater account of the protection of the public from malicious
criminals.

2.50
supports against this background the goal of giving
particular attention to the protection of personal data when
implementing this Action Plan and stresses that a choice has
increasingly to be made between, on the one hand, the protec-
tion of individual interests with regard to privacy and, on the
other hand,
the protection of collective interests, such as
security, given that information plays a vital part in the fight
against terrorism.

C 192/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.8.2006

2.51
calls on the Commission, when implementing the
policy, to take account of the fact that — in so far as allowed
within the framework of the national legislation — many local
and regional authorities have set up networks to exchange
information, where data on, for example, addresses, housing,
tax, social affairs, health, etc is linked to data from the police
and judicial authorities, and considers that such an approach
could bear fruit in the fight against, for example, terrorism,
serious crime or even urban anti-social behaviour by habitual
offenders.

2.57
supports the development of best practices in the field
of information exchange and the linking of databases between,
on the one hand, local and regional authority services (such as
in the field of tax, housing, social and employment affairs, the
granting of licences and administration of personal data files)
and, on the other hand, the police and the courts, with a view,
for example, to tackling premises causing a public nuisance
and tracking down and combating organised crime networks
more effectively, insofar as allowed within the framework of
the national legislation.

suggests that a more transparent legal basis be estab-
2.52
lished for the protection of personal data, which is propor-
tionate and provides sufficient room, where necessary,
for
giving priority to the need for a secure society, and calls for
involving local and regional
public discussion of this topic,
authorities.

considers that the maintenance of public order and
2.53
security and the fight against cross-border crime necessitates
intensive sharing of information between Member States, and
asks that the Member States explicitly state what form the
information with local and regional authorities has
exchange of
local and regional
taken, considering the crucial role that
authorities perform in implementing and maintaining security
policy.

stresses the need to relieve the police of bureaucratic
2.58
tasks in connection with legal migration, such as renewing resi-
dence permits, in order that they can devote more energy and
professional resources to combating organised crime, which
seeks to profit from clandestine migration. The CoR believes
that these administrative tasks — provided they are adequately
supported by the Member States through suitable financial
arrangements — can be performed by the local authorities
through dedicated offices, as far as is relevant to the system in
different member states.

2.59
encourages the further development of an active integ-
rity policy by local and regional authorities, based on a thorough
risk assessment of powers and responsibilities.

O r g a n i se d cr i me

2.54
notes that, in the decision-making process concerning
subsidies, contracts, licences etc, local and regional authorities can
supply significant added value in fighting (organised) crime and
considers that (previous) contraventions of the law should play
a part in the decision-making process, so that, for example, a
licence might be refused if there were grounds to believe that
the applicant would once again ‘get into trouble’.

2.55
proposes that criminal investigation files be ‘screened’
by the police and the courts for information that could be
passed on to the local and regional authorities, so that they can
be taken into account when granting a licence or subsidy. If,
for example, a catering establishment employer is sentenced for
smuggling or trafficking in human beings, it is not implausible
that the same employer is putting illegal immigrants to work in
his own business. As monitoring of compliance with catering
establishment licences is the responsibility of local authorities,
it is extremely effective in such a situation to share the informa-
tion and to consider whether there are grounds for revoking
the licence of the business concerned.

suggests that the experiences of local and regional
2.56
registered, described and
authorities on this matter be
published at European level to ensure that European law —
including European public procurement law — where possible
supports such approaches by local and regional authorities.

Pr e v e n ti on a nd r e du c t i on of vi ole nc e a nd a nti -soci a l
be h a vi ou r

2.60 welcomes the fact that in the Action Plan special
attention will be given to the protection of the rights of children,
as well as to combating violence against women and children and
that activities in the field of victim support are being extended.

2.61
endorses the establishment of a broad financial frame-
work for policy in the field of prevention and reduction of
violence in the framework programme Fundamental Rights and
Justice, and supports the strengthening and extension of the
Daphne programme in order to enforce the policy of prevention
with regard to drug use in which the involvement of NGOs is
encouraged.

2.62
also supports the joint initiatives to combat human
trafficking, especially of women and children, often associated
with organised crime, by better cooperation and exchange of infor-
mation between the relevant government bodies.

2.63
points out that many local authorities have experience
in identifying and tackling domestic violence, given that violence
against women and children after all often also occurs within
the family and notes that tackling this sort of violence at a
local level should make a substantial contribution to raising the
awareness of the target groups concerned of the fact that there
is absolute social and judicial zero tolerance of violence against
women and children.

16.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192/33

therefore proposes

2.64
that, when implementing the
Action Plan, the experiences of local and regional authorities be
brought together so that best practices can be developed in this
field too and encourages the establishment of local centres for
reporting violence.

Recommendations concerning aspects of European policy on freedom,
security and justice which are not the direct responsibility of local and
regional authorities, but which do have a direct effect at local and
regional level

A common a sylum a r e a

points out that local authorities have to deal directly
2.65
with the problems of asylum seekers and notes that asylum
seekers whose applications have been rejected but who do not
have to or are unable to leave the country often seek the anon-
ymity of cities. This can be a source of social and law and
order problems in the cities.

2.66
therefore considers it of great importance to set up a
common asylum area and asylum procedure, as well as
uniform status for those who qualify for asylum.

that

recommends

2.67
the European institutions also
endeavour to facilitate the return of asylum seekers to their
country of origin and that voluntary return be encouraged by
means of facilities to encourage asylum seekers to become self-
sufficient. It notes that there are examples of local and regional

projects in several Member States that work on this basis, and
requests that an exchange of information on the approach and
results be encouraged.

M i g r a ti on ma na g e me nt

2.68
strongly recommends coordinating different national
policies to draw up a common migration policy, coupled with
a thorough integration policy, in the context of which the local
authorities would have the important task of maintaining and
promoting social cohesion..

therefore asks that the local authorities be supported
2.69
in backing new and innovative local initiatives, which can help
prevent radicalisation and extremism.

the

that

unclear

currently

considers

2.70
situation
regarding the legal status and rights of citizens of third coun-
tries should be taken into consideration, points out that these
people are of concern to local authorities, especially in the field
of
for
integration policy and notes that non-EU citizens,
example, receive no rights from the European Union with
regard to the labour market, although this is an important
precondition for a successful integration policy. The Committee
requests that it should nonetheless be borne in mind that
highly skilled immigrants from non–EU countries should not
be put off.

Brussels, 16 February 2006

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE