Proposal for a Council Framework Decision amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism {SEC(2007) 1424} {SEC(2007) 1425}
Date: 2007-11-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, fight against crime, public safety, terrorism

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.11.2007 
COM(2007) 650 final 

2007/0236 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism 

(presented by the Commission) 

{SEC(2007) 1424} 
{SEC(2007) 1425} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

Terrorism  constitutes  one  of  the  most  serious  threats  to  democracy,  to  the  free  exercise  of 
human rights and to economic and social development. 

The European Union has set itself an objective in the Treaty on European Union to provide 
citizens  with  a  high  level  of  safety  within  an  Area  of  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice.  It  is 
vitally important that Member States of the European Union have effective criminal laws in 
place to achieve this objective in the context of the fight against terrorism. It is also crucial 
that measures are taken to enhance international co-operation in this field. 

Modern  information  and  communication  technologies  play  an  important  role  in  the 
propagation of the terrorist threat. The Internet, in particular, is cheap, fast, easily accessible 
and  has  a  practically  global  reach.  All  these  advantages,  highly  appreciated  by  law-abiding 
citizens that benefit from the Internet in their daily lives, are also unfortunately exploited by 
terrorists.  They  use  the  Internet  as  a  means  of  dissemination  of  propaganda  aiming  at 
mobilisation and recruitment as well as instructions and online manuals intended for training 
or planning of attacks. Both are addressed at current and potential supporters. 

The  Internet  serves  in  this  manner  as  one  of  the  principal  boosters  of  the  processes  of 
radicalisation  and  recruitment  and  also  serves  as  a  source  of  information  on  terrorist  means 
and  methods,  thus  functioning  as  a  'virtual  training  camp'.  The  dissemination  of  terrorist 
propaganda  and  terrorist  expertise  through  the  Internet  complements  and  enhances  off-line 
indoctrination  and  training  and  contributes  to  the  development  of  a  stronger  and  wider 
platform of terrorist activists and supporters. 

Preventing  such  a  growing  threat  constitutes  a  political  urgency.  Modern  terrorism  and  its 
new  modus  operandi  must  be  fought  by  the  EU  with  the  same  determination  and  strength 
demonstrated  in  fighting  traditional  terrorism.  This  proposal  up-dates  the  Framework 
Decision on combating terrorism [OJ L 164, 22.6.2002, p. 3–7] and aligns it with the Council 
of Europe Convention on the prevention of terrorism, through including public provocation to 
commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism in its concept of 
terrorism. 

It  is  important  to  include  these  offences  also  in  the  Framework  Decision  on  combating 
terrorism, mainly for the following reasons: 

–  it  entails  the  advantages  of  the  more  integrated  institutional  framework  of  the  European 
Union  (in  particular  :  no  lengthy  procedures  of  signature  and  ratification  like  for  the 
Council  of  Europe  Conventions,  application  of  proper  follow  up  mechanisms,  common 
interpretation by the Court of Justice); 

–  the Framework Decision provides for a specific legal regime, in particular in respect of the 
type and level of criminal penalties and compulsory rules on jurisdiction, which will also 
be applicable to the newly integrated offences; 

–  the  Framework  Decision  is  a  key  instrument  in  the  EU  policy  against  terrorism  :  the 
explicit inclusion of these specific preparatory acts therefore triggers the European Union 
cooperation mechanisms referring to the Framework Decision. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
The added value of including public provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for 
terrorism and training for terrorism  in the EU concept of  terrorism  is further  detailed  in the 
Impact Assessment. 

The  Framework  Decision  on  combating  terrorism  also  applies  to  conduct  which  can 
contribute to acts of terrorism in third countries. This reflects the Commission's commitment 
to tackle terrorism at a global as well as a European Union level. This proposal maintains this 
approach  and  stresses  the  importance  of  international  co-operation  within  the  framework  of 
existing organisations and co-operation mechanisms. 

The  European  Union  and  its  Member  States  are  founded  on  respect  for  human  rights, 
fundamental freedoms, the guarantee of the dignity of the human being, and the protection of 
these rights, both as regards individuals and institutions. 

•  General context 

European Union 

The  Framework  Decision  on  combating  terrorism  approximates  the  definition  of  terrorist 
offences  in  all  Member  States  and  ensures  that  penalties  and  sanctions  are  provided  for 
natural  and  legal  persons  having  committed  or  being  liable  for  such  offences  which  reflect 
their  seriousness.  It  determines  the  cases  in  which  Member  States  are  obliged  to  assume 
jurisdiction  over  terrorist  offences  so  that  they  can  be  efficiently  prosecuted  and  includes 
specific measures with regard to protection of and assistance to victims of terrorist offences 
because of their vulnerability. 

The  first  evaluation  report  from  the  Commission  on  the  implementation  of  the  Framework 
Decision on combating terrorism [COM(2004) 409, 8.6.2004, and Commission staff working 
paper SEC(2004) 688, 8.6.2004] took stock of national implementation at the time. A second 
evaluation report from the Commission adopted at the same time as this proposal, up-dates the 
assessment  as  regards  Member  States  already  evaluated  under  the  previous  report  and 
includes a full and original evaluation of the implementation of Member States evaluated for 
the first time. Both reports reflect the level of harmonisation achieved in the Union further to 
the  adoption  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  combating  terrorism  and  provide  for  useful 
interpretative guidelines as well as a valuable overview of counter-terrorism legislation in the 
Member States. 

Under the The Hague programme, the European Council underlines that effective prevention 
and  combating  of  terrorism  in  full  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  requires  Member 
States not to confine their activities to maintaining their own security, but to focus also on the 
security of the Union as a whole.  

Under  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  on  Radicalisation  and  Recruitment  which  was 
adopted by the JAI December 2005 Council, the EU calls for measures to combat the terrorist 
use  of  the  Internet.  It  also  emphasises  that  the  activities  of  the  Member  States  have  to  be 
accompanied by action at EU level. 

In its conclusions of 15 and 16 June 2006, the European Council expressly asks the Council 
and  the  Commission  to  develop  measures  to  prevent  the  misuse  of  the  Internet  for  terrorist 
purposes while at the same time observing fundamental rights and principles. 

International 

The  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  the  prevention  of  terrorism  (Warsaw,  16  May  2005) 
requires  State  Parties  to  ensure  that  public  provocation  to  commit  a  terrorist  offence, 
recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism are punishable. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
Furthermore, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 (14 September 2005) and 
the  United  Nations  Global  Counter-Terrorism  Strategy  (8  September  2006)  are  especially 
relevant. The G8 Summit (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 16 July 2006), and the Decision 
No. 7/06 "Countering the use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes" of the Ministerial Council 
of the OSCE (5 December 2006), should also be considered. 

•  Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Article  4  of  the  Framework  Decision  on  combating  terrorism  states  that  inciting,  aiding  or 
abetting terrorist offences should be made punishable by the Member States. Article 2 of the 
same  instrument  requires  Member  States  to  hold  those  directing  a  terrorist  group  or 
participating  in  its  activities  criminally  liable.  However,  these  provisions  do  not  explicitly 
cover  the  dissemination  of  terrorist  propaganda  and  terrorist  expertise,  in  particular  through 
the Internet. 

Articles 5 to 7 of the  Council  of Europe Convention for the prevention of terrorism require 
State Parties to ensure that public provocation to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment for 
terrorism  and  training  for  terrorism,  when  committed  illegally  and  intentionally,  are 
punishable. Furthermore, Article 9 requires States Parties to set out ancillary offences to those 
referred to in Articles 5 to 7. 

•  Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

The  proposal  is  in  line  with  the  EU  Strategy  and  Action  Plan  on  Radicalisation  and 
Recruitment,  up-dates  and  complements  the  EU  counter-terrorism  legal  framework  and 
complies  with  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights  of  the  European  Union  [OJ  C  364, 
18.12.2000, p. 1]. 

Counter-terrorist measures must go alongside the protection of human rights and fundamental 
freedoms. This proposal deals with issues which are on the borderline between the legitimate 
exercise  of  freedoms,  such  as  freedom  of  expression,  association  or  religion,  and  criminal 
behaviour. Therefore, it was elaborated under careful consideration of such human rights and 
fundamental freedoms. Particularly, the restrictions imposed to the freedom of expression by 
the new offence of public provocation to commit a terrorist offence are in line with Article 10 
of the ECHR. 

2. 

CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

•  Consultation of interested parties 

Consultation methods, main sectors targeted and general profile of respondents 

The  Commission  issued  three  different  questionnaires  in  2006:  a  questionnaire  to  Member 
States  on  26  June  2006;  a  questionnaire  to  the  media,  relevant  industry  and  civil  society, 
national, European and international NGOs dealing with human rights issues, bar and lawyers' 
associations, publishers, broadcasters and journalists' associations, internet service providers, 
telecommunication companies, and other relevant industry on 20 November 2006, and finally, 
a  questionnaire  to  Europol,  Cepol  and  Eurojust  on  11  December  2006.  In  addition, 
conversations  and  meetings  were  held  with  representatives  of  European  media  and  internet 
service providers. Finally, a conference was held on 20 March 2007 in order to bring together 
representatives of the Member States, Europol and, Eurojust and Cepol, present the results of 
the questionnaires and discuss possible solutions to fight the use of the  internet for terrorist 
purposes. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Summary of responses and how they have been taken into account 

The  responses  to  the  three  questionnaires  are  summarised  in  Annexes  I,  II  and  III  to  the 
impact assessment annexed to this proposal. 

The  conference  held  on  20  March  2007  confirmed  that  there  is  sufficient  support  for  the 
amendment  of  the  Framework  Decision on combating terrorism in order to include the new 
offences  of  public  provocation  to  commit  a  terrorist  offence,  recruiting  for  terrorism  and 
training  for  terrorism,  including  when  committed  via  the  Internet,  insofar  as  the 
criminalisation  does  not  go  further  than  the  balance  achieved  in  the  Council  of  Europe 
Convention on the prevention of terrorism. 

The current proposal constitutes a balanced approach which has taken into consideration the 
replies  to  the  three  questionnaires  and  views  expressed  throughout  the  consultation  process 
and  rests  on  the  annexed  impact  assessment.  In  particular,  the  proposal  includes  parallel 
offences  to  those  introduced  in  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  the  prevention  of 
terrorism. In this manner, it provides for adequate legal measures to tackle public provocation 
to  commit  a  terrorist  offence,  recruiting  for  terrorism  and  training  for  terrorism,  including 
when  such  offences  are  committed  via  the  Internet.  It  is  fully  compliant  with  human  rights 
and does not alter the liability regime for service providers established under the Directive on 
electronic commerce. 

•  Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

•  Impact assessment 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

No  policy  change  (which  is  a  debatable  status  quo  because  of  the  existence  of  the 
Council of Europe Convention on the prevention of terrorism). 

Forbidding  internet  service  providers  to  give  access  to  material  aiming  at  public 
provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment or training for terrorism. 

Enhancing law enforcement authorities' capacities and expertise to counter the use of 
the Internet for terrorist purposes (through adequate training, the support of experts 
and efficient equipment, possibly financed by the Commission). 

Urging Member States to sign and/or ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the 
prevention of terrorism (through a political statement). 

Revising  the  Framework  Decision  on  combating  terrorism  in  order  to  introduce 
parallel  offences  to  those  foreseen  under  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  the 
prevention  of  terrorism  and  make  public  provocation  to  commit  terrorist  offences, 
recruitment and training for terrorism, also via the Internet, punishable. 

After careful examination of the impacts on security, economy and human rights of each of 
the options as well as weighing their advantages and drawbacks, the combination of options 5 
and 3 appears to be the most effective policy to counter terrorist use of the Internet while fully 
respecting human rights. 

The Commission carried out an impact assessment listed in the Work Programme, accessible 
on www.europa.eu.int. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

•  Summary of the proposed action 

The proposed amendment of the Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating 
terrorism  is  intended  to  harmonise  national  provisions  on  public  provocation  to  commit  a 
terrorist  offence,  recruitment  for  terrorism  and  training  for  terrorism,  so  that  these  forms  of 
behaviour are punishable, also when committed through the Internet, throughout the EU, and 
ensure  that  existing  provisions  on  penalties,  liability  of  legal  persons,  jurisdiction  and 
prosecution applicable to terrorist offences, apply also to such forms of behaviour. 

•  Legal basis 

Articles 29, 31(1)(e) and 34(2)(b) TUE. 

•  Subsidiarity principle 

The subsidiarity principle applies to action by the Union. 

The objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States for the 
following reason(s). 

Modern  terrorism  is  eminently  global.  The  dissemination  of  propaganda  aiming  at 
mobilisation and recruitment as well as instructions and online manuals intended for training 
or  planning  of  attacks  via  the  Internet  have  an  intrinsic  international  and  cross-border 
character. The threat is international, and so must be at least part of the answer. 

Both  EU  counter-terrorist  and  cyber-crime  policies  require  coordinated  efforts  of  Member 
States  as  well  as  co-operation  at  an  international  level  in  order  to  achieve  their  aims. 
Differences  in  legal  treatment  in  the  different  Member  States  hinder  the  coordinated  efforts 
required at EU level and difficult co-operation at international level.  

Union action will better achieve the objectives of the proposal for the following reason(s). 

There is a clear need to extend the current complementary efforts at national and EU level in 
the  fight  against  terrorism  to  the  new  modus  operandi  of  terrorists.  The  extension  of  the 
current common definition of terrorism will prevent terrorists from benefiting from loopholes 
and  divergences  of  national  legislation.  Operational  law  enforcement  work  against  cross-
border  criminal  activities  will  be  considerably  facilitated.  A  common  ground  shared  by  all 
Member  States  will  also  facilitate  co-operation  at  an  international  level,  strengthening  the 
position of the EU in international fora. 

Increased  law  enforcement  co-operation  at  EU  and  international  level  will  result  in  more 
efficient investigations and prosecutions, leading to increased security. 

The proposal therefore complies with the subsidiarity principle. 

•  Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

This proposal does not go beyond what is required and what is adding value at the EU-level. 
As a Framework Decision, it is binding upon Member States as to the results to be achieved 
but leaves to the national authorities the choice of form and methods of implementation. 

The  provisions  of  the  Directive  on  electronic  commerce  and  the  Directive  on  data  retention 
remain  unchanged  so  that  no  new  obligations  are  imposed  on  telecommunication  service 
providers or operators. The proposal does not impose on industry the burden of setting up new 
mechanisms of co-operation. It simply leads to an increased use of existing mechanisms under 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
the  Directive  on  electronic  commerce  and  the  Directive  on  data  retention.  Indirect  costs 
resulting  from  this  proposal  are  limited  to  the  additional  work-load  resulting  from 
investigations  related  to  the  new  offences.  Considering  the  number  of  terrorist  prosecutions 
per year in the EU, it appears that such costs are not significant. 

•  Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Framework Decision based on Article 34(2)(b) of the TUE. As the aim 
is approximating Member States' legislation, other instruments are not appropriate. 

4. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION409 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget.E-14058 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
2007/0236 (CNS) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL FRAMEWORK DECISION 

amending Framework Decision 2002/475/JHA on combating terrorism 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29, Article 31(1)(e) 
and Article 34(2)(b) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission1, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament2, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

Terrorism  constitutes  one  of  the  most  serious  violations  of  the  universal  values  of 
human  dignity,  liberty,  equality  and  solidarity,  respect  for  human  rights  and 
fundamental freedoms on which the European Union is founded. It also represents one 
of the most serious attacks on the principle of democracy and the principle of the rule 
of  law,  principles  which  are  common  to  the  Member  States  and  on  which  the 
European Union is based. 

The  Council  Framework  Decision  2002/475/JHA  on  combating  terrorism  represents 
the basis of the counter-terrorist policy of the European Union. The achievement of a 
legal  framework  common  to  all  Member  States,  and  in  particular,  of  a  harmonised 
definition  of  terrorist  offences,  has  allowed  the  counter-terrorism  policy  of  the 
European Union to  develop  and expand, subject to the respect of fundamental rights 
and the rule of law. 

The terrorist threat has grown and rapidly evolved in recent years, with changes in the 
modus  operandi  of  terrorist  activists  and  supporters  including  the  replacement  of 
structured  and  hierarchical  groups  by  semi-autonomous  cells  loosely  tied  to  each 
other. Such cells inter-link international networks and increasingly rely on the use of 
new technologies, in particular the Internet.  

The Internet is used to inspire and mobilise local terrorist networks and individuals in 
Europe  and  also  serves  as  a  source  of  information  on  terrorist  means  and  methods, 
thus  functioning  as  a  ‘virtual  training  camp’.  Activities  of  public  provocation  to 
commit  terrorist  offences,  recruitment  for  terrorism  and  training  for  terrorism  have 
multiplied at very low cost and risk. 

The  Hague  Programme  underlines  that  effective  prevention  and  combating  of 
terrorism  in  full  compliance  with  fundamental  rights  requires  Member  States  not  to 
confine  their  activities  to  maintaining  their  own  security,  but  to  focus  also  on  the 
security of the Union as a whole.  

1 
2 

[...] 
[...]  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

The  action  plan  on  the  implementation  of  the  The  Hague  Programme  recalls  that  a 
global response is required to address terrorism and that the expectations that citizens 
have  of  the  Union  cannot  be  ignored,  nor  can  the  Union  fail  to  respond  to  them.  In 
addition,  it  states  that  attention  must  focus  on  different  aspects  of  prevention, 
preparedness  and  response  to  further  enhance,  and  where  necessary  complement, 
Member  States’  capabilities 
terrorism,  concentrating  particularly  on 
recruitment,  financing,  risk  analysis,  protection  of  critical  infrastructures  and 
consequence management. 

to  fight 

The current proposal foresees the criminalisation of terrorist linked offences in order 
to contribute to the more general policy objective of prevention of terrorism through 
reducing  the  dissemination  of  those  materials  which  might  incite  persons  to  commit 
terrorist attacks. 

The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1624 (2005) calls upon States to take 
measures that are necessary and appropriate, and in accordance with their obligations 
under  international  law,  to  prohibit  by  law  incitement  to  commit  terrorist  act  or  acts 
and  to  prevent  such  a  conduct.  The  report  of  the  Secretary-General  of  the  United 
Nations  "Uniting  against  terrorism:  recommendations  for  a  global  counter-terrorism 
strategy" of 27 April 2006, interprets the abovementioned resolution as providing for a 
basis for the criminalization of incitement to terrorist acts and recruitment, including 
through  the  Internet.  The  United  Nations  Global  Counter-Terrorism  Strategy  (8 
September 2006) mentions that the Member States of the UN resolve to explore ways 
and  means  to  coordinate  efforts  at  the  international  and  regional  level  to  counter 
terrorism in all its forms and manifestations on the Internet. 

(9) 

The  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  the  Prevention  of  Terrorism  establishes  the 
obligations  of  States  parties  to  this  Convention  to  criminalise  public  provocation  to 
commit a terrorist offence and recruitment and training for terrorism, when committed 
illegally and intentionally. 

(10)  The  definition  of  terrorist  offences,  including  offences  linked  to  terrorist  activities, 
should  be  further  approximated  in  all  Member  States,  so  that  it  will  cover  public 
provocation  to  commit  a  terrorist  offence,  recruitment  for  terrorism  and  training  for 
terrorism, when committed intentionally.  

(11)  Penalties  and  sanctions  should  be  provided  for  natural  and  legal  persons  having 
committed  or  being  liable  for  public  provocation  to  commit  terrorist  offences, 
recruitment  for  terrorism  and  training  for  terrorism,  when  committed  intentionally. 
These  forms  of  behaviour  should  be  equally  punishable  in  all  Member  States 
irrespective of whether they are committed through the Internet or not. 

(12)  Additional jurisdictional rules should be established to ensure that public provocation 
to commit a terrorist offence, recruitment for terrorism and training for terrorism may 
be  effectively  prosecuted  when  they  are  directed  towards  or  resulted  in  the 
commission  of  a  terrorist  offence  which  is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Member 
State. 

(13)  Given that the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the 
Member States unilaterally, and can therefore, because of the need for European-wide 
harmonised  rules,  be  better  achieved  at  level  of  the  Union,  the  Union  may  adopt 
measures,  in  accordance  to  the  principle  of  subsidiarity.  In  accordance  with  the 
principle  of  proportionality,  this  Framework  Decision  does  not  go  beyond  what  is 
necessary in order to achieve the objectives.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(14)  The  Union  observes  the  principles  recognised  by  Article  6(2)  of  the  Treaty  on 
European Union and reflected in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union, notably Chapters II and VI thereof. Nothing in this Framework Decision may 
be interpreted as being intended to reduce  or restrict fundamental rights  or freedoms 
such  as  freedom  of  expression,  assembly,  or  of  association,  the  right  to  respect  for 
private  and  family  life,  including  the  right  to  respect  of  the  confidentiality  of 
correspondence.  

(15)  Public provocation to commit terrorist offences, recruitment for terrorism and training 
for  terrorism  are  intentional  crimes.  Therefore,  nothing  in  this  Framework  Decision 
may  be  interpreted  as  being  intended  to  reduce  or  restrict  the  dissemination  of 
information for scientific, academic or reporting purposes. The expression of radical, 
polemic  or  controversial  views  in  the  public  debate  on  sensitive  political  questions, 
including  terrorism,  falls  outside  the  scope  of  this  Framework  Decision  and,  in 
particular, of the definition of public provocation to commit terrorist offences,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS FRAMEWORK DECISION:  

The Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating terrorism is amended as follows: 

(1) 

Article 3 is replaced by the following: 

Article 1 

"Article 3 
Offences linked to terrorist activities 

1. 

For the purposes of this Framework Decision: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

"public  provocation  to  commit  a  terrorist  offence"  means  the  distribution,  or 
otherwise making available, of a message to the public, with the intent to incite 
the  commission  of  one  of  the  acts  listed  in  Article  1(1)(a)  to  (h),  where  such 
conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger 
that one or more such offences may be committed; 

"recruitment  for  terrorism"  means  to  solicit  another  person  to  commit  one  of 
the acts listed in Article 1(1), or in Article 2(2); 

"training  for  terrorism"  means  to  provide  instruction  in  the  making  or  use  of 
explosives, firearms or other weapons or noxious or hazardous substances, or 
in other specific methods or techniques, for the purpose of committing one of 
the acts listed in Article 1(1), knowing that the skills provided are intended to 
be used for this purpose. 

2. 

Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that terrorist-linked 
offences include the following intentional acts: 

(a) 

public provocation to commit a terrorist offence; 

(b) 

recruitment for terrorism; 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

training for terrorism; 

aggravated  theft  with  a  view  to  committing  one  of  the  acts  listed  in  Article 
1(1); 

extortion  with  a  view  to  the  perpetration  of  one  of  the  acts  listed  in  Article 
1(1); 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
(f) 

drawing up false administrative documents with a view to committing one of 
the acts listed in Article 1(1)(a) to (h) and Article 2(2)(b). 

3. 

For an act to be punishable as set forth in paragraph 2, it shall not be necessary that a 
terrorist offence be actually committed." 

(2) 

In Article 4, paragraph 2 is replaced as follows: 

"Each Member State shall take the necessary measures to ensure that attempting to 
commit  an  offence  referred  to  in  Article  1(1)  and  Article  3,  with  the  exception  of 
possession  as  provided  for  in  Article  1(1)(f)  and  the  offences  referred  to  in  Article 
1(1)(i) and Article 3(2)(a) to (c), is made punishable." 

(3) 

In Article 9 the following paragraph 1(a) is added: 

"1a.  Each  Member  State  shall  also  establish  its  jurisdiction  over  the  offences 
referred to in Article 3(2)(a) to (c) where the offence was directed towards or 
resulted  in  the  carrying  out  of  an  offence  referred  to  in  Article  1  and  such 
offence  is  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Member  State  under  any  of  the 
criteria set out in paragraph 1(a) to (e) of this Article." 

Article 2 

1. 

2. 

Member  States  shall  take  the  necessary  measures  to  comply  with  this  Framework 
Decision by [31 December 2008]. 

By [31 December 2008], Member States shall forward to the General Secretariat of 
the Council and to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing into their 
national  law  the  obligations  imposed  on  them  under  this  Framework  Decision.  On 
the  basis  of  a  report  drawn  up  from  that  information  and  a  report  from  the 
Commission,  the  Council  shall  assess,  by  [31  December  2009],  whether  Member 
States have taken the necessary measures to comply with this Framework Decision. 

Article 3 

This  Framework  Decision  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  day  of  its  publication  in  the  Official 
Journal of the European Union. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

11 

   EN